This is topic Guantanamo Prisoners go to jail, do not pass any semblence of US or International Law in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
In essence, since our government has created some new classification for POWs that, to them, is not addressed under any US law or international treaty, they can do whatever the heck they want.
Screw an exit strategy for Iraq, how about an exit strategy for the war on terror, so these people can be released. Or, at least, try them for some crime and put them in jail, y'know, legitimately.
Seriously, the war on terror is as nebulously defined as the War on Drugs, and that has been going on for 20+ years, at least under the current euphemism. Does the administration really believe that we are helping our cause to end terror by holding onto people's loved ones, possibly for the rest of their lives?
-Bok
EDIT: Here is possibly the worst offense to me:
[Rumsfeld:] ""We have the apparatus arranged, ready, and we have a very fine group of advisers as to how to do it in the event it has to be done[.] But for the moment, we don't have any candidates."
So, in other words, we could try these people legitimately at any time, but, y'know what? Let's just imprison them until their lawyers (who they can't have) file suit, or Human Rights groups (who we have implicitly labelled traitors, or worse, Liberals) raise a stink, before we do anything.
[ September 11, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Surprise, surprise. Canada looks better every day.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Strange that these people are the representatives of a government created "of the people, by the people and for the people", is it not?
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
This whole "holding suspected terrorists without trial and without being able to talk to an attorney" thing is just about scaring me to death.
It is completely Un-American, and wildly unconstitutional. Ben Franklin must be spinning in his grave.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
They are using loopholes in the law and Geneva Conventions. Since they've never been brought to the US, they can't get various rights of the accused here.
Since they are technically guerillas (non-uniformed enemy combatants) they are not afforded ANY protections under the Geneva Conventions.
Now, just because we can do it, sure doesn't mean we SHOULD do it. We are better than this and we need to hold ourselves to the highest standard possible. But we're just not doing it.
It makes me sick.
These guys aren't conservatives, they've become Facists.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sopwith, check out article 5, and there is some possible wiggle room in Article 4, section 3:
Atleast two American Citizens have been held as "Enemy Combatants."
The Government decides who is an enemy combatant.
What is to stop a later President to decide that his opposition is an Enemy Combatant. You then have the FBI pick him up and ship him to the Guantanamo Gulag.
Proof? What do we need proof for. The President can just claim, Security Concerns as President Bush has done on so many issues. The accused gets no defence, no lawyer, no appeal accept to those who inprison him.
Any complaints will be met with, "Its a standard procedure we have been using for years, since President Bush initiated it in 2001."
Our founding fathers did not write the constitution to limit the power of President Washington. They wrote it to limit the power of any future would-be dictator/king. Going outside the Constitution, as President Bush has, we need to take the same forsight, not just pull up whatever is easiest for the moment.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
They aren't "Enemy Combatants", Dan, they are "Unlawful Combatants." They are fighing us, AND they are, uh, breaking laws!
C'mon, get your euphemisms straight.
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
P.S. I love the phrase -- Guantanamo Gulag. Everyone use it from now on.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm beginning to believe that the only way to save this nation is to elect an administration in 2004 that will respect the rule of law.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Dest - got a clue as to who that would be?
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:[Rumsfeld:] ""We have the apparatus arranged, ready, and we have a very fine group of advisers as to how to do it in the event it has to be done[.] But for the moment, we don't have any candidates."
It is interesting to speculate what he means with "don't have any candidates". There isn't anyone against whom enough evidence of an actual crime is assembled as to assure a conviction?
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Maybe the only way to save this nation is for everyone (including females) to earn the Citizenship in the Nation merit badge.
I mean most of us don't even know what the "law" in "rule of law" is.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Bush apparently made some speech either today or yesterday where he pushed for passage of Patriot Act II. I mean, those parts that haven't already been passed yet. I thought about making a post on it, but then while I was thinking about it, I saw some stats that said something along the lines of 65% of Americans think not enough is being done on the war on terror and that they think the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough. And then I realized, why friggin' bother.
I mean, I made a post a couple of days a regarding the fact that the Patriot Act would be a huge liability for Bush, and the after reading those stats, I realize it's not. With that realization came the understanding that this country is screwed. I know this sounds alarmist, but I honestly believe it. I'm sure that as security tightens and the trains continue to run on time and we have bountiful crops, people will say, see, it's all worth it.
And that's the worse part. There is no argument against increased security and the loss of civil liberties. Either no terrorist act has happened, and it's all thanks to the 'increased security', or no terrorist act has happened, but one could, so you better be on your guard! A neverending spiral.
This depressing rant was brought to you by the letters F, as in Ef ya, Ashcroft, and C, as in C you later, land of the free.
ps One of these days I'd like to see some kind of stats on who really is the free-est land in the world. Some Cato offshoot does one for the economically free-est nation in the world, where's one for the most socially free nation in the world? Whatever, I bet it's not us. :/
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:And that's the worse part. There is no argument against increased security and the loss of civil liberties. Either no terrorist act has happened, and it's all thanks to the 'increased security', or no terrorist act has happened, but one could, so you better be on your guard!
Or worse still, another terrorist attack does happen, which would be taken to mean that even more restrictions have to be made.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Frankly, except for better airport screening, I'd like everything to go back to the way it was before 9/11.
We have this cool hydroelectric dam nearby. When I was a kid, your parents could take you down in the elevator and you could walk around and look at all kinds of cool electical stuff.
Now, you can't EVER go inside the dam at all! No kid of mine will ever see the inside of this hydroelectric dam, unless things change.
That just pisses me off, cause seeing the turbine whirling around was so cool. Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:ps One of these days I'd like to see some kind of stats on who really is the free-est land in the world. Some Cato offshoot does one for the economically free-est nation in the world, where's one for the most socially free nation in the world? Whatever, I bet it's not us.
Ask, and ye shall receive... Sort of. I've been unable to find any current statistics, but the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) publishes yearly reports on Human Development. In 1991, this report included a Human Freedom Index that used forty indicators on how "free" a country was considered to be. You can read the details here (page 20, box 1.2). In summary, the maximum points a state could receive was 40, with Sweden and Denmark receiving the highest marks of 38. The US is on a shared 13th place at 33.
Unfortunately, this Human Freedom Index is not included in later reports, presumable because of various criticism it received. But it is an interesting read, nonetheless (as are the newer reports).
[ September 11, 2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you, Tristan. And I meant to put in the bit about the after effects, too. Thanks for clarifying my post.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:There is no argument against increased security and the loss of civil liberties.
But there is:
From Howard Dean's site-
quote:I will oppose expansion of the Patriot Act, efforts to remove sunset clauses included in the act, and I will seek to repeal the portions of the Patriot Act that are unconstitutional.
Wesley Clark has said-
quote:"One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review.”
So there are freedom-loving politicians, out there; at least one is running, maybe two.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Destineer, who are the 65% going to vote for? Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
We should ask DB.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Stormy, you got me there. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: A new expensive courtroom facility has been built at Guantanamo for the event. The Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary of Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, alone received an open-ended $300 million contract for construction at Guantanamo to accommodate the prisoners.
Cha-ching, baby. This was news to me. Is there anything Halliburton can't cash in on?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Just so you know, Halliburton's been a government contractor since the 1940s.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
I'll tell you where this kind of thing comes from. I was listening to Sean Hannity on the radio this afternoon (don't ask) and, speaking specifically about Osama Bin Laden, he made the statement that "He isn't even human".
Well, Osama is not my favorite person, either, but he is demonstrably human, as are all the people who follow him. Misguided, probably even dispicable in Osama's case, but human. But our government does not see them as human beings. So, in their eyes, it doesn't matter what is done to them. So we get situations like this, in which basic human rights are not extended to them.
I mean, if it can be proven that some of these people have committed acts against the American people, go ahead and lock them up. But not to even try to determine if they have or not is just not the American way. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is what we are being told we are fighting for.
Right? Right? Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
So...just exactly how much freedom do you think we'll have when people are terrified to go outside because someone might blow themselves up and terrified to stay inside because a plane might fall on them?
Much as I hate to say it, the Patriot Act remains the lesser of two evils.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I think maccabeus is a terrorist. Let's put him in Guantanamo for the rest of the war on terrorism.
Hmm. . . now which is the lesser of two evils?
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Yes, but the second evil is one we've been living with for years, it just never was done on such a scale as it was on 9/11. Think Unibomber, Timothy McVeigh...terrorism is nothing NEW here, it's just never been as terrible or destructive as the Two Towers bombing. The threat will always be there, always. But we have to decide how much of what makes us 'America, the land of the Free' that we will sacrifice to keep America the land of the Safe.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
[ September 11, 2003, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Human ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Let's see, which number was false dichotomy . . .
Your statement is absurd. Before the patriot act we did not have people being afraid to go outside for fear of being blown up. After September 11th, the likelihood of it ever happening has been greatly lessened due to increased vigilance of the citizenry and increased counterterrorism efforts abroad. To suggest that without the patriot act terrorists would walk around with bombs strapped to them any more than they already cannot be taken seriously.
What the patriot act does do is increase government control over citizens' lives and ability to invade them. These added powers should not be tolerated unless there is an extreme necessity for the act, and there has been no demonstration of even a small necessity -- the prisoners at guantanamo have been held just fine (and injustly) without the patriot act, for instance. The patriot act would have done nothing to stop september eleventh. It gives the government control, but does not give the citizens protection.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Kayla, if you really, truly believe that I am a terrorist, then it's your duty to try and get me sent to Guantanmo Bay. I won't like it there, of course; that's half the point of a prison. But it's for the greater good.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
This link from Human Rights Watch sums up how we have violated the Geneva Convention, the foundation of modern rules of war. And we've ignored or cynically rationalized our way around our own laws.
For the first time in my lifetime, habeus corpus rights have been suspended by presidential fiat. I never thought I would see that happen in America.
The tragic thing is, our own servicemen and women are sure to pay the price for this in future armed conflicts, and will be treated unfairly and cavalierly like we have treated the Afghani POWs (some at least should be considered POWs, as the link argues persuasively.) And what exactly would our response be, after flouting international and our own laws in our treatment of the Guantanamo detainees and the people rounded up for immigration violations, then held without trial, bail or legal counsel (the DoJ's Inspector General was highly critical of this)? Beats me. We have lost most of the moral high ground America once held, to our shame.
Not only that, we have also squandered almost all of the good will towards America that existed after 9/11, by our unilateralist doctrines.
[ September 11, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, I think I've mentioned the whole China incident a couple times to people who have poo-pooed international law.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Morbo, our unilateralist actions were taken because the international goodwill didn't amount to a hill of beans when it came to actually doing anything on our behalf. It should be pretty plain these days that no one is going to come to our aid when we need it, no matter how friendly they say they are. The only way to defend ourselves is to be prepared to go it alone.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Morbo don't fool yourself. You make it sound like American POWs are treated well now. Ever hear of the Hanoi Hilton? Do you really think our POWs aren't beaten or just outright killed? The only thing that prevented POWs from the first Gulf War from being murdered was the threat of our nukes.
Also we didn't go into Iraq unilaterally. There was Britian, Austrailia, Poland, Spain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others as well as the neutrality regarding the issue from others. I'm also sure we would have had the support of Israel but their outright support would have meant the end of bases in most of the Arab countries.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty. -- Ben Franklin
Need we argue more?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Actually, the administration was already stunningly, contempuously unilateralist before 9/11.
And plenty of countries have helped in the war on terror. Even though many of them used it as an excuse for their own domestic repression, as we did in America.
And Dan makes a point I agree with in the "what to do after 9/11" thread:
quote:We are losing the war for the hearts and minds of the Islamic world
Except it's not only the Islamic world, it's much of the world in general.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Maccabeus: There was an immense amount of goodwill towards the United States. Goodwill is not the same as being able to get people to go make revenge for you. You don't ask the guy who's tending your gunshot wound to go kill the guy who shot you. It doesn't work that way.
EDIT: Yeah. What Morbo said.
[ September 12, 2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
edit:what Morbo said. Right on! Why can't everyone be that sensible?
Good point, newfound. True, our soldiers have been screwed over many times. But do you think our ignoring the Geneva Conventions will make that better or worse in the future?
Also, enemy countries can copy our legal tactics, and what could we say then?
As well as our doctrine of preventive or preemptive war. China is likely to do so, I'll wager.
[ September 12, 2003, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Wheatpuppet> Okay, granted--so what use [I]is [\I] this goodwill? Why is it so terribly important to maintain it?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Also I don't think that those being held in Guantanamo are POWs because they really don't fit the description by the Geneva Convention. They don't where uniforms, they don't belong to a regular army, and there's a bunch of other stuff they don't meet. It would be one thing if they were really justified in what they were doing but just didn't have uniforms or whatever, but they are terrorists, so I see no reason to bend the rules out of pity for them. It would be one thing if you wanted to treat them as POWs so that they would in turn treat Americans fairly but I just don't think doing so will make a difference. If it were a real country we were fighting we wouldn't put the prisoners in Guantanamo, notice Iraqi prisoners for example.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: If it were a real country we were fighting we wouldn't put the prisoners in Guantanamo, notice Iraqi prisoners for example.
What the hell does this mean? Note that we do not have to recognize a government as legitimate to treat their forces as POW's, according to the Geneva Conventions which we and Afghanistan are signatory to. The link above from Human Rights Watch sums up the case well. The al-Queada members in Git-mo probably don't deserve the rights of a POW. However, even then they are entitled to a hearing to determine their combatant status, which has not been done.
Don't get me wrong: the Taliban are crazy scum, and al-Queada as well. I have no pity for them. But if we claim to be civilized we must follow the laws and treaties we have agreed to. That's what civilization means.
Sean Hannity used the term "animals" to describe our enemies today. If we do not adhere to the rule of law, at the very least we are manipulative bullies, making our own rules as we see fit, and hardly deserve the term "civilized human beings."
The rules of war must be followed as closely as possible, or we become little better than terrorists ourselves. And wars can quickly get out of hand when the rules of war are maginalized or ignored.
[ September 12, 2003, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Bend the rules out of pity for them? You're already bending rules and it ain't outta pity.
You're saying you'd only treat them fairly if you could get something out of it? They're human beings if you get a cookie, if you don't, they're less than animals.
Pardon me while I puke.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Also we didn't go into Iraq unilaterally--newfound. Granted, grudgingly. However, we had no where near as much in'tl support as we enjoyed in Iraq I, and we went in without the UN support which we also had then.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*waits for a response from Maccabeus as to what concrete benefit the PATRIOT act has provided*
edit: *and even more importantly, how this benefit overrides the numerous and extreme (for America) liberty circumventions in the act*
[ September 12, 2003, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Goodwill isn't a tool to be used to your own ends.
I don't see why we couldn't have spent a few more months talking about going to war instead of doing it without the world community agreeing with--or even understanding--us.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The goodwill is usefull in, say, a situation like Afghanistan, which, if you recall, was supported by our allies like France and Germany, since it supposedly had a narrow and reasonable goal of going after the leader of the organization that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, as well as disrupting the organization and its recruiting schools itself.
Iraq was not nearly such a limited endeavor, with hazy justifications, and hazy goals, and yet not only did we ignore our allies, we actively pissed them off. Some day we may well need help, the way we are stretching our forces, but we'll need to mend fences if we expect much beyond token support from even our _allies_, much less neutrals.
-Bok
PS- For the record, aside from England, the other members of the "Coalition of the Willing" absolutely supported the president to curry favor in relations like trade and investment. I mean, Poland has provided only 2000 troops! Of course, in Gulf I, we were able to get countries like Turkey and Egypt to provide a combined 75k to 100k of troops.
[ September 12, 2003, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What is the use of International Goodwill, I can think of 87 Billion reasons that come to mind recently. With some more international goodwill other countries would be throwing their two cent into Iraq instead of with holding it out of spite for the US's egotistical attitude.
Why didn't we wait a few months before attacking? Assuming that we knew there was no fear of Sadaam devoping the non-existant nuclear weapons? Two reasons. 1)It was costing us a fortune, Millions per Day, to keep our troops ready to strike, and Billions to deploy them in the first place. 2)The Summer was approaching. Our troops are being hurt now by the 120 degree summer weather. Imagine the casualties if we would have tried to fight the main war in that heat.
So the US had the choice of sitting on our hands for six months (until things cooled down) or moving in may. It was way to expensive to sit around for that long.
Why were our troops over there? Everytime the US made a threatening move, Hussein capitulated. Everytime we made a peaceful move, Hussein backed off of any promises he made. This resulted in the slow build up of troops and threats until the call came to show our cards--invade-- or have all of our foreign policy shown for a bluff.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Fugu, I'm working on it, but the task is essentially to prove a negative--how do I know what terrorist actions have been prevented?
So, basically the international goodwill evaporated the moment we did something our allies weren't sure of. How interesting. It doesn't sound very substantial--not much trust involved, I presume?
Dan has explained why we needed to move when we did if we were going to, rather than months later. We kept pleading with our friends and the UN to facilitate matters, and they wouldn't listen to a word we said. In retrospect, okay, we certainly seem to have been wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, but how were they to know that? We asked and we pleaded and they begged and they kept delaying and delaying. Then they started insulting us. Some international goodwill.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
We pleaded with them, only after we said that we'd do it ourselves without you.
That's hardly the right foot to get off on.
-Bok
EDIT: I would add that WE were the ones who cut short the weapons inspectors after 4 months. We didn't respect anything about our allies. When they said we didn't have enough proof, our govt. said, "Well, uh, we're going to do it anyway!"
[ September 12, 2003, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mac, we didn't do somethign our allies were unsure of.
We stuck ordered them to follow our lead, to "Be with us or you are against us."
We said, "We don't need you. You are history. We only deal with useful people."
We insulted them and took every minor reservation they had as an insult.
We cried like the innocent victim, then behaved like a spoiled brat.
Ps. I still love the phrase Gulag Guantanamo.
Picture some Corporal answering the phone, "Gulag Guantanamo, How can we help you?"
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, we also "deployed them [the troops] in the first place" because we wanted to go to war. We didn't have to send them there. We decided to go to war, and sent them. Then we realized that the UN wasn't going to fall for the bs we were telling them. So, we wasted all that money getting the troops there. As long as we already have them there, well. . . we have to attack, because it costs millions to keep them there and billions to deploy them in the first place.
Wait a minute. Maybe next time, we should go counting out chickens before they are hatched. Maybe we shouldn't spend billions deploying them, and then millions keeping the "ready" until we get the go ahead from whomever we need the go ahead from! Just a thought.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
To get back to the thread topic, Christopher Hutchins pointed out last week that trials for the Bali bombers have already begun, abd in some cases concluded:AP report on first vedict (death), Guardian report I added the Guardian because they have a lot on Indonesia, and to mess with newfoundlogic.
How does it help the US internationally if a country with huge human rights violations can hold public trials of terrorists with civilian judges (no comment on the fairness of said judges) and the US refuses to do the same for the detainees in Guantanamo? Link on Indonesian human rights violations: Amnesty International on Indonesia.
The war in Afghanistan has been over for a considerable time, and trials are not even scheduled, that I've heard. Not to mention the hearings on combatant status that apparently will never happen.
I don't like my country's justice system being compared with an abusive and corrupt third world country's, and America's looking the worst of the two.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Gulag Gunatanamo.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
quote:Surprise, surprise. Canada looks better every day.
Surprise, surprise. Australia looks worse every day.
quote:It would be one thing if they were really justified in what they were doing but just didn't have uniforms or whatever, but they are terrorists, so I see no reason to bend the rules out of pity for them. It would be one thing if you wanted to treat them as POWs so that they would in turn treat Americans fairly but I just don't think doing so will make a difference. If it were a real country we were fighting we wouldn't put the prisoners in Guantanamo, notice Iraqi prisoners for example.
I'm going to Bob the Lawyer in puking all over this one.
See, America wants to invade Iraq. The UN says "No, you can't." America says "Yeee-hawwwwwwww! We're a gonna go an' free them Iraqis / find them weapons / take them oils / kill them Husseins". America says "this ain't gonna be no Vietnam". Three months later, America is saying "Ya'll UN folks have a responsibility to help in Iraq."
Arrogant, hypocritical and contemptuous. International law is only something to be followed when convenient, the Geneva Convenient is for wiping your ass and some human beings are afforded less compassion and treated worse than a stray dog. Wow, home of the free. Land of the brave.
And no, I don't hate America. I just find it incredibly sad what it's doing to the world... And my country isn't much better.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Agree with you on that one Ethics....
Execept I'd say Australia is getting to be just about on par - we just don't have the resources to do anything big about it!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm getting sick of people saying that the US ever said, "we don't need you, UN." We tried to get the UN on board they agreed and then individual members claim they didn't agree. The US decides that it won't follow the policy of appeasement that Europe enjoys so much and gets criticized for it. Now the US doesn't ask for the UN to do its "fair share" but to help because after all it is hard to imagine how Iraqis are worse off before with Hussein.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Interesting interpretation / recollection of the lead up to the war.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
By the way, you do realise that homelessness, rape, theft, starvation, etc. are all up under US occupation, right?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And all those things went up after the Soviet Union collapsed. However, in both cases state sponsored murder and slavery decreased.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
A bunch of people have piped up to disagree with the no-good liberals who've posted on this thread. With the exception of one solitary psycho, no one's actually directly defended what's going on in Guantanamo. I'm really curious: do you people actually think this is justified, or are you just combing posts for things to disagree with?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
ae, I don't think calling someone a psycho is going to help further debate.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
No, but it adds a certain panache, don't you think?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I don't have a problem with what's happening in Guantanamo but I don't support it either. I feel about it the same way I feel about whether George Bush drinks coffee in the morning. I simly don't care whether or not prisoners are held in Guantanamo. My objections to the statements in this thread are based on what the prisoners are, what happened before the war, Iraq, etc.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Dude, what assurance can you give me that the US government hasn't locked up afghan farmers, who only know of the US in abstract that simply answered the Mujahadeen to defend their homeland?
Oh, that's right none!
-that- is the problem with camp X-Ray. The world has no justification for these individuals being there. While i don't doubt there are probably al Qaeda sympathizers in the bunch, since there is no transparency in this administrations operations (seems to be their hallmark), i find this behavior at best arrogant and offensive, and at worst, reprehensable.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I don't distrust my government based simply on the fact that its primarily composed of Republicans. After all how do we know Clinton didn't send hit squads into inner city neighborhoods to eliminate any conservative movements? Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Here's a reason to distrust your government: why would they remove our means of knowing what they're doing to the Guantanemo prisoners, and why the prisoners are imprisoned, if they were only doing things that we would approve of?
[ September 15, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
We never know 1% of what's going on during any administration. Its like, "Why didn't the government tell us they weren't intending on using the Marines waiting in the Persian Gulf in the first Gulf War?" Since I don't know exactly what the government is doing and I see no reason to be concerned just because of that I'm not going to distrust Bush. It really seems to me that most Democrats will oppose Bush just for the sake of opposing him.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Mmmm, this sand is tasty!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, the whole opaqueness of government as followed by the current administration is not surprising since the same PNAC folks are also generally Leo Strauss devotees.
For more info, check out Ron Paul's (the Libertarian-in-Republican's clothing in the House) brilliant speech:
Wow, Ron Paul really understands this nation.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Bok, that was a hell of a speech. Thanks for the link.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why people should be skeptical when the government says 'trust us, we know what we're doing' when it imprisons people without proof of criminal activity.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I thought about making a post on it, but then while I was thinking about it, I saw some stats that said something along the lines of 65% of Americans think not enough is being done on the war on terror and that they think the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough. And then I realized, why friggin' bother.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)