Hypocritical at all?

[Shaggy Hiker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Orwell]

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

we also mustn't forget that we were instrumental in the arming of Iraq in the first place. Not only did we support Iraq in the iran/iraq war, but we supported their use of WMDs during that war.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040112/scheer1230

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

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

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

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

[Shaggy Hiker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NeedSomeAnswers]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[nemaroller]

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

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

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

[nemaroller]

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

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

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

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

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

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

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

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

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

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

[Shaggy Hiker]

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

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

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

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

[si_the_geek]

If they WEREN'T guilty, I would understand the fuss about keeping them indefinitely. The fact is most ARE guilty.

Several of us have pointed out that to determine guilt, you need a trial - which is not happening.

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

[demotivater]

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

[si_the_geek]

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

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

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


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

[demotivater]

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

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

Exactly what reasonable question has been posed?

[Shaggy Hiker]

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

True

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'll see.

[System_Error]

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

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

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


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

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

[si_the_geek]

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

When the actions of the other country were nearly 100 years ago, it is hard to believe that they are the root cause, or even the basis of a large percentage of the current issues - but I wouldn't be shocked if there was a minor impact on the current events.

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

I'm not aware of recent transgressions (other than those instigated by the US), but feel free to create a new thread on the topic where we can discuss it - if it is actually true, I'd like to know about it (and I am not somebody who blindly supports my country - I openly said during the latest Iraq war that I thought it was wrong on various levels).

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

I haven't even implied that I support what my country did (and I basically don't), I just said that different arguments apply - i.e.: it is worth discussing, but not as a way of derailing this thread.

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

I don't know about you, but I am capable of admitting my country (like most/all) has done bad things.

I don't blindly support whatever politicians of the age (whether that is 200 years ago or today) thought was the best thing to do - I think about things rationally, an form an opinion based on that.

Exactly what reasonable question has been posed?

Well for starters, this just before you diverted attention:

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

[si_the_geek]

I know some of you liberals think ohh we can just release them now and be done with it in a week, but it's simply not that easy.

I don't think anybody has even implied that.

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

Give them a trial to find out if they actually are guilty - I know it isn't quite as easy as national criminal law, but surely most of them should have had trials long before now?

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

Like many people in the world, I'm still confused at how this is a war (giving it a title of "war on terror" doesn't make it a war), and how it was relevant to detain all of these people in the first place:

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

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

[nemaroller]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[si_the_geek]

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

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

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

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

[nemaroller]

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

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

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

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

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

[si_the_geek]

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

I suspect all have been monitored carefully, except where there are political reasons that stop it (most of which could be negotiated, eg: "we'll let him back into your country if we can send someone to watch him").

How many didn't do anything simply because they never intended to anyway?

I never claimed 'all will',

That is what this implies:

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

I am stating that people want to believe multitudes of persons at Gitmo are innocent or 'not that bad', and can't wake up to the fact there are valid reasons why even Obama has not yet released them.

That kind of accusation keeps coming up, but I'm not sure why.

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

[Shaggy Hiker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Orwell]

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

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



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

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

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

i would consider two out of 500 a trivial percentage. And consider this: If you were locked up for up to 8 years for a crime you didn't commit, you might just have your non-evil ways changed by your experiences while locked up. In other words, incarceration just might have made them terrorists.

[nemaroller]

i would consider two out of 500 a trivial percentage. And consider this: If you were locked up for up to 8 years for a crime you didn't commit, you might just have your non-evil ways changed by your experiences while locked up. In other words, incarceration just might have made them terrorists.

Lord, you're a little late to the debate. The two referenced were known terrorists to begin with. Regardless, we are talking only of two that as I mentioned to Si, two whom successfully returned to their former support circles and were able to successfully relaunch terrorist attacks.

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

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

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shaggy Hiker]

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

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

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

I guess everybody can read whatever they want into it.

[nemaroller]

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

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

What does this actually mean? How can 2% be significant, regardless of what they do?...

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

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

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

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

[MaximilianMayrhofer]

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

[Shaggy Hiker]

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

[zaza]

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

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

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


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



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


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

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

[zaza]

The other point I would like to make about the above is that I suspect we pretty much all agree that it CAN and DOES happen. The question is, how often. nemaroller, I suspect, thinks it's pretty rare. I, and I imagine many others here, think it forms the majority of cases. But now we're just down to my opinion against yours.
Surely then, the only fair way to deal with it is to attempt to determine the innocence or guilt of those people, who are citizens of another country, as quickly as we possibly can so that we can deal with the next guy.
Instead, all the resources are poured into the weapons and armour and recruitment divisions, into other campaigns in other parts of the globe, and thsi sort of thing is woefully underbudgeted for, as it usually is.