- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 10,101
- Reaction score
- 2,990
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Sorry, I failed to understand your point. A and B.
How about re read my post ... SLOWLY
It might help in your understanding
Sorry, I failed to understand your point. A and B.
Rights advocates contend that many Guantanamo detainees have never taken up arms against the United States and say the Defense Department in the past has described former detainees as rejoining "the fight" because they spoke out against the U.S. government.
Do you have anything other than your prejudices to support this bet?I'd bet alot he wasn't a terrorist before he entered the prison ...
Quit playing stupid yourself. Just because fuhrer Bush and his minions claim that the people at Gitmo were or are terrorists does not mean they are. In the western world we still try to live after the rule of law, including the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty.
Also it seems to me, that you are willing to give a child rapist, a mass murder and other criminals far more legal rights and access to the legal system, than you are a bunch of men that you have only the word of a fascist Bush administration that they are "dangerous"..
Fact is that out of the 500+ men and boys held at gitmo (yes there have been children held there and still are), a majority, yes a majority have been released, without charge but also labelled as innocent of any "terrorist activities". It is funny how this, to a right winger, who supposedly is the staunch defender of the rule of law and the ideals of the USA, suddenly totally ignores these facts.
Yes there are bad men at Gitmo, but if the US has proof that they are bad.. put them on trial.
If you believe in the principles of the USA, then you should never ever accept that your government hold people of any nationality, in prison without charge, without any legal access or any access at all for long periods of time, and let alone let them be tortured by your own government.
You should be up in arms defending the very principles that your troops, your father, grandfather and others died defending in WW2 and other wars.. and yet you are not only silent, but actually supportive of such fascist acts by your own government.
As for this guy. This happens in a world where we believe in the principle of the rule of law. Murders do get off free because we can not prove they did it. It is the price we have to pay for not having a dictatorship that locks up undesirables in gulags for most of their lives. It is the price of freedom and the difference between us and them..
Yes the US is at war with this mythical no discript thing called terror.. but where is the limit of what terror is and what you can do to not only prevent terror but punish those that are suspected of this terror.
Do you give up the very principles that so cherish because of fear?
This is what the US has done.. today a woman slapping her own children on an air plane can be charged and convicted of terror... is that right?
Is that what the US has come too?
A person robbing a bank.. is he now a terrorist and can be held under terror laws?
A person smuggling drugs.. is she a terrorist and be held under terror laws? Where do you stop?
No. I am merely arguing against political jargon that no longer has any sort of ethical meaning. Our foreign policy uses the term "terrorism" when they really mean "someone who has a different opinion than we do". The term dilutes the fact that our foreign policy is just one view of the world, and it turns them into some sort of machine that kills people because it wants to kill people.
Orwell argued in "Politics and the English language" that one of the biggest problems facing modernity is the usage of words to either intensify or chill the problem for political agenda. Al Quedia calls us Infidels and we call them Terrorists.
Never said there weren't. But there have also been innocent people there, which is exactly why we need a judge to review each case and, you know, actually JUDGE them.
So do you believe that it's OK for the President of the United States to order the indefinite incarceration of anyone, anywhere in the world, with no oversight, simply because he deems them to be a terrorist? If not, what do you suggest?
See how the libs bitch if we follow the Geneva Convention, but then cry like babies when Texas doesn't follow that idiot UN convention through the Hague for some Mexican rapist. They're two-faced about everything. :roll:WTF do you think the military commissions were for? The Combatant Status Review Tribunals?
What world are you living in?
Of course not notwithstanding your hysterical question.
Geneva says that warring nations may detain combatants until the cessation of hostilities and provides for trials after that point.
What it seems you're demanding is that the US act counter to agreements we have signed on to and treat combatants as ordinary civilians despite the history and laws of war never having treated combatants this way and totally ignoring the practical consequences of doing so.
WTF do you think the military commissions were for? The Combatant Status Review Tribunals?
JMak said:What world are you living in?
JMak said:Of course not notwithstanding your hysterical question.
Geneva says that warring nations may detain combatants until the cessation of hostilities and provides for trials after that point.
JMak said:What it seems you're demanding is that the US act counter to agreements we have signed on to and treat combatants as ordinary civilians despite the history and laws of war never having treated combatants this way and totally ignoring the practical consequences of doing so.
Most of the detainees were not entitled to legal counsel, their innocence was not presumed, and there weren't any specific charges to refute.
Please familiarize yourself with Boumediene v. Bush and get back to me then.
The order issued today creates tribunals very much like those cited
favorably by the Court to meet the unique circumstances of the Guantanamo detainees, and will provide an expeditious opportunity for non-citizen detainees to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard. It will not preclude them from seeking additional review in federal court.
Notice. By July 17, each detainee will be notified of the review of his detention as an enemy combatant, of the opportunity to consult with a personal representative, and of the right to seek review in U.S. courts.
It also lays out specific guidelines as to how they can be treated. And surely you would agree that "warring nations" would not include suspected terrorists arrested in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Pakistan, China, and the Gambia?
If they're prisoners of war, then we should declare them as such and give them the rights they are entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. If they aren't prisoners of war, then they should be tried with a crime or released.
No. What you do to eliminate an ideology is you make it irrelevant. Shooting weaponry at a person does not kill the ideology it kills the person. How do you make an ideology irrelevant? Well, you take up the cause of the people who are buying into the ideology as an option to make their own lives better. You forget that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have large wings that do nothing but give aid to the slums of their respective countries. If someone is able to smuggle food into your country, you are not going to immediately turn your back on them.
Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group - International Herald Tribune
Gee, this doesn't bode well for Obama's "Close Gitmo" policy and is good evidence that Bush's policies of holding terrorist was right, the sad thing is, if it wasn't for all the screaming and whining about Gitmo this guy might still be in there... and not helping kill people.
But hey, what's ONE guy right? :roll:
So let me get this straight. This guy was released in 2007 while the Bush Administration was in charge and yet you still find a way to blame Obama and people who are against Guantanamo in the first place for it? Are you serious?
I'd bet alot he wasn't a terrorist before he entered the prison ... but you are right, what is one terrorist compared to the hundreds of thousands in total.
Great, and how do you do that when they keep using guns, bombs and attacks? Hmm?
You'd make a great fascist. That does not work. You do not understand how ideologies work, apparently; especially in a world where you don't have to be in the same hemisphere to believe in the same one.Yep, and kill enough of them, the ideology dies
What if that ideology hinges on defeating yours and bringing about World Islamic Rule as the path to happiness? Hmm?
Why would it matter to you? Apparently you wanted to mow down the lot of them.Yeah, cuase if you turn your back on those groups they might choose your family as their next "human shields"
I would love to see you defend an idea that this world isn't warped.What warped world do you live in?
We call people terrorists because they think differently than we do?
And we don't call them terrorists because they use airliners to bomb skyscrapers, use cars to bomb embassies, use men and women to conduct suicide bombings, etc., etc., etc.?
Where do you get off reinventing history here?
[/quote]I always like the cliched Orwell stuff, it's so much easier for you people to speak in cliches rather than address actual issues and arguments.
Well, for Hamas I know there was a point in time were America gave them money. You know, we sorta wanted them to win their election, but changed our minds about it as soon as it happened. There's the famous story where Condi is up at 5 a.m. EST doing her treadmill work-out whenever she's informed that Hamas won (no one thought it was going to happen-- they campaigned well, and kept their Anti-Israeli sentiment on the down-low) her reply was an immediate embargo.I'd like to address this specific comment and ask you two questions: "You forget that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have large wings that do nothing but give aid to the slums of their respective countries. "
Where do you think the MONEY for Hamas and Hezbollah's generosity comes from?
1) To gain popularity.Secondly; why do you think they have to distribute food and aid to the general population?
After I see your answers I will give you my responses.
See how the libs bitch if we follow the Geneva Convention, but then cry like babies when Texas doesn't follow that idiot UN convention through the Hague for some Mexican rapist. They're two-faced about everything. :roll:
Are you a lib(eral)?Where I am consistent and believe we should abide by and use the rights granted the US in the Geneva Convention while also following the Vienna Convention discussed in another thread.
Are you a lib(eral)?
Terrorists to us are those who wish to Terrify US.
Why would someone wish to terrify, or cause a terrifying reaction, from us?
Because American foreign policy.
Let me break this down. If it wasn't for the habitual sodomizing of the term "terrorism" then there would be "no terrorists" just militants who have a different world-view then us.
Tell me. You take all of those resurfaced detainees and you kill them all, what did you accomplish?
Let me give you a hint. Not a damn thing. Infact, you probably created more who favor that ideology then you took away from. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING PEOPLE WE ARE FIGHTING AN IDEOLOGY. AND YOU CANNOT KILL AN IDEOLOGY WITH GUNS.
FFS learn something.
Nevertheless, hopefully you feel that your ideology is right.No, most certainly not. Just a conservative who does not let political ideology get in my way of knowing what is right and wrong.
Nonsense. Focus on the semantics and ignore the real threat at your peril. You can't kill an ideology with guns, that's true, but you can sure kill the adherents to that ideology. With guns, even!
Not killing someone doesn't mean that you are ignoring the threat.
Police officers don't use rubber bullets because they want to keep the threat as alive as possible, they use rubber bullets to not kill the threat (no, I am not suggesting using rubber bullets on Bin Laden, even though it would be funny).
You can't kill an ideology with guns. You said it yourself, then what's the point of mowing down people, and killing innocents in the mean-time, to not kill the ideology (infact it appears as this whole mowing thing increases membership to the ideology).
You're not listening. You kill the people following the ideology until they no longer want to do harm to you. If us defending ourselves gets more of them out of the house and committing to their messed up ideology, and in the line of fire, then that's a good thing. That will save the next generation from having to deal with them.
Nevertheless, hopefully you feel that your ideology is right.