guatanamo bay

[bushidomartialarts]

isahaya? no kiddin'? i used to work at soseikan high-middle school.

ever make it to any of the gringos-only salsa parties there in nagasaki?

 

[Hand Sword]

Are you suggesting that internationally recognized borders are to be ignored by American's in their pursuit of bogeymen?

Do other countries have the similiar authority to disreguard the territorial boundaries of the United States to search for those whom they deem unsavory?

And, assuming for the moment that the peope detained lack have no rights .... (I disagree with the premise) ... how exactly does that remove the obligations of the United States to abide by the laws it has written and accepted via international conventions and treaties?

Bogeyman? The Bogeyman is not real (unless your a WWE fan), Al Quaida is very real! The terrorist attacks are not imagined, and being done by childhood myths sir.
As for the Pakistani border thing,They are supposedly our allies, and have vowed to get rid of them in their country. They haven't tried, and they won't allow us to help. Your attempted point to be made was that the captured people were Pakistani, and that they have nothing to do with it. It's been proven to be untrue, by the way!

As for treaties and rights, Again, This is not my personal feelings (people should have rights), it's the rules of war. The terrorists are not native to a particular country, or government (and not people either!). The treaties in the past refer to nations and their prisoners of war.

 

[michaeledward]

Bogeyman? The Bogeyman is not real (unless your a WWE fan), Al Quaida is very real! The terrorist attacks are not imagined, and being done by childhood myths sir.
As for the Pakistani border thing,They are supposedly our allies, and have vowed to get rid of them in their country. They haven't tried, and they won't allow us to help. Your attempted point to be made was that the captured people were Pakistani, and that they have nothing to do with it. It's been proven to be untrue, by the way!

As for treaties and rights, Again, This is not my personal feelings (people should have rights), it's the rules of war. The terrorists are not native to a particular country, or government (and not people either!). The treaties in the past refer to nations and their prisoners of war.

How odd to use the honorific 'sir', when making these statements.

I notice that you have not answered the questions. Do other countries have the same authority to disreguard America's territorial boundaries, and international treaties that they have signed into law?

War can only be waged among nation-states. What the United States is engaged in against the followers of Osama bin Laden is not war, no matter how much 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wishes it were so.

As to whether al Qaeda is real, it is absolutely irrelevant to the behaviors taken, in my name, by my country. That my country is detaining foreign nationals without charge, without end, and without the ability to petition for relief offends me. That my country is engaged in detaining human beings in undisclosed locations, without access to international monitoring committees, such as ICRC, offends me. That my country is engaged in transferring detainees to foreign government agencies known to practice torture, offends me. Those are not the principles I was raised on, and which I was taught that made my country great.

Must we give up everything it is to be an American in order to save America?

 

[Don Roley]

Bogeyman? The Bogeyman is not real (unless your a WWE fan), Al Quaida is very real! The terrorist attacks are not imagined, and being done by childhood myths sir.
As for the Pakistani border thing,They are supposedly our allies, and have vowed to get rid of them in their country. They haven't tried, and they won't allow us to help.

Actually, consider the fact that there is no protest by the Pakistani goverment about us holding some of their people. They probably know, but don't make a fuss about it. Considering the tight rope act they play, it may be the closest they can do to openly helping us as they dare.

There are large portions of the Pakistani people who side with Bin Laden and desire the destruction of the West. We are at war with Al-Queda no matter the legal definition. They want to destroy us. That makes us at war with them. But we are not at war with Pakistan or its goverment. They are helping us. Not as much as we would like, but they are mainly looking out after their own necks. To openly embrace us would make them a target for their own people.

Don't expect a lot of open help from goverments in the region that have large portions of their people hating us. Look instead to what they don't say, like how they are not protesting about their people being held. They could pick the people up themselves and would probably torture them before killing them. But to share the intel they gather from those interogation sessions with the US would be unacceptable to a large part of their people. So they turn the other way while America picks up the folks and processes them. That is about as close as cooperation as you can expect under the circumstances.

Think about things and you may see that there is a lot going on under the radar.

Oh, and as an aside, I am going to take the Isahaya rememberances to PM to avoid getting the moderators mad about thread hijacking and to conceal some of my secrets. :asian:

 

[Hand Sword]

How odd to use the honorific 'sir', when making these statements.

I notice that you have not answered the questions. Do other countries have the same authority to disreguard America's territorial boundaries, and international treaties that they have signed into law?

War can only be waged among nation-states. What the United States is engaged in against the followers of Osama bin Laden is not war, no matter how much 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wishes it were so.

As to whether al Qaeda is real, it is absolutely irrelevant to the behaviors taken, in my name, by my country. That my country is detaining foreign nationals without charge, without end, and without the ability to petition for relief offends me. That my country is engaged in detaining human beings in undisclosed locations, without access to international monitoring committees, such as ICRC, offends me. That my country is engaged in transferring detainees to foreign government agencies known to practice torture, offends me. Those are not the principles I was raised on, and which I was taught that made my country great.

Must we give up everything it is to be an American in order to save America?

First, our borders and treaties were violated, which is why we got into this!
What treaties and boundaries have been disregarded? We are supposedly working in cooperation with theses "allies". It is a war "sir", no matter what you define it as, And it is every nation's problem! Ask the service people over there, in it everyday, what they think it is. We're detaining, housing, feeding, treating well, prisoners, in a known location. We've also released a good many . They are Cutting heads off !!!!! They are torturing innocent civilians! They are hiding detainees in undisclosed places! They are transferring these prisoners around secretly! They aren't allowing these humanitarian groups to see their prisoners! Where is your outcry against that ???? You are angry and making accusations at the wrong group "sir"! Al Quaida existence is irrelevant, you say?

 

[michaeledward]

First, our borders and treaties were violated, which is why we got into this!

Please define your use of the word 'this'. Because from the paragraph below, it seems you are discussing several different actions that could be described as 'this'.

What treaties and boundaries have been disregarded?

The Geneva Conventions are being violated by not granting access to detainees by international monitoring committees and not allowing detainees to communicate with their families

Foreign Nationals have been abducted in foreign countries, without that countries' notice. Those foreign nationals have then been rendered to secret detention facilities operated by the United States Central Intelligence Agency and to foreign countries known to practice torture.

We are supposedly working in cooperation with theses "allies". It is a war "sir", no matter what you define it as, And it is every nation's problem!

How interesting that the term 'allies' appears in this argument. Alliances are entered into via treaties. I am pondering how this 'war' (which is not what it is, but using your incorrect definition for the moment) will end? Who will sign a treaty that signals the end of hostilities? How will we know when we have won? Answers to these questions are inherent in a definition of war. Without proper definition, what you describe as war, devolves rapidly into meaningless aggression directed at every shadow and bump in the night.

Ask the service people over there, in it everyday, what they think it is.

In all candor, what the service people over there think is totally irrelavant. By law, they are prohibited from exercising their First Amendment rights. Publically criticizing the President is a criminal offense for a soldier.

And, you state above that someone violated our territorial boundaries; which is "how we got into this". When you say 'over there', most Americans will probably think of Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, because there are many more service people in Iraq.

I note for the record that Iraq did not violate our territorial boarders. And any violations of treaties were violations of treaties in the United Nations, which would demand the United Nations take reprisal action, not the United States.

Further, those soldiers 'over there' in Afghanistan are becoming fewer every day, as the United States attempts to redeploy our troops.

We're detaining, housing, feeding, treating well, prisoners, in a known location. We've also released a good many. They are Cutting heads off !!!!! They are torturing innocent civilians! They are hiding detainees in undisclosed places! They are transferring these prisoners around secretly! They aren't allowing these humanitarian groups to see their prisoners! Where is your outcry against that ???? You are angry and making accusations at the wrong group "sir"! Al Quaida existence is irrelevant, you say?

Not all persons being detained by the United States are in known locations. The Central Intelligence Agency has secret prisons througout the world, currently believed to be detaining 'high value' captives in Northern Africa. These detainees have no access to anything. So we can not make claims about how they are being detained and treated.

Further, according to International Standards, force feeding detainees is a violation. Something we continue to do in Guantanamo bay. An undersecretary of state recently showed a feeding tube to the newspapers in the UK. She boldy stated that the feeding tube had no metal parts, so it was human when they shoved it down a detainees throat.

I repeat; How 'they' act is irrelevant. While I am disturbed by the behavior seen amongst the opposing forces in Iraq, we are an occupying nation. According to international laws, as I understand them, the citizens of a country have the right to fight against an occupying nation.

It is the actions of our government that I am protesting. We seem to be giving away those very things that we claim as central to the American ideal, under the banner of protecting America from the terrorists.

Further, you continue to confligrate Iraqi militias with al Qaeda. It lends to unclear thinking.

And I don't believe I made the statement al Qaeda's existance is irrelevant. I do realize that my sentence structure can sometimes be advanced. I trust that those participating in these discussions understand the English language.

So, kindly, don't mischaracterize my statements.

 

[Don Roley]

War can only be waged among nation-states. What the United States is engaged in against the followers of Osama bin Laden is not war, no matter how much 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wishes it were so.

The Geneva Conventions are being violated by not granting access to detainees by international monitoring committees and not allowing detainees to communicate with their families

If we can't wage a war against Al-Queada, then how is the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners of war relevant?

And it is a little known fact that to be treated under the articles of the Geneva convention, the warring faction must be a signature to it. It one side does not sign and uphold the Geneva convention, then the other side is not considered bound by it as well.

Oh, and if the Geneva conventions are in force, then anyone caught not wearing something that is clearly identifiable as a uniform can be shot as a spy. If you look at examples such as Otto Skorzeny's group during the battle of the bulge, you can see just how people were shot without being taken back to the states and tried under American laws.

In my opinion, we need to look at the state of affairs in the world today and update a lot of the definitions and treaties out there. The old definitions of 'imminent threat' and such were written when armies had to mass on borders and could only attack at the speed of a calvary regiment. They were not thinking of smallpox being developed in a lab and distributed by terrorist associates.

We have turned the other way when the rules did not fit the new situation in the world and just did as we chose. When Clinton bombed the asprin factory in Sudan, he commited an act of war without congressional approval. It was not like the cases in Yemen and Pakistan where American forces acted without protest by the goverments. The Sudanese goverement was pretty POed about their borders being violated and their people killed. And of course it was a mistake and the Yomiuri Shinbun and other newspapers I have read in Japan are convinced that the raid was at least partly to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky trial.

The same goes for Kosovo, Haiti, etc. No congressional approval and a violation of borders and killing of many, many people. Some of the people that are screaming about how it is wrong to take people and interrogate them were very silent when Clinton was going out and killing large numbers of people in acts of war without declaration. The libertarians I know seem quite vocal about blasting both Clinton and Bush, but I am somewhat cynical about the people that bash the current president, but not the former.

We need a debate on the limits of power and the use of force in the world. But there are a lot of nations and people that are not really targets of the militants yet and fear the breakdown of the old order. Getting them to debate the matter instead of clinging to the old rules is a bit of a challenge.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

don't you think it's time to look beyond treaties? to say the people in guatanamo bay aren't entitled to certain rights because of this clause or that in some international treaty is like charging a student who moved away because his contract says he didn't give notice.

it's technically accurate, but in no way right.

we're the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world. we, of all nations, have the greatest potential to foster positive change. we should set an example.

i'm aware that we need to be on guard from whackos. behaving the way we have been produces additional whackos.

 

[Hand Sword]

I understand that my sentence structure can sometimes be simple. I also trust that those participating in these discussions understand common english and have a little common sense. My terms of "this" and "overthere" don't need to be defined. It should be understood. Reading comprehension should also be a quality of those participating.

Again, the Genevea conventions don't apply, as these people have been labelled terrorists, which have no official nation to adhere to a treaty. I guarantee you that these countries know. Why all the protests, and anger than?

Our military aggression is not meaningless, Al queada is not a shadow and bump in the night (again your referencing the Bogeyman argument?) Since you keep referring to theses types of statements, I'm curious, Do you think theses terrorists exist?

The opinion of those fighting is not irrelevant. Do not disrespect those that are doing the deed, no matter your politcs!

I never said anything about Iraq, you went down this road. So, on that note, they did break a treaty, for years. And last I knew, the US was apart of the UN. By the way The US isn't there alone, other countries have troops there. Again, don't disrespect them by ignoring them.

I also didn't say anything about Iraqi militias, so don't you mischaracterize my statements. Ask anyone back from over there, they'll tell you. It's foreign fighters that are the problem. The head cutters are not Iraqis. They are well known Al Queada members. If the troops are redeploying, it's because Al Quead re-deployed. Also, since your big on reports, you should know that the militia groups have been killing Al Queada lately, which in turn, Al Sadyr, was targeted the other day, he wasn't home.

You also bring up force feeding. They were on hunger strikes, and at least we are feeding them regularly. More than what Al queadas prisoners get. Last I knew, letting prisoners starve to death was the true violation.

When you keep referring to the bogeyman arguments, saying whether they are real or not, etc.. You are saying, or alluding that their existence is irrelevant.

 

[Don Roley]

don't you think it's time to look beyond treaties? to say the people in guatanamo bay aren't entitled to certain rights because of this clause or that in some international treaty is like charging a student who moved away because his contract says he didn't give notice.

it's technically accurate, but in no way right.

we're the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world. we, of all nations, have the greatest potential to foster positive change. we should set an example.

i'm aware that we need to be on guard from whackos. behaving the way we have been produces additional whackos.

I do think we should look beyond treaties. I think that if current treaties are behind the times and could cause Americans to be killed, we need to fix the problem.

I do not think we should do anything that would benifit a citizen in another country at the expense or danger of an American.

We should try to find a new ground that lets us all be safe and secure. I do not think that one side only should be safe and secure, but if that has to be the case then I vote for it being the American side that is safe instead of the Pakistani. If the Pakistani side can be satisfied, then that is icing on the cake.

After all, people would not think it strange that the head of Kenya would promote a policy that benifits Kenyans but is disadvantagous to Americans. Why is it so strange that Americans elect people that put thier interests first over those of other countries?

In the long term, a state of affairs that is safe to everyone would be in our best interests. But the current state of affairs is not like that. And Americans are more at risk than Kenyans. So the Kenyans have more to gain by keeping us tied to the old rules that protect them than the chaos that might come with change.

Lets look at the idea of biological weapons. America was attacked by anthrax and whoever did it got away clean. We do not know who did it. The people who died from it could be fit onto a bus. Thankfully something worse like smallpox was not used. But we saw the disruptions it caused. So did the rest of the world. And they saw how those responsible got away with it.

Let me remind you that in 1995, Saddam Hussein's brother in law defected and blew the lid off of his bio weapon program. Iraq had UN inspectors in the country trying to find weapons like that, and yet until the defection the program was a complete secret from them.

If someone could do that with UN inspectors in the country, how hard must it be to find proof of a smallpox program in a country with no inspectors.

So, under current treaties and such, what is the burden of proof before you take out a goverment trying to kill millions of your people with smallpox?

The thinking behind current treaties and agreements are based in a time when an invasion was preceded by a buildup of forces on a border and the fastest it could be made was at the pace of a galloping horse.

The old rules could get Americans killed. We need new rules that is fair to everyone and keeps us safe. But there seems to be few countries that are willing to look at someway that will keep us safe from a smallpox attack and they instead cling to the rules since they are not the one being called the great satan.

 

[michaeledward]

I understand that my sentence structure can sometimes be simple. I also trust that those participating in these discussions understand common english and have a little common sense. My terms of "this" and "overthere" don't need to be defined. It should be understood. Reading comprehension should also be a quality of those participating.

Again, the Genevea conventions don't apply, as these people have been labelled terrorists, which have no official nation to adhere to a treaty. I guarantee you that these countries know. Why all the protests, and anger than?

Our military aggression is not meaningless, Al queada is not a shadow and bump in the night (again your referencing the Bogeyman argument?) Since you keep referring to theses types of statements, I'm curious, Do you think theses terrorists exist?

The opinion of those fighting is not irrelevant. Do not disrespect those that are doing the deed, no matter your politcs!

I never said anything about Iraq, you went down this road. So, on that note, they did break a treaty, for years. And last I knew, the US was apart of the UN. By the way The US isn't there alone, other countries have troops there. Again, don't disrespect them by ignoring them.

I also didn't say anything about Iraqi militias, so don't you mischaracterize my statements. Ask anyone back from over there, they'll tell you. It's foreign fighters that are the problem. The head cutters are not Iraqis. They are well known Al Queada members. If the troops are redeploying, it's because Al Quead re-deployed. Also, since your big on reports, you should know that the militia groups have been killing Al Queada lately, which in turn, Al Sadyr, was targeted the other day, he wasn't home.

You also bring up force feeding. They were on hunger strikes, and at least we are feeding them regularly. More than what Al queadas prisoners get. Last I knew, letting prisoners starve to death was the true violation.

When you keep referring to the bogeyman arguments, saying whether they are real or not, etc.. You are saying, or alluding that their existence is irrelevant.

Hand Sword, there are too many references in this post to address at once.

You claim you did not bring up Iraq. Do you dispute your reference to someone cutting off peoples heads? Where did that occur?

You ask do I think al Qaeda exists? Yes. They exist. They are a criminal outfit. But how the United States detaines and treats those detained has absolutely nothing to do with al Qaeda. It (the pronoun has an anticedent of 'how the US detaines and treats those detained) has only to do with the policies of the United States.

And don't you dare accuse me of being disrespectful to the United States military.

A uniformed service member may not say "President Bush lied to the United States Citizenry to gain support for the illegal invasion of Iraq. He knew, or should have known, that the claims made about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were false. Records show the President and Prime Minister Blair were fixing the facts around the policy of invasion months prior to the start of the war." If any solder were to say that, they could end up in prison. So asking to survey them about there opinions, is not likely to get an unemcombered response.

Must we surrender our principles because of some few relatively meaningless criminals?

 

[Hand Sword]

Speaking about who cut off heads is not the same as bringing up where. The head cutters are well known Al Queda members. Yes, Their actions have everything to do with our current policies. Their existence, not being of a particular nation that signed a treaty, and taking actions that breaks the rules of war, thus, releiving the other side of obeying the rules, has everything to do with policies.

If you don't want to be accused as being disrespectful of the military don't combine things like "irrelevant" and "service people" in the same sentences, no matter the context.

As for the "illegal" invasion of Iraq, Call it what you will, and feel what you will, but it wasn't illegal. They were under a treaty, with responsibilities to uphold, since the 1st war. They broke them for years, and provided constant resistance. The invasion was bad timed, and could've been held off, but, not illegal. We know about the WMD's because we sold them to Sadam back in the day when he was fighting Iran. Also, there are plenty of soldiers back from there and out of service that tell the truth, too bad there is an election coming, and the Left keeps showing the negative to regain the presidency and congress to allow it to be heard and seen. Also the number of those re-upping their service time instead of discharge might say something about how they feel too.

Our principles haven't been surrendered, Maybe yours have. We're dealing with this situation better than anyone else has, could, or would.

I also wouldn't refer to the terrorists as "a few relatively meaningless criminals".

 

[michaeledward]

Speaking about who cut off heads is not the same as bringing up where. The head cutters are well known Al Queda members. Yes, Their actions have everything to do with our current policies. Their existence, not being of a particular nation that signed a treaty, and taking actions that breaks the rules of war, thus, releiving the other side of obeying the rules, has everything to do with policies.

If you don't want to be accused as being disrespectful of the military don't combine things like "irrelevant" and "service people" in the same sentences, no matter the context.

As for the "illegal" invasion of Iraq, Call it what you will, and feel what you will, but it wasn't illegal. They were under a treaty, with responsibilities to uphold, since the 1st war. They broke them for years, and provided constant resistance. The invasion was bad timed, and could've been held off, but, not illegal. We know about the WMD's because we sold them to Sadam back in the day when he was fighting Iran. Also, there are plenty of soldiers back from there and out of service that tell the truth, too bad there is an election coming, and the Left keeps showing the negative to regain the presidency and congress to allow it to be heard and seen. Also the number of those re-upping their service time instead of discharge might say something about how they feel too.

Our principles haven't been surrendered, Maybe yours have. We're dealing with this situation better than anyone else has, could, or would.

I also wouldn't refer to the terrorists as "a few relatively meaningless criminals".

Unsupported assertions and arrogance is not the way the world works.

Again, it seems your argument is confligrating Iraq and Afghanistan. You claim beheadings in Iraq were actions of well known al Qaeda operatives. That claim is weak at best. There is little evidence that connects al-Zarqawi to bin Laden organization prior to the invasion. The name al Qaeda in Iraq did not surface until well after the occupation of Iraq was established. Seems to me a bit of name-dropping. And claiming that 'their actions' - the beheadings - are driving our actions, belies when custody of the quantanamo detainees began.

As to whether the country has surrended my principles or our principles, I point to the fourth amendment of the constitution; have you read it recently?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Whether the President calls it a 'terrorist survaillance program', or his moonbeam to the gods, does not change the facts that American Citizens 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' are being searched by the State, without the issueance of a warrant the describes the place to be searched, and the things being searched for, and siezed.

That we are even debating whether the detainees of Guantanamo Bay are, or are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions is a surrender of our principles. Former White House Council, and current Attorney General of the United States Alberto Gonzales, having crafted arguments excluding these detainees from the protections of the Conventions may very well have committed a war crime against international treaties signed into United States law through ratification.

Because we will be the victor, we have assumed the 'might - makes - right' posture; to the victor goes the spoils. As a Constitutional Republic, our country was founded on the principle that the minority also has protections under the law. Again, a principle surrended in the name of 'protecting the citizens'.

Who is going to protect us from ourselves?

 

[Don Roley]

Whether the President calls it a 'terrorist survaillance program', or his moonbeam to the gods, does not change the facts that American Citizens 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' are being searched by the State, without the issueance of a warrant the describes the place to be searched, and the things being searched for, and siezed.

Since we are talking about Guantanamo Bay and the non-American citizens being held there, I do not see the relevance of the above unless we are to think that everyone in the world is an American citizen and covered by the rights they have. If that was the case, then the rules we have about limiting those goverement bodies like the military and CIA that work outside the country and inside the country would be unimportant.

Under the Geneva convention, these people can be shot. They did not sign the Geneva convention, thus it does not even apply to them. To hobble one side of a conflict while the other has no restraints gives a great advantage to those that have no restraints on their actions.

You claim beheadings in Iraq were actions of well known al Qaeda operatives.

Actually, the people doing the beheadings are doing the claiming of being part of al Queda. There has even been intercepted communications between Bin Laden and the group in Iraq. I do not see how it could be called just name dropping. We have to take it as a given that they are working together instead of hoping that it is all just a huge scam.

 

[Hand Sword]

Yep!

 

[Hand Sword]

Unsupported assertions and arrogance is not the way the world works.

Again, it seems your argument is confligrating Iraq and Afghanistan. You claim beheadings in Iraq were actions of well known al Qaeda operatives. That claim is weak at best. There is little evidence that connects al-Zarqawi to bin Laden organization prior to the invasion. The name al Qaeda in Iraq did not surface until well after the occupation of Iraq was established. Seems to me a bit of name-dropping. And claiming that 'their actions' - the beheadings - are driving our actions, belies when custody of the quantanamo detainees began.

Zarqawi isn't Iraqi either--He's Jordanian, so what's he doing there? Who keeps filtering in from the borders that our troops are fighting?

"Their Actions" isn't the beheadings. It's the attacks and the methods used to pull them off! That's what is driving our actions, it's a new war.

Again, the Iraqis are also killing them (insurgent forces vs. Al queada), so they are there! There is no name dropping going on. You know this too, as you brought up troop re-deployment earlier. Where are they being re-deployed to? Where has Al Queda gone? (Pakistan border, and Iraq) Afghanistan is relatively secure.

 

[michaeledward]

Did you just say the attacks in Iraq are 'Driving our actions'? If the United States military did not invade a sovreign nation, those attacks could never have taken place.

'B' follows 'A' ; 'B' caused 'A'?

Wow!

I guess you are welcome to ignore what is going on in Guantanamo Bay; or to pretend that everyone detained there is some ubercriminal, if you wish.

What the facts show, and what has been reported on, and what is in the documents finally released, under court order only, is that the detainees of Guantanamo Bay are not uber criminals, or terrorists, or masterminds of anything. Many, perhaps most, were not captured on a battlefield. Many were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and had a relative or neighbor holding a grudge.

But, they aren't American Citizens. They aren't on American Soil. So we can all feel smugly justified and turn a blind eye.

Three Cheers for Us!!

 

[Don Roley]

I guess you are welcome to ignore what is going on in Guantanamo Bay; or to pretend that everyone detained there is some ubercriminal, if you wish.

What the facts show, and what has been reported on, and what is in the documents finally released, under court order only, is that the detainees of Guantanamo Bay are not uber criminals, or terrorists, or masterminds of anything. Many, perhaps most, were not captured on a battlefield. Many were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and had a relative or neighbor holding a grudge.

Again, if someone is accused of being a member of a terrorist orginization, should we ignore it? Some of these people may be innocent. Some of them may be lying in an attempt to get free. The area where they were captured is composed largely of people who do not like non-muslims and the US. Some of the transcripts of people captured show that they brag about being members of Al- Queada.

I would like to see the ones that are truely innocent found so and set free ASAP. But some of the people being held are indeed very dangerous people and I do not like the idea of them being set free to do harm.

 

[Hand Sword]

Did you just say the attacks in Iraq are 'Driving our actions'? If the United States military did not invade a sovreign nation, those attacks could never have taken place.

'B' follows 'A' ; 'B' caused 'A'?

Wow!

I guess you are welcome to ignore what is going on in Guantanamo Bay; or to pretend that everyone detained there is some ubercriminal, if you wish.

What the facts show, and what has been reported on, and what is in the documents finally released, under court order only, is that the detainees of Guantanamo Bay are not uber criminals, or terrorists, or masterminds of anything. Many, perhaps most, were not captured on a battlefield. Many were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and had a relative or neighbor holding a grudge.

But, they aren't American Citizens. They aren't on American Soil. So we can all feel smugly justified and turn a blind eye.

Three Cheers for Us!!

AAH....NO. The attacks, if I have to spell it out, ocurred here. That prompted everything that has gone on since. "WOW" I thought that would be understood as well. You keep bringing up Iraq, I never did. I don't care about "where", it's "who" that matters.

You finally get it about the citizen thing and how it applies to OUR constitution! 3 Cheers for you !

 

[michaeledward]

AAH....NO. The attacks, if I have to spell it out, ocurred here. That prompted everything that has gone on since. "WOW" I thought that would be understood as well. You keep bringing up Iraq, I never did. I don't care about "where", it's "who" that matters.

You finally get it about the citizen thing and how it applies to OUR constitution! 3 Cheers for you !

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller
​