Hypocritical at all?

[SurfDemon]

I'm sorry, but although I do agree 100% with what is being said, am I the only person who thinks that it's hypocritical that the US is chastising other countries for holding prisoners without trial.........

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...ger/index.html

Sorry, but you have lost the moral high ground, this might sound a bit more authoritive coming from another country, like France...

[penagate]

Nothing sounds authoritative coming from France! But I agree.

[Xanith]

I'm sorry, but although I do agree 100% with what is being said, am I the only person who thinks that it's hypocritical that the US is chastising other countries for holding prisoners without trial.........

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...ger/index.html

Sorry, but you have lost the moral high ground, this might sound a bit more authoritive coming from another country, like France...

The US grants all of its citizens the right to a speedy trial as well as other rights as granted by the US Constitution. The US does not hold any of its own citizens without trial for indefinite periods. You must of course be refering to the terrorists held for long periods of time at Gitmo. A lot of these individuals were slated for trial but have since been stopped by the Obama administration.

X

[zaza]

The US grants all of its citizens the right to a speedy trial as well as other rights as granted by the US Constitution. The US does not hold any of its own citizens without trial for indefinite periods. You must of course be refering to the terrorists held for long periods of time at Gitmo. A lot of these individuals were slated for trial but have since been stopped by the Obama administration.

X

I presume you mean "the human beings held for long periods of time at Gitmo".
The reason they were being held for trial, of course, was to determine whether or not they were, in fact, terrorists.
Or are US citizens considered innocent until proven guilty, whereas foreigners are considered guilty until proven innocent? in that case, why bother with a trial at all? Just execute them straight off. Oh wait, that IS what happens when Americans invade other nations...

[SurfDemon]

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.

[homer13j]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/relea...0070717-3.html

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

[joshAU]

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]

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, the New York Times, 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]

It's all about perspective... From my point of view the BBC is every bit as biased and intentionally inaccurate as CBS, the New York Times, 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]

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]

It's all about perspective... From my point of view the BBC is every bit as biased and intentionally inaccurate as CBS, the New York Times, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

There are plenty of things wrong with this rant, not the least of which is that no one was smuggled anywhere. Some of bin-laden's relatives live and prosper in chicago. Being related to someone doesn't make you part of their evil. Plus why would he come over here anyway, when he didn't need to? He has people that do that stuff for him.

You also seem to have forgotten 9/11. If they were buddies, the wtc would still be standing. 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.

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.

[Lord Orwell]

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.

Don't forget there was indentured servitude in the early history of the united states. People willingly sold themselves into a form of slavery in exchange for boat-fare to the US and future citizenship.

[SurfDemon]

It's all about perspective... From my point of view the BBC is every bit as biased and intentionally inaccurate as CBS, the New York Times, etc. So go ahead and call me incredible...

I will take great pleasure in doing so. If your rational is to be believed, you believe nothing that is reported in the press, unless of course it agrees with your world view, then you feel free to present such things as "facts" here. We can't really take anything you say seriously, because by your own admission you don't believe any of it (unless you have witnessed it yourself). Does that pretty much sum things up?

[Shaggy Hiker]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.google.com/search?q=inden...x=&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]

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 . 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...e.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.

[FunkyDexter]

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]

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/...e.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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...est/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.