Hypocritical at all? [Archive]

SurfDemon

Feb 11th, 2009, 03:33 PM

You must of course be refering to the terrorists held for long periods of time at Gitmo.

No, I was refering to the villagers, teachers, aid workers etc. shopped up by the local warlords as being Taliban so they could get their reward money from the US.

Over 370 people who still remain in Guantanamo were turned into US forces (not captured by US forces) in Afghanistan and Pakistan for rewards from $5,000 (for alleged Taliban) to $25,000 (for alleged al-Qaeda). The Bush administration says that 300 will never be charged, yet they are still imprisoned after five and one-half years. Only 50-70 prisoners will be charged according to the Bush administration.

Of the approximately 770 persons imprisoned in Guantanamo over the past 5 and one-half years, over 400 have been released and never charged with any offense by their home country when returned.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/01/4241

If you have proof that they're terrorists, then put them on trial and make them pay for their crimes. It is a disgrace to your nation that you would hold people without due process. It's laughable that you would then comment on another country doing the same thing.... next thing you know you will be condeming other countries for tortuing US soldiers.... when you have quite clearly stated to the world that such practises are quite legitimate.:ehh:

homer13j

Feb 11th, 2009, 04:55 PM

No, I was refering to the villagers, teachers, aid workers etc. shopped up by the local warlords as being Taliban so they could get their reward money from the US.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/01/4241

commondreams.org are nothing but a bunch of angry, far-left propagandist tools and one would think a self-described "moderate" like yourself would know better than to swallow their one-sided bilge hook, line and sinker.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 11th, 2009, 06:27 PM

I keep looking at the dates on this thread, expecting it to have been started a year or two back, but it wasn't. At this point, I'd say the government is still too much in transition to really expect anything to have changed. A whole new set of people have to be brought up to speed on the situation.

To some extent, I expect that the problem with Gitmo comes down to a individual one that arises from time to time (like once a second) in govenment. While a country can have a general direction, the direction comes from the sum of the actions of a bunch of individuals. For the last seven years, the people with the greatest influence on the general course of events have had a mixture of authoritarianism and nearly paranoid fear. From 9/11 on, the Bush administration made no secret of the fact that one of their greatest motivators was a fear of another attack.

A wide net was cast in Afghanistan, and again in Iraq. Wide nets catch what you want, but have considerable by-catch, as well. If you are mostly motivated by not missing anything, rather than avoiding by-catch, you get this result. However, most politicians are also driven by avoiding embarrasments, and the Bush administration was almost fanatical about refusing to admit any mistakes. This manifests in a fear of making a mistake of releasing anybody before every angle has been investigated, coupled by a fear of admitting to by-catch. Couple this with no perceived or actual penalty for inaction on the matter, and you end up with Gitmo.

Nothing surprising here.

SurfDemon

Feb 11th, 2009, 08:20 PM

commondreams.org are nothing but a bunch of angry, far-left propagandist tools and one would think a self-described "moderate" like yourself would know better than to swallow their one-sided bilge hook, line and sinker.
Okay, so what source would you respect. How about the BBC. You cannot seriously call them biased and retain any credibility.... would that do you?

KiwiDexter

Feb 11th, 2009, 09:01 PM

commondreams.org are nothing but a bunch of angry, far-left propagandist tools and one would think a self-described "moderate" like yourself would know better than to swallow their one-sided bilge hook, line and sinker.

Hmmm strange a lot of international sources are also reporting similar things about the U.S detention and holding without trial. Of course if they disagree with the former U.S policy then they must all be "far-left propagandist tools". Sounds like someone doesn't get the irony of what they are saying here in terms of swallow statements. ;)

Lord Orwell

Feb 11th, 2009, 10:40 PM

keep in mind that we've now had a government change and every leader sets their own policies. Judge us a year from now.

Note that i agree with you about GitMo. It should have been closed years ago. But how exactly would I close it? There was actually a law passed that if you publicly speak against white-house policies they can sieze your property, arrest you, and even arrest others who talk about your arrest.
Freedom...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

or, rather that WAS the link. Evidently they reset the site with the new prez.

joshAU

Feb 11th, 2009, 11:42 PM

My 2 cents.

Yes it is hypocritical.
Its a shame really.
The US used to have quite a bit of cred... if not fully deserved...as the world police.
Now they are percieved as the world bullies, even by most countries in the west.
Now, every goddammed dictator has the right to say.... Those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones....

All thanks to a corrupt administration led by Wolfawitz, Rumsfield, and other slimy advisors of GB senior.

Re casting a far net after september eleven....Come on people, the Iraqis had nothing to do with S11. Even the outgoing administration has admitted as much... Oil.

The ones who had the most to do with S11 are the personal family friends of the Bush family, the Bin Ladens. They are the ones who funded Bush, they are the ones Bush smuggled out of the US immediately post S11.

But, perhaps because the Bush family were in the pocket of the Bin Laden's they felt they had to redirect americas rage....to...to ...how convienient...Iraq.

Probably wouldnt have looked too good to invade Saudi Arabia....

Now, Haliburton are making magabucks in Iraq, Iraq is still as corrupt and decrepid as before, but now it also has matching infrastructure and services.

But I bet the bush family get a big check from haliburton.

So yes, one corrupt family, and their cronies have helped destroy America's image world wide.

Hopefully the new adminstration can help restore its image to its rightful place.

PS. in case you think Im a lefty commo, etc, I'm Not.
The U.S. saved our (Australia's) arses in WWII. My father served with the US forces in Korea, Malaysia and two tours in Vietnam. I respect and admire the american people and their way of life.

My point is about their previous corrupt government.

Its funny how the world moves.
Years ago, the Iranians were friends of the US, so the US sold them F15 fighter jets. A few years on, and theyre enemies, so US F15s are fighting Iranian F15s.
Then, the Russians are in afganistan, so the Americans train, arm and support the taliban, mujhadeen and other groups, Now they are enemies and the taliban are using the training and equipment they recieved against the US.

Then, the U.S. were friends with Iraq, so they, with other western govts, gave them all sorts of weapons, inc CHEMICAL weapons, to use against the Iranians...or kurds...whoever... if you give them to a dictator who can tell.

Oh yes, and didnt the CIA help put Saddam into power....YES. and then they decide they dont like him.... so a couple of hundred thousand more lives are lost...

Hypocracy.... idiocy... who can tell.

Just dont let the military control your brains!

War should be a last resort.

Sorry to rant.

JoshAU

homer13j

Feb 11th, 2009, 11:44 PM

Okay, so what source would you respect. How about the BBC. You cannot seriously call them biased and retain any credibility.... would that do you?

It's all about perspective... From my point of view the BBC is every bit as biased and intentionally inaccurate as CBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate), the New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair), etc. So go ahead and call me incredible... ;)

But keep in mind I am an old newshound who spent many years earning a living (and a college degree) working in various newsrooms in both print and radio. Every one of my peers could hold a claim (no matter how tenuous) that they were the perfection of objectivity, balance and yes, "moderation" and could never possibly be swayed until it came to those late-night meetings when the final decisions are made as to which stories and editorials run and which don't.

Ask any journalist why they became one. Just about every one will tell you they did it to "make a difference" or "make the world a better place" or some sappy crap that sounds good but really doesn't mean delivering the unblemished news. It means just the opposite.

I became a journalist because it was fun, I was good at it and I made a few bucks doing it. The fact the I actually tried to be unbiased and show both sides of every story guaranteed my career with the mainstream media would be short, quite eventful, and had a large influence on my overall political perspective for the rest of my life. You can write me off as "drinking the kool-aid" but you cannot say I do not understand the intricate inner workings of the liberal media. I used to BE the liberal media.

I argue from quite a bit of experience that you cannot seriously call pretty much any entity in the mainstream media unbiased and retain any credibility.

zaza

Feb 12th, 2009, 03:33 AM

It's all about perspective... From my point of view the BBC is every bit as biased and intentionally inaccurate as CBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate), the New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair), etc. So go ahead and call me incredible... ;)

But keep in mind I am an old newshound who spent many years earning a living (and a college degree) working in various newsrooms in both print and radio. Every one of my peers could hold a claim (no matter how tenuous) that they were the perfection of objectivity, balance and yes, "moderation" and could never possibly be swayed until it came to those late-night meetings when the final decisions are made as to which stories and editorials run and which don't.

Ask any journalist why they became one. Just about every one will tell you they did it to "make a difference" or "make the world a better place" or some sappy crap that sounds good but really doesn't mean delivering the unblemished news. It means just the opposite.

I became a journalist because it was fun, I was good at it and I made a few bucks doing it. The fact the I actually tried to be unbiased and show both sides of every story guaranteed my career with the mainstream media would be short, quite eventful, and had a large influence on my overall political perspective for the rest of my life. You can write me off as "drinking the kool-aid" but you cannot say I do not understand the intricate inner workings of the liberal media. I used to BE the liberal media.

I argue from quite a bit of experience that you cannot seriously call pretty much any entity in the mainstream media unbiased and retain any credibility.

There are many aspects of life on which I disagree with homer, but on this I couldn't agree more.
All the information you get about events outside your own sphere are filtered through the media. Unless you've actually been to Iraq, or Pakistan, or Iran, you don't really know what is going on there and you have to rely on somebody else's viewpoint.
The media have a frightful amount of power, even insofar as reporting the very words of our elected officials to us and those are as equally manipulable as anything else. However, in my opinion this power carries with it almost no responsibility at all, and we are bombarded from all sides, 24/7, by news with a reporting slant that can match any particular viewpoint you have.
Too often reporters cower behind the excuse of "freedom of the press" without accepting the responsibilities that that freedom has to bring.

Love Gordon Brown? Read the Guardian or watch the BBC. Hate him? Read the Telegraph. Just want an impartial account of current events?

...

...

FunkyDexter

Feb 12th, 2009, 05:47 AM

Just want an impartial account of current events? ...access a variety of sources with clearly differing biases (is that how you pluralise bias? I'm not sure) and make up your own mind by applying some common sense and a knowledge of human nature. Something most of us (myself included I'm afraid) fail to do.

I'd generally regard the BBC as a good and reliable source of information but I'd never argue that any source had no bias. If you view the political spectrum as a straight line, just for simplicity, then any source and any individual will sit on that line somewhere. If the individual finds a source that sits at the same point on that line as they do themselves they will regard it as unbias - but the very fact that the source is sitting on the line at all dictates it's bias. True objectivity, either from new sources or from individuals, is so much scotch mist.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 12th, 2009, 08:35 AM

It's all about perspective... From my point of view the BBC is every bit as biased and intentionally inaccurate as CBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate), the New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair), etc. So go ahead and call me incredible... ;)

But keep in mind I am an old newshound who spent many years earning a living (and a college degree) working in various newsrooms in both print and radio. Every one of my peers could hold a claim (no matter how tenuous) that they were the perfection of objectivity, balance and yes, "moderation" and could never possibly be swayed until it came to those late-night meetings when the final decisions are made as to which stories and editorials run and which don't.

I became a journalist because it was fun, I was good at it and I made a few bucks doing it. The fact the I actually tried to be unbiased and show both sides of every story guaranteed my career with the mainstream media would be short, quite eventful, and had a large influence on my overall political perspective for the rest of my life. You can write me off as "drinking the kool-aid" but you cannot say I do not understand the intricate inner workings of the liberal media. I used to BE the liberal media.

I argue from quite a bit of experience that you cannot seriously call pretty much any entity in the mainstream media unbiased and retain any credibility.

So...just like all the others, you claim to have been unbiased.;)

Still, what source do you consider unbiased? Is there one? If not, have you picked your slant?

Considering how much variation there is in eyewitness accounts of totally apolitical events, the idea that anything can be unbiased is laughable. Humans are not objective observers. Even a moments reflection should reveal that we are not consciously aware of 99% of the input that out bodies receive in any day, so what is determining what we notice and what we filter out?

Those filters work at the macro as well as the micro level. If you have a certain belief, your mind will focus on items that reinforce that belief and either filter out, or discredit, items that contradict the belief. That's life.

homer13j

Feb 12th, 2009, 08:59 AM

So...just like all the others, you claim to have been unbiased.;)

Uh... I happen to be one of the few here who is willing to acknowledge my bias. What irritates me is when people (including most in the media) with a clear and obvious bias attempt to hide behind the "moderate" tag for whatever reason.

Still, what source do you consider unbiased? Is there one? If not, have you picked your slant?

I get my news from a myriad of sources with the notable exceptions of television news, thoroughly discredited organizations like the NY Times and propaganda sites like SurfDemon's commondreams.org.

No news source is free from bias. It is up to the reader/listener/viewer to weigh the evidence presented and draw his/her own conclusions. Tough to do when you're only getting one side of the story...

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 12th, 2009, 09:44 AM

Tough to do if you get BOTH sides of the story. In fact, it is probably even MORE difficult if you have all the sides. Repeated studies have shown that humans don't do a good job deciding when they have too many options. We seem to get hung up dithering over the options.

Consider the economic debate. Even if you simplified the world down to just two views: Keynsian (don't know how to spell that, but it may not be a real word, so then I can make up whatever I want) vs. Trickle Down (what economist is that associated with?), the debate would never really end. Of course, I've gone on a rant about that in the past (trophic cascades vs trophic fountains), so there's no point in re-visiting. However, if you were to add into the debate the myriad alternative versions, it doesn't make the decision any easier, it just makes indecision easier.

To slam some side because they are biased is fruitless. We are all biased. If somebody makes the case that matches our bias, are we wrong to agree with them? Are we wrong to site them? To say that they should not be cited because they are biased is to say that NOBODY should EVER be cited for anything. At that point, all arguments become kindergarten level (e.g. "Oh yeah?", "Yeah", etc.)

Alternatively, does it make sense to cite as an argument for your position the argument against your position? Certainly not. However, I have often cited conservative sources for economic positions (such as my position against the flat tax). You can't always find an acknowledged source from the opposition to support your position, though (and Republicans have an acronym for those who don't toe the party line: RINO), and it is even harder when conservatives label as liberal anything that doesn't conform to their beliefs, especially when they won't list any sources that they will admit to being acceptable.

Is there an acceptable source, or are there only acceptable positions?

demotivater

Feb 12th, 2009, 04:46 PM

So we should just accept the fact that they're biased and take what they say as the whole story??

Anyway, as for the original post, there is a difference between a political prisoner and an enemy combatant. Throwing someone in jail for tossing a grenade at you is a bit different than jailing someone for writing a blog. Apples and oranges. The terrorists in Gitmo were not plucked from behind the counter of the local falafal shop. The majority were captured on the battlefield. The numbers of those released and recaptured on another battlefield continues to rise. On to the next post slamming the USA for some perceived act of bullying.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 12th, 2009, 06:41 PM

Many were picked up on tips from people who were paid to provide the tips. Many have also been released after a couple years in Gitmo (how the heck did we come up with that abbreviation, shouldn't it be GitBay?) once it was realized that they were not terrorists or tied to terrorism. That's a standard of treatment that is indefensible.

If it is acceptable to arrest anybody and hold them until they/you can prove that they have done nothing wrong, then why is the same standard not applied to American citizens? If it is not acceptable for American citizens, then what makes it acceptable treatment for other people? Is it simply that they are other?

In the history of the world, it was common practice to sell people into slavery (still is, in some places). When that happens, the transaction is generally that one person pays money to a second person to obtain the freedom of a third person. I doubt there is a single case in the several thousand year history of slavery, where the third person was a willing accessory to the sale. The only difference in this case was that the person that was purchased was confined rather than worked.

If the case was that the third person was a criminal, then the second person in the above transaction would be an informant, whoes honesty would ALWAYS be suspect. In this instance, the integrity of the second person was never questioned.

There's not much grey area here. The people who did this were either too careless of the lives of other people (xenophobia), or too fearful, to take the time to do the right thing. Such an act against American citizens would be shameful, and always has been (it has happened a few times, such as the Japanese internment camps during WWII). Such an act against anyone else is equally shameful, though it may only be seen to be such in retrospect.

Lord Orwell

Feb 12th, 2009, 07:29 PM

Lord Orwell

Feb 12th, 2009, 07:34 PM

SurfDemon

Feb 12th, 2009, 07:35 PM

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 12th, 2009, 09:25 PM

you had me until you started on how much bush and bin-laden are buddy-buddy.

Yeah, he's kind of the "crazy uncle Osama" type of relative.

The FACT is that 9/11 was not an unprovoked attack. It was in fact a meticulously planned act of revenge for the actions the united states took after a hotel bombing in approximately 1994 that had absolutely nothing to do with the US except that two citizens were killed in the bombing even though they were warned to vacate the hotel.

You're gonna have to back that statement up. I've never heard it mentioned before, and it sounds utterly improbable.

[QUOTE}
If you think about it, 9/11 was a MESSAGE: "don't stick your noses in my business".
And considering exactly how hard (not) we tried to catch bin-laden, i think the message was actually received quite-well.[/QUOTE]

I did think about it, and I would agree that it was a message, but not THAT message, nor were we the audience. In fact, I would say that we were incidental to the issue. We were nothing but a symbol. The message was to the rich people who donate to groups like Al Quiche-da, and the message was "we deserve your money." It wasn't a blow struck in a holy war, it was a blow struck in an existential struggle by a non-state organization that survives only by recruits and donations. Without recruits they cease to exist. Without donations they are impotent...and cease to exist. They need both to survive, and they gain both by making highly visible attacks. Therefore, 9/11 was a recruiting poster.

joshAU

Feb 12th, 2009, 09:55 PM

you had me until you started on how much bush and bin-laden are buddy-buddy.

Sorry, but if one family (the Bin-Ladens) give another family (the Bush's) over 1 Billion Dollars over a several year period (source...some BBC TV documentary) then I'd say that their families are quite buddy buddy.

Now, if immediately after S11, NO aircraft are allowed to fly ANYWHERE in US airspace, and Bush organises a exceptional one-off lap around america flight to pick up any and all Bin-ladens...and fly them to safety back to Saudi Arabia..., then I'd say the Bin-ladens got pretty good value for money....

Bush and Bush senior have obviously done ok out of the Bin-laden coffers.

If you paid me a billion dollars...you'd obviously want something in return....

What do you think they really bought with their money...

I could go on but I'm at work.

joshAU

FunkyDexter

Feb 13th, 2009, 04:50 AM

And considering exactly how hard (not) we tried to catch bin-laden, i think the message was actually received quite-well You don't think that invading Afghanistan represents trying hard?!

People willingly sold themselves into a form of slavery in exchange for boat-fare to the US and future citizenship.You have to be kidding, right? I'm actually genuinely unsure that ever happened but if it did it was an exception and you really can't use it to justify denying people their freedom in Guantanamo Bay.

Shaggy, on the whole recruitment poster theory of 9/11, I think you're hitting on what probably was a large factor in the decision to attack the twin towers but I think it's a bit simplistic. Terrorists generally aren't primarily motivated by money. If they were there are alot easier ways of making it than setting up your own terrorist group and living in a cave for years at a time. Particularly if you happen to be (in Bin Ladens caes) the son of one of Saudi Arabia's richest families. I have no doubt that OBL does believe in his cause and did want to send a message to the West as well as to his own backers and potential recruits.

I don't think the message was 'Stay out of our business' though. I think it was 'come and 'av a go if you think you're 'ard enough'. They wanted a fight with the West because that upsets the status quo and the status quo wasn't favouring their position. They knew they'd get a fight and it would be an uneven one but what was there to lose? Al-Quaeda believed that Arab lands were under effective Western occupation since the first gulf war anyway (they're mainly railing against the military bases in Saudi Arabia) so a war couldn't make the situation worse when viewed from their perspective.

shouldn't it be GitBay? Where you too can bid for political prisoners.

Lord Orwell

Feb 13th, 2009, 06:22 AM

http://www.google.com/search?q=indentured+servitude+boat+fare&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

And we've had troops in afghanistan for a very long time. Since before this happened. Now ask yourself: If we were really trying, where would all the troops be? Most of them are in iraq. I don't personally agree, but a lot of people think iraq was a distraction and the government tried awfully hard to try and make a connection in the minds of the citizens between hussein and al queda when he in fact shot them whenever he found them.

FunkyDexter

Feb 13th, 2009, 07:41 AM

Oh, I see. I hadn't realised you were talking about indentured servants - even though I now notice you explicitely stated you were in your post :rolleyes: :blush: . I see where yuou're coming from now though I think I'd disagree with calling it a form of slavery. As a slave you were actually owned by another person. Under indentured servitude you had a contractual arangement to provide them with a period of service. The key difference is that the latter did not supercede your normal legal rights. You were protected from physical abuse, for example. The same could not be said of a slave. There are plenty of examples of the 'employers' of indentured servants abusing those legal rights but the key point is that the abuse was itself illegal. To be honest, it's little different from the arrangements you can have these days where a company will finance your degree in exchange for a period of employment.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 13th, 2009, 10:14 AM

Shaggy, on the whole recruitment poster theory of 9/11, I think you're hitting on what probably was a large factor in the decision to attack the twin towers but I think it's a bit simplistic. Terrorists generally aren't primarily motivated by money. If they were there are alot easier ways of making it than setting up your own terrorist group and living in a cave for years at a time. Particularly if you happen to be (in Bin Ladens caes) the son of one of Saudi Arabia's richest families. I have no doubt that OBL does believe in his cause and did want to send a message to the West as well as to his own backers and potential recruits.

I see a difference between the actions people take and the rationalizations people make for the actions they take. I have no doubt that OBL was indeed a passionate believer in his views, but he is just one of many passionate believers. Most of them don't stumble into the correct actions for their views to perpetuate. The organization as a whole has to act in ways that enable its survival, which means obtaining that which nourishes it and allows it to persist. Those things sum up to publicity for non-state organizations. Was their decision conscious? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is on those grounds that they need to be opposed, not on ideology.

SJWhiteley

Feb 13th, 2009, 02:42 PM

Considering the OP, there is a difference between a criminal and a terrorist.

Many people blur that line and often equate the two. Terrorists are not criminals. The world is in this tizzy because the worlds laws cannot adequately deal with terrorism because it is nigh on impossible to rationalize terrorist acts.

Crimes are rational acts (regardless of the sanity or mental state of the perpetrator). As such a response to such acts can be established: jail, fines, and other reasonable punishments. As such, criminals are afforded a multitude of protections under western law.

In the case of China, 'crimes' and the 'punishment' are not based on any law except the whims of the government. Specifically, if you actively dissent against said government, you are a criminal and will go to jail, or worse, as determined by the whim of the presiding governance.

In addition, terrorists are not necessarily captured through 'due process'. When you are dodging bullets in 125 degree heat, trying not to kill human shields through bomb-laden urban areas it's difficult to collect evidence 'admissible in a court of law'. Unfairly or not, lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence. Especially when an attempt to capture or kill said terrorist means the destruction of such evidence through required actions.

Subjecting a terrorist to the laws of, say, the United States, means that they will walk free - there's a reason these centers are not on US soil. Closing these centers means just that. This leaves them to commit their terrorist acts with impunity. Terrorists to not care about justice or what is 'right' - the essence of what the justice system is designed to do, disregarding the issue that the criminal and civil justice systems are flawed. Allowing a terrorist to go free is to guarantee that innocent people will be brutally killed.

Petitioning a the government (sic) of China to free people who's wrongs are simply speaking out against an oppressive regime is not in the same ballpark.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 13th, 2009, 03:31 PM

Many people blur that line and often equate the two. Terrorists are not criminals. The world is in this tizzy because the worlds laws cannot adequately deal with terrorism because it is nigh on impossible to rationalize terrorist acts.

Heck, we can't even come up with a good definition for terrorism. Depending on your definition, virtually all terrorist attacks on US soil have been perpetrated by US citizens. The only definition that I am aware of that doesn't end in this result includes a definition of a terrorist as being a non-citizen of the US.

In the case of China, 'crimes' and the 'punishment' are not based on any law except the whims of the government. Specifically, if you actively dissent against said government, you are a criminal and will go to jail, or worse, as determined by the whim of the presiding governance.

I agree with the second half, but not the first. A criminal is a person who breaks the law. If your law states that you are not allowed to dissent, then dissention makes you a criminal. The only whim is whether or not they enforce the authoritarian letter of their laws.

In addition, terrorists are not necessarily captured through 'due process'. When you are dodging bullets in 125 degree heat, trying not to kill human shields through bomb-laden urban areas it's difficult to collect evidence 'admissible in a court of law'. Unfairly or not, lack of evidence is not evidence of innocence. Especially when an attempt to capture or kill said terrorist means the destruction of such evidence through required actions.

That statement includes the implicit definition that a terrorist is anyone we think might be a terrorist. Under that definition, ANYBODY can be arrested and locked up indefinitely.

Subjecting a terrorist to the laws of, say, the United States, means that they will walk free - there's a reason these centers are not on US soil.

Not really. There have been several terrorism cases successfully prosecuted in the US on US soil. However, since islamic terrorists have a tendancy to kill themselves in the act, the only cases that can generally be made are those where the act has not yet taken place.

Closing these centers means just that. This leaves them to commit their terrorist acts with impunity. Terrorists to not care about justice or what is 'right' - the essence of what the justice system is designed to do, disregarding the issue that the criminal and civil justice systems are flawed.

Actually, they care so deeply about what they think is right that they are willing to die for their beliefs, even though they tend to be educated, and somewhat more affluent for their areas. We appear to be the ones who would sacrifice the principles that we say we support to save our lives, while they are willing to die for theirs. Many historians credit that level of belief as being one of the great draws that founded Christianity in the Roman Empire. Sadly, we seem willing to give up the principle of freedom and equality in favor of an infinitessimally extended lifespan. After all, we all die in the end, and arresting every terrorist, murderer, drunk driver, and cancer cell in the world, won't alter that fact. We assert a belief in freedom. If we really believe in that principle, how can we abandon it so easily?

SJWhiteley

Feb 16th, 2009, 12:49 PM

A well worded response.

I agree with the second half, but not the first. A criminal is a person who breaks the law. If your law states that you are not allowed to dissent, then dissention makes you a criminal. The only whim is whether or not they enforce the authoritarian letter of their laws.This, then, becomes the issue: if a criminal, by definition, is one who breaks the law; we must address whether the law addresses acts performed by a criminal. The OP's link is a prime example - if dissent is against the law, is someone who dissents a criminal? Further, did the dissenter perform a criminal act?

Rather pedantically, if the law tomorrow says that wearing or owning a red shirt is a criminal act, and tomorrow you wear your red shirt, are you a criminal or only a criminal in the eyes of the law? The question really is, what is the purpose of the laws which turn ordinary events into criminal acts?

That statement includes the implicit definition that a terrorist is anyone we think might be a terrorist. Under that definition, ANYBODY can be arrested and locked up indefinitely.Not implicitly at all; but that is a fear of recent legislation. Although we are considering terrorism, such 'flexibility' is valid in criminal acts also; that is, there are situations where - quite rightly - criminals(or criminal acts performed by individuals) are not afforded due process. There are specific reasons where this may be the case.

Likewise with terrorist and terrorism; we are stuck on a definition of terrorism, and often to catch such individuals or groups, rightly or wrongly, we are not following a due process. That's not to say that this is the one and only way to catch terrorists, or that we can apply such actions to catch what we have labeled as terrorist.

Not really. There have been several terrorism cases successfully prosecuted in the US on US soil. However, since islamic terrorists have a tendancy to kill themselves in the act, the only cases that can generally be made are those where the act has not yet taken place.
I can't argue with that. But once again, we do fall into the issue of defining terrorism and terrorist acts, along with the method of catching terrorists themselves.

Further, It's more important that we distinguish between a criminal act and a terrorist act, because precisely of the danger of labeling criminal acts as terrorist behavior (it's true that an armed bank robber may instill 'terror' in his victims, but that does not necessarily make the robber a terrorist).

Actually, they care so deeply about what they think is right that they are willing to die for their beliefs, even though they tend to be educated, and somewhat more affluent for their areas. We appear to be the ones who would sacrifice the principles that we say we support to save our lives, while they are willing to die for theirs. Many historians credit that level of belief as being one of the great draws that founded Christianity in the Roman Empire. Sadly, we seem willing to give up the principle of freedom and equality in favor of an infinitessimally extended lifespan. After all, we all die in the end, and arresting every terrorist, murderer, drunk driver, and cancer cell in the world, won't alter that fact. We assert a belief in freedom. If we really believe in that principle, how can we abandon it so easily?I suppose we are trying to define terrorism as part of a belief system? That's true but probably only part of what makes up a terrorist.

Things certainly get sticky when we start evaluating and labeling others based on their beliefs, but the crux of the matter comes is what we do based on the beliefs of others. This can both be justified and unjustified.

For example, Bob believes that abstract entity called 'TheFlower' controls all life on earth. Greg believes that anyone called Bob is the spawn of evil and must be eradicated. Bobs beliefs in no way affect how he deals with Greg , and in no way affect Greg. However, Gregs beliefs directly affect Bob. In which case Bob may, at some point, be compelled to take action based on the beliefs of Greg, not on his own beliefs. Greg is acting on his own beliefs, with the beliefs of Bob not affecting him.

As you say, it's quite reasonable to say we can't "arrest every terrorist, murderer", and so on. But I'm not sure why you believe that we are abandoning the principality of freedom. I really don't think 'we' are.

zaza

Feb 16th, 2009, 01:59 PM

A well worded response.

This, then, becomes the issue: if a criminal, by definition, is one who breaks the law; we must address whether the law addresses acts performed by a criminal. The OP's link is a prime example - if dissent is against the law, is someone who dissents a criminal? Further, did the dissenter perform a criminal act?

Rather pedantically, if the law tomorrow says that wearing or owning a red shirt is a criminal act, and tomorrow you wear your red shirt, are you a criminal or only a criminal in the eyes of the law? The question really is, what is the purpose of the laws which turn ordinary events into criminal acts?

Is there a difference between being a criminal and being a criminal in the eyes of the law? Surely the very definition of criminal is "someone who commits a crime", which is to say "defies the laws of that country"? There is a reason why the law HAS to be black and white; once you start allowing a person's beliefs to get in the way then you are essentially saying "it is OK for me to do this because I believe it to be right", which is a universal defence.
As far as WHY laws get passed, that is for our elected leaders to explain. There are certainly many cases of very poorly drafted laws which have been passed, and which subsequently cause all sorts of legal wrangling in the courts. Often, these laws are poorly drafted because they are insufficiently specific and a case arises which is not directly covered by the legislation, forcing the legal system to establish a precedent to deal with it.

Not implicitly at all; but that is a fear of recent legislation. Although we are considering terrorism, such 'flexibility' is valid in criminal acts also; that is, there are situations where - quite rightly - criminals(or criminal acts performed by individuals) are not afforded due process. There are specific reasons where this may be the case.

Likewise with terrorist and terrorism; we are stuck on a definition of terrorism, and often to catch such individuals or groups, rightly or wrongly, we are not following a due process. That's not to say that this is the one and only way to catch terrorists, or that we can apply such actions to catch what we have labeled as terrorist.

There is only one way to deal with such cases, and that is to gather what evidence can be gathered and present it to a court of law, whereupon the experts of the legal system can determine whether or not a conviction is appropriate. To say "well, our legal system doesn't let us convict these people" is pure mendacity. That's why you have to pass laws and get them scrutinised by your parliament / senate / other representative body first. Otherwise you have a police state.
To say "well we don't do it to our own people, just foreigners" does not make it any less shameful, but perhaps a bit more palatable.
The way the law works is that it defines what is unacceptable, not what is acceptable. If you have not broken a law, you are acting legally. If you don't like what some people are doing, then you have to propose a new law to make it illegal. Anything else is blatant disregard for your own justice system.

I can't argue with that. But once again, we do fall into the issue of defining terrorism and terrorist acts, along with the method of catching terrorists themselves.

Further, It's more important that we distinguish between a criminal act and a terrorist act, because precisely of the danger of labeling criminal acts as terrorist behavior (it's true that an armed bank robber may instill 'terror' in his victims, but that does not necessarily make the robber a terrorist).

I suppose we are trying to define terrorism as part of a belief system? That's true but probably only part of what makes up a terrorist.

Things certainly get sticky when we start evaluating and labeling others based on their beliefs, but the crux of the matter comes is what we do based on the beliefs of others. This can both be justified and unjustified.

For example, Bob believes that abstract entity called 'TheFlower' controls all life on earth. Greg believes that anyone called Bob is the spawn of evil and must be eradicated. Bobs beliefs in no way affect how he deals with Greg , and in no way affect Greg. However, Gregs beliefs directly affect Bob. In which case Bob may, at some point, be compelled to take action based on the beliefs of Greg, not on his own beliefs. Greg is acting on his own beliefs, with the beliefs of Bob not affecting him.

As you say, it's quite reasonable to say we can't "arrest every terrorist, murderer", and so on. But I'm not sure why you believe that we are abandoning the principality of freedom. I really don't think 'we' are.

If Bob takes pre-emptive action against Greg because Greg says that he is going to kill Bob, then Bob should be arrested for it. It is not Bob's task to take the law into his own hands, it is the job of the police.
If it is decreed that threatening to kill someone is a criminal offence and Greg is sufficiently outspoken about it, then Greg will be easily apprehended. If Greg is not outspoken about it, how does Bob know that Greg is planning to kill him? Suspicion is not good enough.
If Greg actually attempts to kill Bob, then the police will take witness statements, gather forensic evidence and use it to prosecute Greg. Bob may retaliate in self defence, but it will be examined very carefully and if Bob is found to have used disproportionate force (if Greg is 95 years old and Bob is 22, for example), then Bob will find himself in trouble.

To continue this analogy to nations, which is what I suspect you intended, the argument still holds. For somebody to simply say "I wish to destroy the USA" is not sufficient reason to pre-emptively attack them. It is not against international law for a private citizen to speak out against another regime. It becomes more concerning if they have capability to act on their actions, which is why police will search for evidence. If the speaker is head of a nation, their military capabilities would be assessed. For China to say that would be a very different scenario to if Bhutan said it. Which do you think would be of greater international concern?

Evidence is always required. In the case of Iraq, it was provided in the form of a dodgy dossier which claimed that Saddam could fire chemical weapons capable of hitting London within 45 minutes, and it was used as an excuse by the US and UK to take unilateral action.

To be honest, the problem at international level is really "how do you stop a country from doing what it wants, when it is sufficiently powerful", and the US is demonstrating to the rest of the world that, in fact, there isn't a good answer to that.
The parallel with Shaggy's thoughts on al-Qaeda's motivations is obvious, and many say the same about Israel's recent invasion of Gaza.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 16th, 2009, 02:23 PM

A well worded response.

This, then, becomes the issue: if a criminal, by definition, is one who breaks the law; we must address whether the law addresses acts performed by a criminal. The OP's link is a prime example - if dissent is against the law, is someone who dissents a criminal? Further, did the dissenter perform a criminal act?

Rather pedantically, if the law tomorrow says that wearing or owning a red shirt is a criminal act, and tomorrow you wear your red shirt, are you a criminal or only a criminal in the eyes of the law? The question really is, what is the purpose of the laws which turn ordinary events into criminal acts?

I would suggest that your question is one that society has wrestled with for all of recorded history without coming to any clear answer.I don't have an answer, but I do have an opinion, which is this: I, personally, DO believe that there are principles worth breaking the law for. However, my principles may not be your principles. If my principled law breaking results in the laws changing, then that's all good. If, on the other hand, my principled law breaking results only in my going to prison, then I can object as long as I live...or not. The rules in society are created and enforced by society. We may elect or hire people to enforce the laws for us, but they will only do so as long as we allow them to. Therefore, a dissenter against the law can cause the law to change, but only if they have a LOT of public support. If they don't, then they end up just being criminals.

Although we are considering terrorism, such 'flexibility' is valid in criminal acts also; that is, there are situations where - quite rightly - criminals(or criminal acts performed by individuals) are not afforded due process. There are specific reasons where this may be the case.

This would overturn or suspend habeas corpus, a core principle in our justice system. That has happened once or twice with the complicity of the courts, but is generally considered to be an illegal act. Lincoln did this in the Civil War, and perhaps Roosevelt in WWII, but I know of no other instance.

Further, It's more important that we distinguish between a criminal act and a terrorist act, because precisely of the danger of labeling criminal acts as terrorist behavior (it's true that an armed bank robber may instill 'terror' in his victims, but that does not necessarily make the robber a terrorist).

Yes. So how DO we define terrorism? Timothy McVeigh was clearly a terrorist, as was Eric Rudolph (Atlanta Olympics Bombing) and...uh...the Unabomber...I forget his name at the moment....no wait, I just can't spell his name. Also Mr. Anthrax should be included as a terrorist. All of those people were seeking to kill people almost at random to push a political viewpoint. But that's not an adequate definition, because the exact same motivation could be ascribed to the Columbine and VTech shooters (along with a few other school shootings). So how do you define this vague concept so that you can tell who's in and who's not?

Things certainly get sticky when we start evaluating and labeling others based on their beliefs, but the crux of the matter comes is what we do based on the beliefs of others. This can both be justified and unjustified.

For example, Bob believes that abstract entity called 'TheFlower' controls all life on earth. Greg believes that anyone called Bob is the spawn of evil and must be eradicated. Bobs beliefs in no way affect how he deals with Greg , and in no way affect Greg. However, Gregs beliefs directly affect Bob. In which case Bob may, at some point, be compelled to take action based on the beliefs of Greg, not on his own beliefs. Greg is acting on his own beliefs, with the beliefs of Bob not affecting him.

How about if Bob believes that everybody else must be brought to believe in TheFlower as part of his belief in TheFlower? If we are talking about Islam, rather than abstract concepts, our hands are not clean. We may not like their methods, but if we examined history, there isn't anyone on the side of the angels.

As you say, it's quite reasonable to say we can't "arrest every terrorist, murderer", and so on. But I'm not sure why you believe that we are abandoning the principality of freedom. I really don't think 'we' are.

Freedom was a poor choice of words. In this global debate, that word has come to be no more than a symbol. Nobody is actually free to do anything they want. We are all bound by ties of many sizes and strengths. We are tied to family, tied to community, tied by the laws of society, tied by the laws of nature. I've known people who would be right at home in a prison environment (without the violence, though), and I have known people who couldn't survive for long at any job. So Freedom? It's a myth. No person notices the walls around them until they try to go through them. At that point, they will all find the walls equally thick. Plenty of people thrive in authoritarian or totalitarian regimes because they simply don't notice the walls around them. The same is true for us.

A better word would have been due process, but that's a concept that has largely been forgotten in our society. It had greater meaning when the country began. Alternatively, I could have gone on at some length about the principles that make up our societal beliefs regarding the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure, habeas corpus, equality before the law, etc. All those went by the board with Gitmo. At that point, we explicitly stated that we were going to treat a group of people in ways that would never be tolerated inside this country (that's why the base is where it is). The only reason that this is allowed is because nobody has the might to oppose us. After all, it isn't even acceptable behavior in America, why would it be acceptable to our enemies? If we were weak, we would never consider such an action. Therefore, we have asserted the right of the bully: "We can do this to you because you can't stop us from doing it."

That's not any kind of noble purpose. Do we have the right to do it? If you were some weak little wimp, would you be willing to fight the school bully to uphold your right to poke him with pins? Perhaps all those movies where the little guy fights back against the big guy should be re-made. How about a movie where the little guy fights the big guy, not for freedom from abuse, but for the right to abuse him at will.

We certainly have the right to defend ourselves, but the only reason we can do so without regard to the cost to others, is because nobody can stop us. That's an abandonment of our principles.

nemaroller

Feb 17th, 2009, 12:00 PM

FunkyDexter

Feb 17th, 2009, 12:24 PM

I see a difference between the actions people take...but it is on those grounds that they need to be opposed, not on ideology.I agree with almost all of what you're saying but I do think you're under-estimating how much of a factor the ideology represents in the roganisations ability to recruit and gain sponsorship. Al-Quaeda have been preaching against the US and blowing up the occasional embassy since the first gulf war but it never really got them anywhere. I don't believe that 9/11 itself really helped them to recruit either... the Islamic world was pretty much universal in it's condemnation of the act. What gained them massive support was America and the UK's response. Muslims began to grumble when we went into Afghanistan but most could see the connection to 9/11 so took it on the chin. It was when we went into Iraq that things really kicked off because the Islamic world couldn't see any connection; it began to look increasingly like an act of naked agression. Essentially, we demonstrated to the Islamic world that the cause Al Quaeda had been espousing was, in fact, not only legitimate but worthy.

I make the distinction for a very important reason. By ignoring the ideology we lose a massively useful tool for combatting terrorism: engagement. If we are willing to have a public and reasoned discourse about the grievances that feed the ideoligies of terrorist groups and can be seen to take those grievances seriously we starve them of their ability use that ideology as a recruting tool. We take away their most powerful weapon. One of the greatest lies to be perpetrated is "you mustn't negotiate with terrorists". I'd turn that on it's head and state "you mustn't be seen to refuse to engage with terrorists because if you do you inevitably validate whatever ideology their pedalling". That's never an easy position to sell because it sounds like weakness and we prefer to puff our chests out rather than reel our necks in but once you accept that negotiation is not the same as capitulation and that engagement does not equate to caving in to the demands of every lunatic with turban, balaclava or padded jacket you realise that the number of people who'll willingly lay down their lives for someone they believe to be a fanatical crackpot is few indeed.

Other than that I think I agree pretty much with everything you're saying.

zaza

Feb 17th, 2009, 04:43 PM

I know this whole thread deals with SurfDemon's problem with the Bush administration. For better or worse though, this is exactly the type of reason why the prisoners weren't released, or sent to US courts (where they would be let go due to lack of evidence)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php

"However, under a heading describing reasons for Shihri's possible release from Guantánamo, the documents say he claimed that he traveled to Iran "to purchase carpets for his store in Riyadh." They also say that he denied any knowledge of terrorists or association with any, and that he "related that if released, he would like to return to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, wherein he would reunite with his family."

And he lied.

Perhaps he did. But I'd just like to present an alternative. Suppose he was innocent when taken to Guantanamo, but due to his unfair incarceration he became extremely angry at the US. He met a lot of people inside, some of whom almost certainly were members of al-Qaeda.
When he was freed, he decided to get back at the US in whichever way he could.
If you wanted to cause the most trouble for the US, what would you do? Sow discord. Let it be known publicly that you are part of al-Qaeda, so that the government is forced into one of two positions:

a) admit that you weren't originally a terrorist, and that therefore getting put in Guantanamo actually increased the number of terrorists in the world
b) admit that a person they released continued to be a terrorist, and that therefore locking him up did no good at all.

Either way, it looks pretty bad. It's most likely to persuade teh US to keep people locked up, and hence keep alive a major flag for the Islamic world to unite behind. It's what I would do if I were so inclined.
What I would not want to do is get people talking. Once you get talking, you realise that you have much more common ground than you thought. You realsise that the other guy is a human being after all. You realise that the guy who runs a market stall in Baghdad doesn't harbour a burning ambition to strap dynamite to his kid and send him off to the US embassy with a box of cookies, or to raise the crescent flag above the White House. And the guy in the market stall realises that you don't want to nick all his oil, rape his wife, kill his kids and lock him up in Cuba, occasionally letting him out of his cell so that you can partially drown him.
While people are not talking, they are letting their imaginations run wild about the other guy, and that's what terrorrists really want to achieve.

The fundamental misunderstanding that a lot of people have is the cultural one; we simply don't get the motivations of some of these guys. We think "well, I certainly wouldn't want to be tarred with a terrorist brush by the mighty United States (God bless her)", but we are inherently incorporating our own biases into that viewpoint.
We don't really, truly, understand the Islamic concept of the Ummah, that all Muslims are brothers. We might feel a bit piqued if we see some white guy getting tortured by an African dictator, for example, but we banish such thoughts immediately as tantamount to racism. And there's a lot more besides that we simply won't understand because we have not grown up in that environment, with those parents, with those friends.

My point is simply that it is all too easy to dismiss people by finding a palatable reason to absolve ourselves of blame, and that's probably why so many of these conflicts never seem to end.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 17th, 2009, 07:02 PM

Yeah, if anybody treated me or anybody I was close to the way the US has treated the detainees, I might be convinced to forgive, but never to forget. Nothing will turn a neutral person against you faster than a few false accusations and erroneous punishment. It's not a deterrant, it's a casus belli, and always has been.

nemaroller

Feb 17th, 2009, 09:44 PM

Perhaps he did.
That is IN FACT what he did. The article is entirely about that!

The rest of your viewpoint was based on the assumption the man was innocent - but because of being held at Gitmo developed an aching itch to settle a grudge and land himself back there. The article plainly states otherwise.

we simply don't get the motivations of some of these guys.
I entirely get the motivations of people like the Taliban and Al Queda. They grab power by killing oppressors. Pretty cut and dry. The REAL problem is YOU can't accept that there is actually masses of people alive in 2009 that would kill you just for your land, and beat your wife and children for control - much like Ghenghis Khan centuries ago.

My point is simply that it is all too easy to dismiss people by finding a palatable reason to absolve ourselves of blame, and that's probably why so many of these conflicts never seem to end.

So what do YOU think we (the US) did to be blamed for the Taliban's actions in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Or Al Queda which was originally a guerrilla group against Russians in Afghanistan?

I think you want to easily dismiss these things as fault of our own - because you can more easily assimilate possible mistakes of our own - versus the sheer notion that there are people who will kill anyone who does not believe the same.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 18th, 2009, 09:31 AM

Oh I believe in them. They're located all over the US. Plenty of them here in our back country. Also in our cities. They come in black and white and green and plaid, or any other color. They kill because of religious conviction, or because they don't like something about the other person. Worse, they may kill YOU, one of these days. The police don't arrest them until they have comitted a crime. Deterence is possible, and it works at times, but only if it is within the budget. Therefore, the police have to decide on priorities for those suitable for deterence versus those that are too hard to find until they surface on their own.

Does this system work? That depends on how you look at it. People are killed every day over differences, and many are killed by murderous people. The VAST majority of those murderous people fit into a single category. If Gitmo is such a good idea, why shouldn't it be applied to the citizens of the US. Since we know that one section of society is responsible for the vast majority of murders, perhaps we should lock up that segment and question or torture them to identify the ones that should never be allowed to go free. After all, you are FAR more likely to be murdered by a member of this segment of US citizens than you are likely to be murdered by a foreign terrorist while in the US. This segment is a MUCH greater threat to you than Al Queda ever hoped to be.

The segment is, of course: Men.

nemaroller

Feb 18th, 2009, 09:43 AM

First, let me start off by linking this CNN article today exposing ANOTHER GITMO DETAINEE found back in the wild!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/18/al.qaeda.arrest/index.html

So please be reasonable enough to acknowledge that the initial fears of releasing these combatants WERE founded.

If Gitmo is such a good idea, why shouldn't it be applied to the citizens of the US. Since we know that one section of society is responsible for the vast majority of murders, perhaps we should lock up that segment and question or torture them to identify the ones that should never be allowed to go free. After all, you are FAR more likely to be murdered by a member of this segment of US citizens than you are likely to be murdered by a foreign terrorist while in the US. This segment is a MUCH greater threat to you than Al Queda ever hoped to be.

You think that is a resonable argument? You're comparing individual acts of people each with different motives against a singular motive that resulted in billions of dollars in damage and 2,000 lifes destroyed. So you also think the holocaust was excusable?

Come on, Shaggy, I will play along for the devil's advocate, but I think you are stretching your reasoning too thin here.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 18th, 2009, 11:19 AM

If you had the ability to selectively pick the bad guys, then I would have no objection. However, in this case, it appears that the filter that was applied was unreasonably broad.

We live in a society that was founded on the principle that we accept missing a few bad people over unjustly incarcerating innocent people. If you would prefer a system of guilty until proven innocent, then there are plenty of countries for you to admire, but it isn't America. Gitmo was located outside the US because "innocent until proven guilty" was too restrictive for the people in charge. That principle, which is at the foundation of much of our Constitution, acknowledges the fact that some guilty people will avoid prosecution.

So will we hold a double standard? A standard that states that our founding principles apply only to us, but we can do as we please to anybody else? Do we then have a right to complain when others follow our lead?

demotivater

Feb 18th, 2009, 02:31 PM

Others don't follow our lead now, so what's the difference? All the "let's actually be holier than though" crap doesn't apply against these people. It would have been a lot easier to shoot them and leave them in a hole in the sand.

nemaroller

Feb 18th, 2009, 02:42 PM

If you had the ability to selectively pick the bad guys, then I would have no objection. However, in this case, it appears that the filter that was applied was unreasonably broad.
Please give examples? Many of the released were actually found fighting against US troops - but have been returned to their home countries. If a group of US soldiers took the hostages in a battle, are they not combatants?

We live in a society that was founded on the principle that we accept missing a few bad people over unjustly incarcerating innocent people.

Enough.

None of that legally applies to non-citizens and you know it. A non-citizen in the US has NO rights guaranteed by the constitution, only those guaranteed by international agreements - with recognized government entities. Debate that all day, but the fact is the law is the law.

Gitmo was located outside the US because "innocent until proven guilty" was too restrictive for the people in charge.

You chose to believe that - nothing more. I chose to believe Gitmo was an ideal location since it is a secure location surrounded by water, away from civilian populations, away from transportation modes afforded by terrorists. Nothing more.

If you want to drink the conspiracy dictatorship kool-aid, so be it. I never believed in such bs.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 18th, 2009, 02:44 PM

Yes, it certainly would. That's ALWAYS the case.

Other countries DO use us as an example, though, and if we say to them "that's not a legal detention" they reply "you did it to." China has said as much to us already, and to that we have no reply, because the justification of our actions is self-serving and recognized as such by other observers.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 18th, 2009, 02:52 PM

Sorry Nemaroller, I posted at the same time you did. My reply was to Demotivator, not you.

Please give examples? Many of the released were actually found fighting against US troops - but have been returned to their home countries. If a group of US soldiers took the hostages in a battle, are they not combatants? [Quote]

I would say that enemy combatants taken on the battlefield are POWs, which can legally be held wherever for the duration of hostilities. If they were returned prior to the cessation of hostilities...well, what can you say?

[QUOTE]
Enough.

None of that legally applies to non-citizens and you know it. A non-citizen in the US has NO rights guaranteed by the constitution, only those guaranteed by international agreements - with recognized government entities. Debate that all day, but the fact is the law is the law.

True. No law covers it. If we have no principles, then we can do as we please, as no law can convict us. That's nothing more than might makes right, which this country has fought against on a couple occasions when we were the one being abused. It's not illegal, but our own countries precedent states that it is sufficient cause for war.

You chose to believe that - nothing more. I chose to believe Gitmo was an ideal location since it is a secure location surrounded by water, away from civilian populations, away from transportation modes afforded by terrorists. Nothing more.

If you want to drink the conspiracy dictatorship kool-aid, so be it. I never believed in such bs.

Ok. I didn't realize that anybody did NOT believe that was the reason for the location of Gitmo. I was under the belief that the Bush administration stated that reason explicitly when they argued that habeas corpus didn't apply as long as the inmates had never touched US soil. However, if you don't believe that, I'd be happy to drop it, as the point is irrelevant (except, of course, that Gitmo is not surrounded by water).

System_Error

Feb 18th, 2009, 02:52 PM

So will we hold a double standard? A standard that states that our founding principles apply only to us, but we can do as we please to anybody else?

Intelligent standards are sensitive to the circumstances. That doesn't mean I agree with Gitmo or it's operations, but I don't like the comparisons that I've seen (I'm not specifically calling you out).

If I say that murder is wrong and then say killing in self defense is not, then is that creating a double standard, or being sensitive to the circumstances?

I personally think there are better alternatives to Gitmo, but a lot of the blind postings (some of which seem to defend terrorism, and think we should "understand" their motives so we can accept their actions) make me sick.

Do we then have a right to complain when others follow our lead?
If in fact we do have a double standard and it is universally seen as unjust, then it is us who are following the lead of 'something else'.

nemaroller

Feb 18th, 2009, 02:55 PM

Shaggy,

You lead by example then.

I would rather we keep terrorists locked up.
"While the Obama administration may create some sort of system for periodic judicial review of these cases, the one thing it won't do is release these detainees, said one senior Obama adviser who asked not to be identified talking about the White House's internal thinking on the matter. Asked about the prospect that some of these detainees might be let go, the adviser brushed the thought aside. "That's not going to happen," he said."

Are you reading the reports on this stuff?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/181453

nemaroller

Feb 18th, 2009, 03:06 PM

I would say that enemy combatants taken on the battlefield are POWs, which can legally be held wherever for the duration of hostilities. If they were returned prior to the cessation of hostilities...well, what can you say?

They were returned because all these civil liberty groups across the globe got in a bent and so the previous president released some detaines thought to be less dangerous.

True. No law covers it. If we have no principles, then we can do as we please, as no law can convict us. That's nothing more than might makes right, which this country has fought against on a couple occasions when we were the one being abused. It's not illegal, but our own countries precedent states that it is sufficient cause for war.

What I am stating is you can't equate the principles set forth by our founding fathers for the god-given rights of a peacful law-abiding citizen, to a foreign aggressor that consistently shows behavior otherwise.

Thomas Jefferson confiscated much property of suspect British loyalists during the revolutionary war without habeous corupus. So our principles were oriented toward the greater good from the start.

Ok. I didn't realize that anybody did NOT believe that was the reason for the location of Gitmo. I was under the belief that the Bush administration stated that reason explicitly when they argued that habeas corpus didn't apply as long as the inmates had never touched US soil. However, if you don't believe that, I'd be happy to drop it, as the point is irrelevant (except, of course, that Gitmo is not surrounded by water).
Ok... ok... I will give you that it helps keep out the lawyers, which have no business being there to begin with - did German POW's get lawyers? And they were protected by Geneva conventions!

And yes, Gitmo is effectively surrounded by water.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 18th, 2009, 04:26 PM

If I say that murder is wrong and then say killing in self defense is not, then is that creating a double standard, or being sensitive to the circumstances?

True. However, that's also circular in a way, since you use murder in one case and killing in another. Is all killing murder? If so, and you say that murder is wrong, then all killing is wrong. If you say that not all killing is murder, then you can easily assert that murder is wrong, but not all killing is wrong.

I personally think there are better alternatives to Gitmo, but a lot of the blind postings (some of which seem to defend terrorism, and think we should "understand" their motives so we can accept their actions) make me sick.

I have never seen a posting that suggests that we can accept their actions if by accept you mean "agree with". We bloody well better understand their motives if we want to oppose them, though. Technically, you can defeat an enemy without knowing anything about them, but the situations where that is possible are kind of peculiar, and don't apply here. If we take actions that make them stronger, does it actually matter if we state that we are intending our actions to make them weaker? I would say that our actions in Gitmo are making them stronger, not weaker.

If in fact we do have a double standard and it is universally seen as unjust, then it is us who are following the lead of 'something else'.

It isn't universally seen as unjust. There are plenty who agree with it. China is delighted, as they have no hesitation about pointing it out when we object to their legal abuses. Russia probably doesn't mind much, either. There are a few others, as well.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 18th, 2009, 04:49 PM

They were returned because all these civil liberty groups across the globe got in a bent and so the previous president released some detaines thought to be less dangerous.

No doubt.

What I am stating is you can't equate the principles set forth by our founding fathers for the god-given rights of a peacful law-abiding citizen, to a foreign aggressor that consistently shows behavior otherwise.

Thomas Jefferson confiscated much property of suspect British loyalists during the revolutionary war without habeous corupus. So our principles were oriented toward the greater good from the start.

And at the same time we hung people who believed in the wrong god, and kept slaves.

Our history is not one of utopia or purity, but it has been one of a struggle towards attaining the ideals we asserted were correct. The struggle has never ended and continues to this day. There are court cases every year that seek to further refine how wide a net the police are able to use to sift our society. On the one hand are the people who assert that there need be no restraint on the police because innocent people have nothing to hide, while on the other hand are those who assert that they have a right to be free from unreasonable search. This on-going conflict may seem fairly academic in some cases (an officer of the law is allowed to look through the windows of your vehicle, but not to open a cooler, so are they allowed to look through the windows of your house, and are they allowed to look at the IR signature of your house?), but Gitmo is just another aspect of this greater struggle that goes on in this country and many others around the world. Look at the surveillance state that GB is turning into with the number of cameras. A similar thing can be seen in the US. Are you ok with that? How about Carnivore?

Do these seem unrelated to Gitmo? What power gives us the right to do whatever we want to non-citizens? What power gives us the right to do whatever we want to citizens? Will God come down from heaven and smite you dead for giving false testimony? Or any other crime? Not that I have noticed. The power that ultimately gives us the right to do any particular thing is the fact that nobody can or will stop us. Perhaps we are prevented from harming others by a sense of morality, or perhaps we are prevented by a fear of retribution, or perhaps we are prevented by a simple calculation that we don't want to bother with it. However, if we are not constrained by ANY one of those three things, then we WILL take that action (perhaps we should add a fourth, which is an inability to take the action). That is, if we have the ability, the desire, and are not prevented by fear of retribution or morality, then we WILL harm others.

In the case of Gitmo, we have the ability. We have the desire. We don't fear retribution. Do we have the morality to prevent it.

Well...not everybody.

So you are willing to grant the government the right to lock people up forever on the likely chance that there might be terrorists among them. Would you then be willing to grant the government the right to lock up citizens of the US forever without trial on the same grounds? If not, why not? Don't give me any crap about it being illegal. Laws can be changed, and then it won't be illegal.

On a strangely related note, how do you feel about granting the police the right to see through your walls? The courts have ruled that police have the right to look through a window, but at this time, they don't have the right to use a device to do so. As we move to a technology that allows us to look through objects, should the police be allowed to look through the walls of your house to enforce laws?

Ok... ok... I will give you that it helps keep out the lawyers, which have no business being there to begin with - did German POW's get lawyers? And they were protected by Geneva conventions!

And yes, Gitmo is effectively surrounded by water.[/QUOTE]

nemaroller

Feb 18th, 2009, 05:12 PM

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 18th, 2009, 05:43 PM

If I thought the US government was falsely imprisoning people, I would be with you saying the same thing. However, nothing I've seen or heard makes me believe this.

The truth is now the prisoners are being dispersed to unknown locations in the US and other countries. Does that make YOU feel better, not knowing where they are, and what happened to them? For all you know, Obama could have ordered them dead.

Or do you reserve the benefit of the doubt - not to checks and balances - but to people you politically favor?

Obama has been in office for about one month, and Gitmo has not been on the radar. He made a pledge to close Gitmo, and appears likely to keep that pledge. If he doesn't release the people, I would say that's pragmatic. There is wheat and chaff there. I would not expect the current administration to figure out which is which in the first month, so a blanket release would certainly be unwise. On the other hand, Gitmo is a symbol (and now a campaign pledge). I'd say they are kicking the can down the road for the time being, and that's just as well. There are at least two full-time size issues that come before that one (the economy and Afghanistan), so this is probably the best viable option at the moment. I do want to see what comes next, but in one month? No, I'll grant more time than that.

As for whether it makes me feel better not knowing where they are: It makes me feel neither better nor worse. I can't come up with any reason to feel anything about it. Am I worried that they have been moved into the house next door? No. Am I worried that they were released into upper Mongolia? No. I can't say I am filled with even modest amounts of either concern or glee.

nemaroller

Feb 18th, 2009, 07:04 PM

I can't say I am filled with even modest amounts of either concern or glee.

I will just say Obama's been in office nearly 4 weeks, and all it takes is a few security briefings for one to make up their mind if the release should go forward.

To me, sounds like Obama got in office, heard all the intel, and then decided we'll just let this one stew a bit, as he realized that it was just a campaign promise to some left-wing nutjob, so it could be easily broken.

In any event, I hate to think Obama can't focus on the economy and national security at the same time. I mean - I know he can - so I don't understand how you can easily excuse the timeline due to some perceived urgent economic issues.

And I know, you're not worried, because who'd attack Idaho? Not attractive enough of a target.

FunkyDexter

Feb 19th, 2009, 06:19 AM

but a lot of the blind postings (some of which seem to defend terrorism, and think we should "understand" their motives so we can accept their actions) make me sickI assume that was aimed at my post so allow me to respond. 1. I at no point defended terrorism, 2. I do think we should understand their motives, even if you don't intend to engage with those motives Sun Tsu will tell you this is the first step to an effective response and 3. I never said that the purpose of understanding those motives was to accept the actions.

9/11 was a terrible act - I do not advocate or accept it in any way. But I recognise that failing to understand why people felt motivated to perpetrate it led us to attack Afghanistan and then Iraq causing massive collatoral damage and loss of civilian life. It led the US to set up Guantanamo Bay. It led the UK to extend massively the length of time we would hold our own citizens without trial - an extension that has since been applied almost exclusively to Muslims. It led us to sanction interrogation methods that most of the world describe as torture and which we felt unable to carry out within our own borders. It led us, in short, to demonstrate to the Muslim world that we were, in fact, the evil facistic opressors bent on raping the Islamic world of it's resources and trampling it's objections underfoot Al Quaeda had been portraying us to be.

So are we evil facistic opressors? Of course not. What we are is a bunch of scared little people who saw alot of people who were just like us killed for a cause we cannot relate to and don't understand. What we failed to recognise was that that exact same description applies to the Muslim world too. And so we went ahead and killed a alot of people who were just like them in a cause they were increasingly unable to relate to and were increasingly unable to understand. The only difference was that we wore uniforms while doing it - a luxury we are only afforded by our overwhelming superiority of firepower.

zaza

Feb 19th, 2009, 06:50 AM

That is IN FACT what he did. The article is entirely about that!

The rest of your viewpoint was based on the assumption the man was innocent - but because of being held at Gitmo developed an aching itch to settle a grudge and land himself back there. The article plainly states otherwise.

The article states otherwise, but proves absolutely nothing. The rest of the article is as much speculation as I have outlined above, and my intention was to show that there are at least two scenarios which equally explain the outcome. The only FACT here is that neither you, nor I, nor the authors of the article have any idea about the past and present motives of the individual concerned, but the article clearly wishes to justify halting release of people from Guantanamo, a view you appear to support and with which I disagree.

I entirely get the motivations of people like the Taliban and Al Queda. They grab power by killing oppressors. Pretty cut and dry. The REAL problem is YOU can't accept that there is actually masses of people alive in 2009 that would kill you just for your land, and beat your wife and children for control - much like Ghenghis Khan centuries ago.

The Taliban and al-Qaeda are not the only people who grab power by killing others. Pretty much every country in the world today was born in bloodshed; it's nothing new. There are plenty of people who say that the US is keeping its own economic (which leads to military, scientific and other forms) power going by securing resources in the Middle East, living off cheap labour in countries like the Philippines ("They're so lucky! They get paid for making clothers for us! Better than starving..."), using protectionism in international trade where it is self-serving and using its muscle to block protectionism when it favours somebody else, showing bias by never having voted against Israel once in a security council meeting (and even the Israelis don't believe their government is always right)...the list goes on.
The British are just as bad for it.

I actually do disagree with your assertion that there are "masses of people who would kill you for your land.." etc. I think that there are comparatively few of them, but I suspect that a number of those who would are in or near control in many countries around the world, yours and mine included.

So what do YOU think we (the US) did to be blamed for the Taliban's actions in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Or Al Queda which was originally a guerrilla group against Russians in Afghanistan?

I think you want to easily dismiss these things as fault of our own - because you can more easily assimilate possible mistakes of our own - versus the sheer notion that there are people who will kill anyone who does not believe the same.

Plenty. The developed nations (particularly the Big Five) have been using the rest of the world as their battleground for years, and its about time it stopped. We intervened in the Middle East, supporting dictators or supplanting them with others as we chose. We fought wars by proxy against the communist states for years, and Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea etc were the result. Don't forget, we supported militants in Afghanistan, Africa, Iraq and so on when we thought it suited us to do so. And then the hand that did the feeding got bitten.
It is a FACT that the US, in conducting its international policy, is primarily looking out for US interests (and you can't blame them for that, of course), but it is the fact that they are perceived to ride roughshod over any other nation that gets in their way because they have the military and financial muscle to do so that is the cause of a lot of anger.
I don't doubt that much of that anger is misplaced, and used by groups such as the aforementioned to channel public support, but once the fire has been started it requires a lot of effort to put it out and only a single spark to keep it going. Unfortunately we seem altogether better at providing sparks than wet blankets.

nemaroller

Feb 19th, 2009, 11:32 AM

but the article clearly wishes to justify halting release of people from Guantanamo, a view you appear to support and with which I disagree.

You are talking about the international version of the New York Times, a heavy left-leaning newsprint. Therefore, if they are justifying the halting the release of people from Gitmo - because Obama has - they now realize there probably was a darn good reason why Bush ignored international pleas to do otherwise.

I actually do disagree with your assertion that there are "masses of people who would kill you for your land.." etc. I think that there are comparatively few of them, but I suspect that a number of those who would are in or near control in many countries around the world, yours and mine included.

The US hasn't forcefully colonized any country. Great Britian and France were only colonial powers for a mere 300 years, and that was mostly the result of greeds of Kings

Plenty. The developed nations (particularly the Big Five) have been using the rest of the world as their battleground for years, and its about time it stopped. We intervened in the Middle East, supporting dictators or supplanting them...
Please. I've been hearing that sorry argument since elementary school. Saddam Hussein wasn't an American, a Dutchmen, a Frenchman, or a Britian.
Fact is people in the Middle East and inner Asia were killing each other for centuries because they were mostly nomadic warring tribes.

Just because Shell Oil or the Royal Tea company decides to extract some resources that the nomads don't use, doesn't make us the reason for centuries of ill-will. That just makes us a convenient excuse for a certain faction of Middle East society to control and kill others in that society. At most we may be enablers.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 19th, 2009, 01:22 PM

The US hasn't forcefully colonized any country. Great Britian and France were only colonial powers for a mere 300 years, and that was mostly the result of greeds of Kings

Except for this one, of course. Tribal relations are a major issue in my job.

Please. I've been hearing that sorry argument since elementary school. Saddam Hussein wasn't an American, a Dutchmen, a Frenchman, or a Britian.
Fact is people in the Middle East and inner Asia were killing each other for centuries because they were mostly nomadic warring tribes.

Not nomadic, but certainly warring, and often tribal in appearance (though rarely tribal in fact). I would say that they fought largely because of the value of the strategic location of the land. Now the land is not so strategic, but there are cultures there that have very long memories.

Just because Shell Oil or the Royal Tea company decides to extract some resources that the nomads don't use, doesn't make us the reason for centuries of ill-will. That just makes us a convenient excuse for a certain faction of Middle East society to control and kill others in that society. At most we may be enablers.

Mostly, I agree with that, with one exception. America is the land of new beginnings. As a culture, we don't expect to be held accountable for actions taken a few decades ago. We believe that times change. That view isn't shared by all cultures. The Islamic faith is still actively fighting over the succession of their founding prophet (Sunni vs Shiite), a battle that is not exactly novel to Islam, since Catholicism and Christianity have fought the same battles (Quakers and Catholics were executed in Massachusettes in the first few decades of the US). For a culture where it is possible to make a reference to a quote that is 800 years old with the full expectation that your audience will understand the reference, actions we took as recently as the 70's and 80's are current events. It would be simply boorish to assume that a culture that differs from ours in this way has to live by the rules that we live by simply because our arguments make no sense otherwise.

Lord Orwell

Feb 19th, 2009, 06:34 PM

Sorry Nemaroller, I posted at the same time you did. My reply was to Demotivator, not you.

[QUOTE=nemaroller]Please give examples? Many of the released were actually found fighting against US troops - but have been returned to their home countries. If a group of US soldiers took the hostages in a battle, are they not combatants? [Quote]

I would say that enemy combatants taken on the battlefield are POWs, which can legally be held wherever for the duration of hostilities. If they were returned prior to the cessation of hostilities...well, what can you say?

if they are taken as Prisoners of War, then they are protected by the Geneva Convention. Just the fact they were being tortured shows they weren't POWs. If you're captured and taked to foreign soil to rot in jail, what are your chances of getting your case heard? GitMo was a power trip for the people there. They treated the prisoners as non-human and humiliated them and even practiced some forms of torture to get them to confess. No pain, but that's not the only way a person can be tortured. Chinese Water ring a bell? Among other things, sleep deprivation and starvation were practiced.

In the United States, "innocent until proven guilty" sounds good, and it's harped on constantly, but how many people get arrested if they are innocent? It's got NO basis in fact. It only applies to the trial itself where if you have any doubt of guilt, you should find them innocent. But in reality this rarely happens either. I was personally arrested for trespassing when i was poor, and since i was unable to afford the bond ($10,000 for trespassing!) i sat in jail for 5 months, during which i was assaulted by a guy who was denied his schitzophrenia medicine and had my nose and eye socket broken. I have permanent eye mobility damage. When inquiring about suing, my lawyer told me "No jury is going to find the city liable simply because you were in jail. they will assume you probably had it coming." And this was the least of my problems. I ended up serving six months in jail that i wasn't even sentenced to thanks to an error the court reporter typed into the record. I was to be sentenced to time served but she doubled it.
It's the same in Gitmo. No one will ever be compensated in any way for unjust incarceration. And no one in the US cares because of presidential brain-washing.

FunkyDexter

Feb 20th, 2009, 02:31 AM

Great Britian and France were only colonial powers for a mere 300 years, and that was mostly the result of greeds of Kings Just a point of order and not really relevant to the debate (but I never miss a chance to correct peoples historical knowledge :rolleyes: ). The expansion of the Biritish Empire was driven by parliaments. About the only significant part that came about under a directly ruling monarchy was the initial colonisation of the America's. The colonisation of Africa and India as well as the continued expansion of the America's were all carried out under monarchies but at a time when the parliament had legislative power and the monarh had already been reduced to little more than a figurehead. Indeed, the American revolution was sparked by taxes imposed, not by a monarch, but by a parliament. A fact that you colonials often forget when making the dubious claim that you're the oldest democracy on the planet. So there.:bigyello:

and since i was unable to afford the bond ($10,000 for trespassing!) i sat in jail for 5 months I was really stunned to read that. Isn't there a limitation on how long you can be held without trial in the US? That's a disgusting way to treat someone. I do know that in the UK, if someone falsely imprisoned and later released they are compensated - but they are charged board and lodgin first.

MaximilianMayrhofer

Feb 20th, 2009, 04:15 AM

You think that is a resonable argument? You're comparing individual acts of people each with different motives against a singular motive that resulted in billions of dollars in damage and 2,000 lifes destroyed. So you also think the holocaust was excusable?

There is no link between what SH posted and the excusability of the holocaust, so stop being a drama queen and reply to what has actually been said.

As for the comparison between the individual acts of people vs singular motive of terrorism, why don't you take a moment to calculate the total cost to taxpayers, and the total loss of human life as a result of 'individual' criminal acts committed by americans. Billions? Try trillions. 2,000? Try 20,000 average per year over the last 60 or so years.

You, like so many people, get so hysterical about terrorism that you fail to apply perspective to the situation. We torture terrorists to extract information that prevents further terrorism. But we don't torture mafia lieutenants to extract information that prevents robbery, assault, revenge killing of entire families, drug trafficking, etc. Defend that.

The slightly disgusting thing about arguments like yours is that I can already guess at your answer. "Because they are american citizens and they have rights, protect the USA, blah blah blah". All a bunch of xenophobic bilge.

Try showing a little bit of competence at cleaning up your own home before you dictate to others how to hold their brooms.

nemaroller

Feb 24th, 2009, 10:56 AM

The slightly disgusting thing about arguments like yours is that I can already guess at your answer. "Because they are american citizens and they have rights, protect the USA, blah blah blah". All a bunch of xenophobic bilge.

Try showing a little bit of competence at cleaning up your own home before you dictate to others how to hold their brooms.

All countries have their own internal domestic issues, that has NOTHING to do with foreign policy against terrorism.

The problem with people like you is you still want to attempt being friends with the person about to lob off your head. Perhaps you need to read up on the atrocities of the Taliban again - unless you promote the abuse of women and children? Or setting children on fire or arming them with explosives like Al Queda in Iraq? Do you promote that behavior as well? There is no room for negotiation with the likes of those. Not in my world.

There is little time for evidence gathering in war time, and it is quite a poposterous notion that all terrorists must be proven guilty as such.

If you were fighting a war, and kept releasing your enemy because of lack of evidence, you would most certainly lose. That sounds like a horrible way to fight any enemy.

You find my argument disgusting because you hate having been proven wrong about Gitmo's detainee's. Because up to this point, it has all been the evils of the Bush administration. Now you have to accept the fact that motives of the administration were valid and were not some evil master plan to spy on all Americans.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 24th, 2009, 11:49 AM

There is little time for evidence gathering in war time, and it is quite a poposterous notion that all terrorists must be proven guilty as such.

If you were fighting a war, and kept releasing your enemy because of lack of evidence, you would most certainly lose. That sounds like a horrible way to fight any enemy.

Evidence? Do you typically collect evidence on POWs? Interestingly, the bit about continually releasing your enemies has considerable historical precedent up into the US Civil War. In the early part of the war, a POW was paroled back home rather than held. They just had to pledge not to take up arms until they had been exchanged, but they weren't held pending that exchange until later in the war. An interesting system.

You find my argument disgusting because you hate having been proven wrong about Gitmo's detainee's. Because up to this point, it has all been the evils of the Bush administration. Now you have to accept the fact that motives of the administration were valid and were not some evil master plan to spy on all Americans.

Many of the detainee's have been released. How many of them were proven to be terrorists after the fact? Your statement sounded more like hyperbole than truth, so I went looking. It appears that the official numbers are:

520 released, 18 participated in subsequent attacks, 43 are suspected to be participants.

Since we don't know the actual number, lets say that not all of the 43 are actually participants, but instead assume that 34 are, with 9 that are misidentified. That would mean 52, or 10% of the released detainees were terrorists prior to capture and retured to terrorism, or became terrorists after release. Is it acceptable to sweep up a group of people and hold them indefinitely if 10% of them are actually guilty or likely to be guilty? In the US, for US citizens, that answer is an unequivocal NO. Our standards for other people is what?

demotivater

Feb 24th, 2009, 02:15 PM

zaza

Feb 24th, 2009, 04:07 PM

That's not the American way.

Lord Orwell

Feb 24th, 2009, 09:28 PM

Not to burst anyone's altruistic love thy neighbor bubble, but the way we treat fellow citizens does not apply to enemy combatants, whether you like it or not. If in some cases innocent people are held, than tough ****. This is an unprecedented war in which many of those captured cannot be released, period. You can read your blogs and moan and groan about the American way all you want. The fact is, that American way that allows you to call for mercy for all of our enemies only exists because we step on toes every now and then.
i am sure all the japanese-descended citizens that were "detained" in concentration camps ON US SOIL during WW2 will strongly agree with you... NOT.

And once again, they aren't combatants. If they were, then Geneva Convention would apply. This is why Bush never pushed the issue to get it declared a war in truth. It's billed as a "police action"

Lord Orwell

Feb 24th, 2009, 09:29 PM

That's not the American way.
is too! (see above)
110,000 nationals AND AMERICAN CITIZENS can't be denied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

MaximilianMayrhofer

Feb 25th, 2009, 12:00 AM

America wouldn't be plagued by terrorists if it didn't spend so much time trying to conquer the world. And no country has the right to set moral standards when they themselves can't abide by them.

FunkyDexter

Feb 25th, 2009, 06:42 AM

the way we treat fellow citizens does not apply to enemy combatants, whether you like it or not. I don't think we're really debating whether or not it does apply. America has demonstrated quite amply in the last few years that it doesn't. We're debating whether it should apply.

If you're arguing that it shouldn't you'r basically saying that America (and by implication every other nation) has the right to do what it wants with no reference to international law as long as some other nation doesn't stop them. That's 'Might Makes Right', a concept of justice that Europe (from where your founding fathers came) abandoned somewhere over a thousand years ago. I would argue that, while Guantanamo Bay and activities like extraordinary rendition may not be against the letter of America's law, they are most certainly against the spirits of the tenets of justice and equality that your nation was founded upon.

Xanith

Feb 25th, 2009, 07:49 AM

I don't think we're really debating whether or not it does apply. America has demonstrated quite amply in the last few years that it doesn't. We're debating whether it should apply.

If you're arguing that it shouldn't you'r basically saying that America (and by implication every other nation) has the right to do what it wants with no reference to international law as long as some other nation doesn't stop them. That's 'Might Makes Right', a concept of justice that Europe (from where your founding fathers came) abandoned somewhere over a thousand years ago. I would argue that, while Guantanamo Bay and activities like extraordinary rendition may not be against the letter of America's law, they are most certainly against the spirits of the tenets of justice and equality that your nation was founded upon.

A recent independent study found that the prisoners being held at Gitmo are being cared for under the Geneva Conventions. For me the question isn’t whether or not the detainees are being treated humanely, I believe they are. The question is does the US have a right to hold people (who they know are just going to attack the US if they are let go) for long periods of time.

I would have to argue that it was Al Qaeda that has set the terms of this war, not the US. It is Al Qaeda that has declared a perpetual jihad against the US and the West. Therefore there is no traditional “end” to this conflict, so in my opinion it can easily be argued that the US should be allowed to hold prisoners as long as the conflict is ongoing (that is what is traditionally done). If that is forever then that is not of the US’s doing.

X

si_the_geek

Feb 25th, 2009, 08:06 AM

The question is does the US have a right to hold people (who they know are just going to attack the US if they are let go) for long periods of time.If the part in brackets were true, that would be a reasonable point to argue.

However, the part in brackets is not actually the case - it is just an assumption of what might possibly happen.

Is it right to lock ordinary people up because somebody in a position of authority thinks they might commit a crime (such as burglary or assault, or even murder) at some point in the future?

If it is, would it be OK to hold them for years before granting them a trial?

If you think either of those are not OK, why is it suddenly OK to do the same thing if you accuse them of being "enemy combatants" in the name of fighting terrorism?

MaximilianMayrhofer

Feb 25th, 2009, 08:18 AM

The question is does the US have a right to hold people (who they know are just going to attack the US if they are let go) for long periods of time.

Do they know this? Really? Did you ever watch the movie Minority Report? The concept of futurecrime, which is what you are invoking, is incredibly dangerous. In a purely philosophical sense, there is no such thing as future crime. There is only present crime, and past crime. There is no standard by which we can make reliable predictions of the future, and therefore no moral justification for acting on these predictions.

Xanith

Feb 25th, 2009, 09:06 AM

I think what both of you are missing is we are not dealing with crime and criminals. These are people that have been picked up on the battlefield actively attacking the US. You cannot treat such people as criminals.

According to the Geneva Conventions such people not wearing uniforms are allowed to be executed. I can see why the US doesn’t follow the Geneva Conventions in this case. This is why such people are being held at Gitmo.

Like I have stated before it is not the US that has declared a perpetual Jihad, therefore I cannot fault the US for wanting to keep Americans safe by holding such people for long periods of time. Since this is something new I think the US is still trying to figure out how to handle it. Bush had attempted to hold trials for these individuals but that has been put on hold by the Obama administation.

X

si_the_geek

Feb 25th, 2009, 09:21 AM

I think what both of you are missing is we are not dealing with crime and criminals. These are people that have been picked up on the battlefield actively attacking the US. You cannot treat such people as criminals.I don't follow it in detail myself, but have seen a huge amount of claims (including from US news sources) that the majority of people held were not "actively attacking", but merely showed signs of potential intent.

I know that is has been claimed to be a "war", but like most people I don't see it that way - it is a series of unrelated terrorist attacks, which are intentionally grouped together under the heading "war on terror" in order to ignore normal procedure.

If the attacks were actually happening (whether damage had been done, or were actually in progress), and were all coming from the same organisation, it would arguably be apt to call it a war.

From what I have seen, the 'attacks' were not in progress, and were not even by members of the same organisation.
Bush had attempted to hold trials for these individualsI've seen him claim that was his intention, but have also seen a huge amount of evidence to the contrary.

homer13j

Feb 25th, 2009, 09:33 AM

America wouldn't be plagued by terrorists if it didn't spend so much time trying to conquer the world.

Ah, yes... The old "terrorism is all America's fault" argument... Right on cue.

Because everyone knows that before Iraq all of Islam just LOVED America and everything was sunshine and puppy dogs. ;)

si_the_geek

Feb 25th, 2009, 09:37 AM

I must have been misinformed, I was under the impression that Iraq wasn't the first kind of activity of that nature. ;)

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 25th, 2009, 09:55 AM

Ah, yes... The old "terrorism is all America's fault" argument... Right on cue.

An element of it has to be, as terrorism is not evenly distributed around the globe nor within any strata. There is a reason why it is more prevalent against America (heck, we seem to have more domestic terrorists than any other industrialized nation), but what that reason is is not so clear. What it is NOT is slightly more clear, such as it is not because the terrorists "hate freedom", since terrorism is not spread throughout that strata, either.

Because everyone knows that before Iraq all of Islam just LOVED America and everything was sunshine and puppy dogs. ;)

True, but the reason WHY they didn't suggests that current actions are counterproductive if we want to put an end to terrorism.

NeedSomeAnswers

Feb 25th, 2009, 11:14 AM

Because everyone knows that before Iraq all of Islam just LOVED America and everything was sunshine and puppy dogs.

This is a bit of a naive statement,

- 2 Iraq Wars
- The fact America is the main Backer of Israel (both Financially & Politically)

Are the most recent reasons why America isn't seen in a particularly good light in the East.

There are of course other historical reasons, but my point is there are reasons, Terrorists don't just Pick on America because they can, they target America because of there foreign policies towards the East & Eastern countries, policies that in the Bush era in particular became very Hawkish !

It no coincidence that one of the period of biggest turmoil in politics between east and west has coincided with the Bush presidency.

We are no angels in England either, and i think Blair has a lot to answer for in hardening opinion against us in the East, and making the UK a target for attacks.

Now i am far from Anti America, i rather like America, let me clear this up now this is not a rant about America being the Big Baddy, i am just trying to say that America's foreign policies decisions have had a direct effect in the mobilisation of terrorists against it.

Killing or Going to war with Terror or countries who you believe harbour terrorists will not stop terrorism, it will only magnify it.

Fortunately you now appear to have a president that appears to be rather more diplomatic than the last one and looks like they will be less eager to go to war to ensure that they win a second term in office.

nemaroller

Feb 25th, 2009, 03:32 PM

Shaggy, are you attempting to claim 54 combatants held at Gitmo actually were guilty, but the rest were innocent? I would love to know your source.

We both know that the remaining 490 some prisoners were NOT innocent bystanders caught up in a big net. How about that innocent Australian Hicks, who admitted to fighting against Western armies?

He got to go home and spend 1 year in jail. How nice. I wonder how many of our friends he killed in Afghanistan - does he even feel remorse for their children who won't see their father. How many women and children did he set afire in Afghanistan? Do you know? Have you sat down with a warm cup of tea and asked him?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-03-30-guantanamo-hicks_N.htm

Do you want to keep playing devil's advocate?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-12-19-803684382_x.htm

You see, I don't really care to hear any more aloof theories on definitions or categorizations of war or imprisonment, and I certainly don't care about Maximilian's outlandish childhood conspiracy theories about the State, or his use of theory from a Hollywood film written by Hollywood writers.

Everyone else wants to simply ignore any news that confirms how guilty and dangerous the detainees were, and rebut with silly arguments about international conventions.

There comes a point where inaction from sitting around arguing places you into harms way. As a country, we invaded Afghanistan in no time. An action even Obama agreed with. He has the executive capability to let those people go NOW. But he won't. Why? Because now he is privy to the intelligence.
I wish perhaps the rest of you could understand that.

nemaroller

Feb 25th, 2009, 03:38 PM

This is a bit of a naive statement,

- The fact America is the main Backer of Israel (both Financially & Politically)

That is by far the biggest reason America was thought of poorly in the Muslim world. Well tough cookies, because we inherited that debt from WWII.

You mentioned other minor reasons (no Muslim REALLY cared if Saddam was forcefully removed from power - certainly not the leaders in Iran.)

Other minors reasons that fuel the fire : the ability of women to vote, to divorce their husbands, and the liberals in our country who produce much of the Hollywood media Muslim extremists find despicable. Which is funny, because it is the liberals who think the extremists can be understood.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 25th, 2009, 05:16 PM

Shaggy, are you attempting to claim 54 combatants held at Gitmo actually were guilty, but the rest were innocent? I would love to know your source.

We both know that the remaining 490 some prisoners were NOT innocent bystanders caught up in a big net. How about that innocent Australian Hicks, who admitted to fighting against Western armies?

I'd have to find it again, but it was a cnn article from Google when I searched on something like "gitmo detainees"

The numbers were the number released from Gitmo to date, along with the...well heck, I spelled it out in the earlier post. I certainly was NOT claiming that "54 combatants held at Gitmo actually were guilty". The numbers were the numbers released, and the numbers that subsequently were involved with attacks, or were suspected of having been involved with attacks.

Therefore:

1) The 52 (I assume 54 was a typo) came from those released, not those held.
2) I didn't use the term combatants, because that's clearly prejudicial in the strict definition of the term (pre-judged), and assumes that all detainees were combatants, which is false.
3) I didn't say anything about guilt. What put them at Gitmo I had no information on. I assume they were released because there wasn't any evidence against them, so perhaps they had done nothing wrong when arrested.
4) Only 18 of the 52 were known to have engaged in attacks, the rest are only suspected.
5) The suspected number is 9 higher than what I reported for the reasons I stated in the original post.
6) The information that "we both know" is not the set that you suggest it is.
7) I have no idea whether Hicks fits into any of those numbers.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 25th, 2009, 05:22 PM

That is by far the biggest reason America was thought of poorly in the Muslim world. Well tough cookies, because we inherited that debt from WWII.

That IS the biggest reason, but I don't think we should reach back to WWII, but to Nasser and the run-up to the six day war. Up until that time, America really wasn't demonized.

You mentioned other minor reasons (no Muslim REALLY cared if Saddam was forcefully removed from power - certainly not the leaders in Iran.)

That's a bizarre statement. The Shiite leaders of Iran didn't care if the Sunni Saddam was removed from power? The Sunni Saudi Arabia didn't care whether their neighbor who shares a huge border with them changed to a Shiite dominated country? The Sunni minority in Iraq didn't care if the government switched to Shiite, especially after all the abuse that had been heaped on the Shiite population under Saddam?

I think it's safe to say that all of those parties cared a GREAT deal, though in different directions.

Other minors reasons that fuel the fire : the ability of women to vote, to divorce their husbands, and the liberals in our country who produce much of the Hollywood media Muslim extremists find despicable. Which is funny, because it is the liberals who think the extremists can be understood.

Considering the previous statement that I quoted, I can understand why you find extremists impossible to understand;)

Lord Orwell

Feb 25th, 2009, 08:24 PM

I must have been misinformed, I was under the impression that Iraq wasn't the first kind of activity of that nature. ;)
we also mustn't forget that we were instrumental in the arming of Iraq in the first place. Not only did we support Iraq in the iran/iraq war, but we supported their use of WMDs during that war.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040112/scheer1230

Yes it's true, USA is evil, but more importantly, it's Hypocritical as well.

MaximilianMayrhofer

Feb 25th, 2009, 08:46 PM

He got to go home and spend 1 year in jail. How nice. I wonder how many of our friends he killed in Afghanistan - does he even feel remorse for their children who won't see their father.

I wonder how many Afghanis were killed by american soldiers - do they even feel remorse for the children who won't see their fathers? Do you? They got to go home and not spend any time in jail. But that's ok, right?

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 25th, 2009, 10:01 PM

How many women and children did he set afire in Afghanistan? Do you know? Have you sat down with a warm cup of tea and asked him?

Gee, I haven't sat down and talked with him, nor am I likely to. I'm sure glad you have. How about sharing the story with us.

You see, I don't really care to hear any more aloof theories on definitions or categorizations of war or imprisonment, and I certainly don't care about Maximilian's outlandish childhood conspiracy theories about the State, or his use of theory from a Hollywood film written by Hollywood writers.

Yes, I certainly do see that, but I'll still try to wake you up.

Everyone else wants to simply ignore any news that confirms how guilty and dangerous the detainees were, and rebut with silly arguments about international conventions.

Some of them are. Your own citations show that some of them are not, and our own statistics show that MANY of them are not. You live in a country that errs on the side of not imprisoning an innocent person at the cost that some guilty parties go free. What terrible fear drives you that you would abandon those principles?

There comes a point where inaction from sitting around arguing places you into harms way.

Great, why don't you move somewhere totalitarian where you can be arrested arbitrarily. They'll pick up a bunch of innocent people, but if they try hard enough they'll get ALL of the guilty along with them. The country you live in forbids that behavior...except that it was willing to do so for anybody other than Americans, but no other country is allowed that right unless they are our ally. You have no problem with this?

He has the executive capability to let those people go NOW. But he won't. Why? Because now he is privy to the intelligence.
I wish perhaps the rest of you could understand that.

He stated that he would institute a review of all the cases. There has to be thousands of documents on each detainee at this point, and some of them really are bad. In fact, according to the jelly bean theory, the majority may be. Would you have been cheering if he had simply released them all? You throw stones because he is acting methodically, would you have thrown fewer stones had he acted hastily? I frankly doubt it.

So one person was released in the first month of his presidency, and a bunch of Chinese could be released if they could safely go anywhere. Others are headed to trial. It's a start. More would be headed to trial, and headed there faster if the whole situation had been handled better from the start, but that's water under the bridge now.

NeedSomeAnswers

Feb 26th, 2009, 04:49 AM

It doesn't really matter that these prisoners in Gitmo where guilty or not, what matters is that if America wants to be a World Leader and wants to have continued influence on World Ideology it needs to show that it is Better then those that it fights against !!

Everyone else wants to simply ignore any news that confirms how guilty and dangerous the detainees were, and rebut with silly arguments about international conventions.

Saying the Guys are Terrorists so it is ok to use Torture, and keep them without Trial, kind of lessons America's ability to go say to China (for instance), Hey Clean up your Human Rights record, as you get the response that Well how the hell can you talk to us about Human Rights put your own house in order First !!

Also Extremists don't just come out of nowhere, they are a reaction, and reactionary.

Gitmo has probably been more Harmful a tool in Recruiting Terrorist to the Cause against America then any other thing.

War breeds War & Hate Breeds Hate, now this doesn't mean that suddenly America should never go to War and every purported Terrorist should be treated like royalty, but actually trying to understand these countries & Cultures and build dialog with them is surely better then a never ending "War Against Terror" that cannot ever be Won !

Use the Threat of War and military consequences as a Last Resort not the First is Surely a better way of doing things.

The Way the World is going with China now the Worlds 3rd Biggest Economy, And India rapidly rising into the Top Ten, the Political landscape and the balance of power is going to change, and America needs to get used to a World where it will soon now longer be the only World Super Power.

Waging Wars against insubstantial things is something that no country has ever Succeeded at, i have heard successive governments in my Country talk about the War against Crime, or the War Against Drugs, and Yet there is probably more Crime & Drugs than ever before.

It the Same for Terrorist, proclaiming a War against an Intangible thing like Terror hasn't snuffed it out, if anything it has given it more Publicity and acted as a greater recruiting device than anything else. There are somethings that you just cant Blow Up !!!

nemaroller

Feb 26th, 2009, 08:51 AM

Gee, I haven't sat down and talked with him, nor am I likely to. I'm sure glad you have. How about sharing the story with us.
I'd say my fear of terrorist attacks may be JUST as rational as YOUR fears of the American government rounding up innocent civilians and torturing them without trial. In either case, our odds are very minimal and remote correct? Neither is very likely to happen again, and those that worry about it are irrational nut cases.

And just so you know, none of the articles I linked to suggested most of the detainees were innocent bystanders.

nemaroller

Feb 26th, 2009, 09:03 AM

It doesn't really matter that these prisoners in Gitmo where guilty or not

I think it matters quite a bit actually. If they WEREN'T guilty, I would understand the fuss about keeping them indefinitely. The fact is most ARE guilty.

The argument being raised here is that it IS NOT acceptable because even 1 innocent person may have been locked up there, therefore we must unleash the pack of lions - knowing full well the rest in the pack will return to their previous behavior - but this makes us a better people.

I disagree with that. How we treat others who peacefully reside amongst us is far different than how we treat people who specifically subscribe to an ideology that wants to kill us. To mix up the two would make us a very stupid society. To release self-admitted enemies to save the one young confused kid from Australia would be just as stupid.

MaximilianMayrhofer

Feb 26th, 2009, 09:14 AM

- knowing full well the rest in the pack will return to their previous behavior.

There you go again, predicting the future. Why not predict me a lottery ticket, since you seem to have exclusive access to future events.

You see, I don't really care to hear any more aloof theories on definitions or categorizations of war or imprisonment, and I certainly don't care about Maximilian's outlandish childhood conspiracy theories about the State, or his use of theory from a Hollywood film written by Hollywood writers.

Of course you wouldn't care to hear these theories. They disagree with your own point of view. And with this attitude you then have the gall to call me childish. What outlandish childhood conspiracy theories have I proposed about the State, please elaborate. And dismissing what I said about Minority Report as hollywood pap just shows that you didn't, or wouldn't, understand the real point I was making.

The only thing here that is childish is your method of rhetoric.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 26th, 2009, 09:32 AM

I'd say my fear of terrorist attacks may be JUST as rational as YOUR fears of the American government rounding up innocent civilians and torturing them without trial. In either case, our odds are very minimal and remote correct? Neither is very likely to happen again, and those that worry about it are irrational nut cases.

Agreed. Mostly, though we all need to actually worry at least a little bit about both.... Damn, myspacebar is failing as I type this.

And just so you know, none of the articles I linked to suggested most of the detainees were innocent bystanders.

I read the articles. They didn't speak to the issue one way or the other, so I certainly can't disagree with your statement. One was about Hicks, and was vauge to his history, while the other was about a bunch of French detainees, one of whom was released without charges, and the others had some pretty strange charges. There was no suggestion that any of the people charged had any intention of fighting against this country. The article made it sound like they were overly romantic foot-soldiers for the Taliban. Prior to 911, the Taliban was not an enemy of the US and fighting for them would have meant fighting against Massoud or one of the other warlords in the region, which wouldn't be a crime under our laws. I assume there was more, since France did charge them, but the article was silent on the subject.

si_the_geek

Feb 26th, 2009, 10:10 AM

If they WEREN'T guilty, I would understand the fuss about keeping them indefinitely. The fact is most ARE guilty.Several of us have pointed out that to determine guilt, you need a trial - which is not happening.

Do you really think it is OK to hold someone indefinitely without trial?

demotivater

Feb 26th, 2009, 11:19 AM

This thread is obviously going nowhere. To many heads in the sand refusing to look at reality. But, just to add to the spiraling decay - once again I find it more than amusing watching a bunch of Brits ripping on the USA for human rights abuses and meddling in other countries. Laughable, at best. Britains brilliant global actions are what put half the **** pot countries in the world into the **** pot they're in. Here we are reaping the benefits of British meddling last century and before and we're getting a rash from Brits about it. Tut tut.

si_the_geek

Feb 26th, 2009, 11:43 AM

Do those accusations mean you've got no valid answers to the reasonable questions that people have posted? :confused:

I'm a Brit, but many of the people who disagree with you are not - including US citizens.

I also haven't said anything to support the actions of my country from hundreds of years ago - and back then the world was an entirely different place (no Geneva Convention [or a different one in the later years], etc), so different arguments would apply.

Pointing out that another country has done something wrong at some point in the past (especially when it was many years ago) does not mean that it is OK for you to ignore what your country is doing now - don't accuse us of refusing to look at reality, when it is you who is doing that.

demotivater

Feb 26th, 2009, 01:52 PM

What another country has done in the past is the root cause of many of today's problems, so that is more than relevant, thanks.

This post has cited movie's, WWII, as well as ancient history and throw in some just plain made up stuff. So, bringing up your countries transgressions that reached into the latter half of the 20th century - and continue today - is certainly reasonable. Perhaps throwing stones isn't a good idea inside a glass house, unless of course you are the one ignoring what your country has and is doing. Easy to dish it out, harder to take, eh?

Exactly what reasonable question has been posed?

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 26th, 2009, 02:19 PM

What another country has done in the past is the root cause of many of today's problems, so that is more than relevant, thanks.

True

This post has cited movie's, WWII, as well as ancient history and throw in some just plain made up stuff.

I assume you meant the thread, but I can't quite place the references. The only movie I remember being cited was Minority Report, but that wasn't a reference to a movie but a concept that happened to form the central plot line of a movie, so perhaps that's not what you were refering to. WWII: Was that the bit about whether Islamic antagonism towards the US arose from WWII? What's the bit about ancient history a reference to? What was made up?

So, bringing up your countries transgressions that reached into the latter half of the 20th century - and continue today - is certainly reasonable.

Well...yes. I feel that the abuses of the past certainly impact the present situation, but I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that Britain has had some transgressions in the past and therefore has no right to critisize American transgressions? That leads to two points: 1) It tacitly acknowledges that there is something worthy of criticism, and 2) It endorses the doctrine that America has no right to object to anybody else's abuses because we have done them, as well.

Perhaps throwing stones isn't a good idea inside a glass house, unless of course you are the one ignoring what your country has and is doing.

Which is why we should be objecting to what our country has and is doing, because we want to be able to throw stones at other malefactors.

Easy to dish it out, harder to take, eh?

We'll see.

System_Error

Feb 26th, 2009, 02:46 PM

I have no doubt that the majority held are guilty, but to what degree they are guilty and how dangerous they really are, I don't know. The size and nature of why they are being held could vary widely and here are a few scenarios I can think of:

- They truly are too dangerous for any society.
- They had no choice in committing the crime (ie. their family was threatened).
- They did something that puts them between two extremes.
- They are innocent and the victim of a terrible situation.

Gitmo was obviously designed for the first scenario, but as Shag said, when you cast a net your catch can vary. So at this point we are holding a bunch of people that could fall under any of those categories and we don't know what do with them - that's why they are being held indefinitely. It's simply a difficult and crappy situation in every way. Obama even seems to be more dismal about Gitmo now. He's received intelligence and information that shows how truly difficult the situation is, and he doesn't have a clear cut plan on what to do. Yes, something will happen eventually, but at the moment, we simply don't know what to do with these guys. I know some of you liberals think ohh we can just release them now and be done with it in a week, but it's simply not that easy.

So i have a few questions:
-What would you do about Gitmo? (don't just say close it, i'm interested in the details on how you would do it and what you would do with the people)

Also, I was wondering if someone knows what happened to people who were captured in previous wars, say WWII?

si_the_geek

Feb 26th, 2009, 02:49 PM

What another country has done in the past is the root cause of many of today's problems, so that is more than relevant, thanksWhen the actions of the other country were nearly 100 years ago, it is hard to believe that they are the root cause, or even the basis of a large percentage of the current issues - but I wouldn't be shocked if there was a minor impact on the current events.
So, bringing up your countries transgressions that reached into the latter half of the 20th century - and continue today - is certainly reasonable.I'm not aware of recent transgressions (other than those instigated by the US), but feel free to create a new thread on the topic where we can discuss it - if it is actually true, I'd like to know about it (and I am not somebody who blindly supports my country - I openly said during the latest Iraq war that I thought it was wrong on various levels).
Perhaps throwing stones isn't a good idea inside a glass house, unless of course you are the one ignoring what your country has and is doingI haven't even implied that I support what my country did (and I basically don't), I just said that different arguments apply - i.e.: it is worth discussing, but not as a way of derailing this thread.
Easy to dish it out, harder to take, eh?I don't know about you, but I am capable of admitting my country (like most/all) has done bad things.

I don't blindly support whatever politicians of the age (whether that is 200 years ago or today) thought was the best thing to do - I think about things rationally, an form an opinion based on that.
Exactly what reasonable question has been posed?
Well for starters, this just before you diverted attention:
Do you really think it is OK to hold someone indefinitely without trial?

si_the_geek

Feb 26th, 2009, 02:56 PM

I know some of you liberals think ohh we can just release them now and be done with it in a week, but it's simply not that easy.I don't think anybody has even implied that. :confused:
So i have a few questions:
-What would you do about Gitmo? (don't just say close it, i'm interested in the details on how you would do it and what you would do with the people)Give them a trial to find out if they actually are guilty - I know it isn't quite as easy as national criminal law, but surely most of them should have had trials long before now?
Also, I was wondering if someone knows what happened to people who were captured in previous wars, say WWII?Like many people in the world, I'm still confused at how this is a war (giving it a title of "war on terror" doesn't make it a war), and how it was relevant to detain all of these people in the first place:
If the attacks were actually happening (whether damage had been done, or were actually in progress), and were all coming from the same organisation, it would arguably be apt to call it a war.

From what I have seen, the 'attacks' were not in progress, and were not even by members of the same organisation.

nemaroller

Feb 26th, 2009, 03:24 PM

There you go again, predicting the future. Why not predict me a lottery ticket, since you seem to have exclusive access to future events.

I showed you two separate articles on two previously-held detainees who returned to terrorist activities against the U.S when they were released.

If that's predicting the future in your mind, then sure, I'll happily recite the winning lottery numbers from last night's drawing.

Of course you wouldn't care to hear these theories. They disagree with your own point of view. And with this attitude you then have the gall to call me childish. The only thing here that is childish is your method of rhetoric.

No, I've already heard these conjectures many times before, yet you continue to regurgitate them as if you brought some new evidence to the argument. You haven't therefore if anything here is childish it is your lack of motivation to remove your bias from the opposing argument. You dismiss the reports of detainees returned to terrorist activities as incidental.

Just so you know, I voted against Bush solidly. You can search these very forums for my lashings against Bush and his administration.
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=289371&page=3&highlight=bush

The difference I can now re-evaluate some of the things he did, and I am fair enough to admit when I was wrong. Have you even really made an attempt at that journey?

si_the_geek

Feb 26th, 2009, 03:42 PM

nemaroller

Feb 26th, 2009, 03:52 PM

You claimed that "all will" based on "two have".

While it is more likely than the lottery, it is clearly a prediction.

"Two" who have been found to have successfully regrouped and return to terrorism and successfully commit SIGNIFICANT acts - and the government intelligence agencies released such reports to the media as an example.

How many are being followed and being watched closely? How many attempts were thwarted without intervention due to ex-detainee's lack of resources or freedom (being held in their home country like many Saudi's)?

I never claimed 'all will', I am stating that people want to believe multitudes of persons at Gitmo are innocent or 'not that bad', and can't wake up to the fact there are valid reasons why even Obama has not yet released them.

si_the_geek

Feb 26th, 2009, 04:11 PM

How many are being followed and being watched closely? How many attempts were thwarted without intervention due to ex-detainee's lack of resources or freedom (being held in their home country like many Saudi's)?I suspect all have been monitored carefully, except where there are political reasons that stop it (most of which could be negotiated, eg: "we'll let him back into your country if we can send someone to watch him").

How many didn't do anything simply because they never intended to anyway?
I never claimed 'all will', That is what this implies:knowing full well the rest in the pack will return to their previous behavior
I am stating that people want to believe multitudes of persons at Gitmo are innocent or 'not that bad', and can't wake up to the fact there are valid reasons why even Obama has not yet released them.That kind of accusation keeps coming up, but I'm not sure why.

I for one have certainly never claimed they were innocent - only that they should be given trial, and at least some of them should probably not have been there in the first place (as they were not part of the "war").

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 26th, 2009, 05:31 PM

So i have a few questions:
-What would you do about Gitmo? (don't just say close it, i'm interested in the details on how you would do it and what you would do with the people)

I think I'd have to do what Obama is doing: Appoint a team to review each case individually. We may not be able to bring anybody to trial if they were tortured, as there may not be enough untainted evidence, but that sure wouldn't be an easy thing to figure out. Those that can be brought to trial should be, and as quickly as possible. Those that are hopeless will have to be released. Sucks, doesn't it? The police get to deal with that all the time. People walk on serious crimes when procedures are not followed.

Also, I was wondering if someone knows what happened to people who were captured in previous wars, say WWII?

Depends on who did the capturing and who was captured. The soviets killed off nearly everybody they captured, along with a good number of their own POWs that were liberated. The Germans put lots of eastern bloc POWs into slave labor camps and worked many of them to death. They weren't as bad to English and American POWs, in general (though there were some exceptions to that). Another oddity was that both the USSR and Germany made up battalions from POWs, which resulted in the strange incident on D-Day when some German soldiers were captured who spoke only a language that nobody could translate. After considerable searching, it was determined to be Korean. The Japanese had conscripted these guys into their army, then invaded Russia. The Russians had captured the conscripts and moved them to fight the Germans, who captured them and incorporated them into one of their units where they were captured by American forces and repatriated to Korea. They were not the first people to circumnavigate the globe as a result of losing battles, but they took the most steps along the way of anyone I have heard of.

Many German POWs ended up in camps scattered in western America and were treated fairly well. This may have been partly because POW camps in Idaho, Colorado, and so forth made escape hardly worth the effort. Where would you go? And in 1940s America, how would you survive the journey? The west was not very well populated, the distances were enormous, and the climate was less than ideal.

America captured few live Japanese prisoners, and I have never heard of a Japanese POW camp (as opposed to the internment camps), so they may have been held closer to the front.

Earlier wars had even stranger results regarding POWs (though not quite as strange as those Koreans).

One thing about the Korean example is relevant to the current issue. Foot soldiers fight for pay or survival, rather than ideology. The primary success around the surge in Iraq was not the number of troops, but a change in strategy. The same needs to be done in Afghanistan, as well, but as far as the detainees are concerned, one of the key issues will be determining who was working for a belief, and who was working to put food on the table. The latter group shouldn't be released, they should be enlisted. We have a serious lack of intelligence assets in the region. Those people might be bought cheap. A little testing will determine whether they are reliable (with follow-ups, to be safe), then put em to work.

Lord Orwell

Feb 26th, 2009, 05:54 PM

I showed you two separate articles on two previously-held detainees who returned to terrorist activities against the U.S when they were released.

If that's predicting the future in your mind, then sure, I'll happily recite the winning lottery numbers from last night's drawing.

No, I've already heard these conjectures many times before, yet you continue to regurgitate them as if you brought some new evidence to the argument. You haven't therefore if anything here is childish it is your lack of motivation to remove your bias from the opposing argument. You dismiss the reports of detainees returned to terrorist activities as incidental.

Just so you know, I voted against Bush solidly. You can search these very forums for my lashings against Bush and his administration.
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.php?t=289371&page=3&highlight=bush

The difference I can now re-evaluate some of the things he did, and I am fair enough to admit when I was wrong. Have you even really made an attempt at that journey?
i would consider two out of 500 a trivial percentage. And consider this: If you were locked up for up to 8 years for a crime you didn't commit, you might just have your non-evil ways changed by your experiences while locked up. In other words, incarceration just might have made them terrorists.

nemaroller

Feb 26th, 2009, 08:44 PM

i would consider two out of 500 a trivial percentage. And consider this: If you were locked up for up to 8 years for a crime you didn't commit, you might just have your non-evil ways changed by your experiences while locked up. In other words, incarceration just might have made them terrorists.
Lord, you're a little late to the debate. The two referenced were known terrorists to begin with. Regardless, we are talking only of two that as I mentioned to Si, two whom successfully returned to their former support circles and were able to successfully relaunch terrorist attacks.

In any venture, you can guess perhaps 1 in 100 would be successful. Most are still being held captive in their host countries. How many are still in Saudi Arabian Islam rehabilitation camps?

This isn't just two who were found to be in cohorts with terrorists - these are two that actually inflicted further damage with success. So its a very significant percentage!

MaximilianMayrhofer

Feb 26th, 2009, 09:04 PM

No, I've already heard these conjectures many times before, yet you continue to regurgitate them as if you brought some new evidence to the argument. You haven't therefore if anything here is childish it is your lack of motivation to remove your bias from the opposing argument. You dismiss the reports of detainees returned to terrorist activities as incidental.

Just so you know, I voted against Bush solidly. You can search these very forums for my lashings against Bush and his administration.
http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...highlight=bush

The difference I can now re-evaluate some of the things he did, and I am fair enough to admit when I was wrong. Have you even really made an attempt at that journey?

I have no problem admitting I am wrong. I only have a problem with the concepts you argue with!

This isn't just two who were found to be in cohorts with terrorists - these are two that actually inflicted further damage with success. So its a very significant percentage!

What does this actually mean? How can 2% be significant, regardless of what they do? The only thing that I can kind of imagine is that you are taking it from this point of view: 2 out of 100 terrorists that were let go then proceeded to detonate an enormous bomb that killed 2000 people. Therefore, an average of 20 people died for every terrorist that was released.

It's a compelling argument, to be sure, but breaks down very quickly in the face of logical conjecture. For example, if 98 were essentially victims of circumstance and would not have gone back to terrorism, then who they are actually becomes quite irrelevant, and amounts to something like this:

You live in a housing block containing 100 tenants. 2 of those tenants are mass murdering drug dealing child rapists, but the police don't know which two, so they arrest the entire block and keep you and the other tenants without trial for the rest of your lives. According to the above logic, their actions are justified. Would you consider that to be justified?

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 26th, 2009, 09:32 PM

This isn't just two who were found to be in cohorts with terrorists - these are two that actually inflicted further damage with success. So its a very significant percentage!

My earlier numbers, which came from CNN, but are roughly supported by one of your posts, was that only 10% are even suspected. One of your posts also added the fact that such a recidivism rate is far lower than for any American jail, where the average rate is about 67%.

I'm not sure what to make of that comparison, and the article didn't suggest anything. Does it mean that the vast majority of those released were not terrorists to begin with? Does it mean, as you suggest, that they all went straight into some other prison? Does it mean that they moved on with their lives? Does it mean that we just lost track of them?

I guess everybody can read whatever they want into it.

nemaroller

Feb 26th, 2009, 09:36 PM

I have no problem admitting I am wrong. I only have a problem with the concepts you argue with!

It doesn't matter, as Shaggy has often stated before, neither of us care to be persuaded to the other line of thinking.

What does this actually mean? How can 2% be significant, regardless of what they do?...
I think you can understand the difficulty of proving an enemy combatant guilty of being a threat to the State. In a purely militaristic world, the military would argue that these people were found on the battle field fighting against US forces - or were found among those captured at Taliban camps, therefore they are guilty by association. They would simply be immediately found guilty and put to death.

However, the civil court will say simply being in a remote mountainous region of the world amongst known Islamic extremists does not make a person a terrorist. That may be. Perhaps the fellow from Jordan simply really was an electronics supplier that was making a personal shipment to the Taliban, totally unaware of what they may be using detonators for. Or perhaps that poor Saudi really was just a munitions expert looking for work among the local Afghan tribes - without realizing they have no money nor need for a munitions expert. Or what of the Syrian flight instructor wandering aimlessly in the Afghan desert?

Perhaps, just perhaps - they were there because they were actually part of the terrorist supply and training network. But, they don't use credit cards when they travel in Afghanistan, because the local inns don't accept credit cards - much less keep a lodging record. They don't keep personal travel journals either. Surely our troops should have laid down their guns and taken more pictures and taken more fingerprints during their battles in Afghanistan.

So I think you understand that it would be extremely difficult to build the usual case against these people other than it makes little sense for any one of them to be associating and found squatting with Al Queda or Taliban members out in the middle of god forsaken nowhere.

MaximilianMayrhofer

Feb 27th, 2009, 03:41 AM

I'm not entirely sure how you've answered any of my questions with your post. Maybe i'm overlooking something obvious.

Shaggy Hiker

Feb 27th, 2009, 08:38 AM

All I can add is that it's about time we had a rousing debate in World Events. This place was silent as a tomb for too long.

zaza

Feb 28th, 2009, 04:24 AM

So I think you understand that it would be extremely difficult to build the usual case against these people other than it makes little sense for any one of them to be associating and found squatting with Al Queda or Taliban members out in the middle of god forsaken nowhere.

The trouble is that there isn't god-forsaken nowhere any more. People live everywhere. Even where you think they can't possibly live, you'll find people who live there. They are probably poor and don't speak English.

Suspend your disbelief and put yourself into the mind of a poor man scratching around in some remote tiny village in the mountains somewhere. A load of heavily-armed men yelling and screaming in a foreign language burst into his home, point weapons at him, round up his wife and kids. What is the guy to think? You expect him to sit meekly down? If he doesn't obey because he doesn't understand and he gets smacked down with the butt of an M16, he should accept his mistake and apologise? Suppose his brother reaches for his passport and gets shot? Or his kid comes running downstairs to see what the fuss is and gets shot?
Is it even remotely conceivable that he might get mad and lunge at one of the soldiers?

From the perspective of the soldiers, they have had a tip-off that a wanted terrorist is hiding in a village. They storm in to take him by surprise. Tensions are high. In one house, a bearded guy (and they all look the same as each other, particularly in fading light) reaches into his robes. Maybe for a detonator, or a grenade? So what if his family is there, these people are nutters who only exist to kill. Can't take a chance on compromising the mission, after all American lives depend on it. Bang bang.
There's a noise from the stairs. No time to think, turn and shoot. Disaster, it was a kid! But suppose he was a suicide bomber; we know these people do that. Now another of the men jumps me. Smack him with the gun, and let's take him away. It's not for us to judge him innocent or guilty, he'll get a fair trial. All we know is, he attacked and that's good enough.

If you believe that the above scenario is in any way realistic, then you must draw the conclusion that it is possible that innocent people are getting hauled off for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It isn't the fault of the soldiers nor of the civilians, it is simply the usual result of an aggressive encounter between two groups of people who have neither the time, inclination nor ability to communicate.

What happens to them afterwards, though, once the situational tensions are no longer present, is a different story, and those involved are capable of dealing with it in a much more rational manner. unfortunately, those responsible for doing so are overwhelmed by the numbers coming in, underresourced and incapable of handling the situation adequately. They are in an unfamiliar environment where all the people they have to "process" hate them bitterly, probably do not understand them and it is a very frustrating and tense situation. Many will just get thrown in a cell and left until they can be dealt with. Sometimes that's the only way to deal with such large numbers of people; you can't always offer a personal service so you have to just work your way through one at a time. We don't want to treat human beings like this, but we don't have money or staff, and we can't just let them go because if one of them really is a terrorist and he kills some Americans then it's directly on my head. I don't like it, but he'll have to stay in a cell until I can get round to dealing with him. After all, it's the responsibility of the judge at teh trial to determine his innocence or guilt and decide whether or not he poses a threat.

So as a result of the behaviour of a series of different people, each of whom is trying his best in a situation over which he feels he has little control, we end up with Gitmo. Where does it need to be changed? I suspect we all have different takes on that too.