Hypocritical at all?

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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'.

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

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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by System_Error

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

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.

Quote:

---

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]

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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.

Quote:

---

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

[QUOTE=Shaggy Hiker]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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaximilianMayrhofer

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.

That's not the American way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zaza

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/Japanes...can_internment

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

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.

Quote:

---

Bush had attempted to hold trials for these individuals

---

I've seen him claim that was his intention, but have also seen a huge amount of evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaximilianMayrhofer

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. ;)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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/2...mo-hicks_N.htm

Do you want to keep playing devil's advocate?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...03684382_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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

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.