More lifetime imprisonment without charges, more secret prisons

[MrDave]

If this doesn't sound like a Nazi tactic then what does?

I'm so proud of my government. :worry:


Long-Term Plan Sought For Terror Suspects

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 2, 2005; Page A01

Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations.

"We've been operating in the moment because that's what has been required," said a senior administration official involved in the discussions, who said the current detention system has strained relations between the United States and other countries. "Now we can take a breath. We have the ability and need to look at long-term solutions."

One proposal under review is the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries. The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, the senior administration official said.

As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, according to defense officials.

The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners the government believes have no more intelligence to share, the officials said. It would be modeled on a U.S. prison and would allow socializing among inmates.

"Since global war on terror is a long-term effort, it makes sense for us to be looking at solutions for long-term problems," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. "This has been evolutionary, but we are at a point in time where we have to say, 'How do you deal with them in the long term?' "

The administration considers its toughest detention problem to involve the prisoners held by the CIA. The CIA has been scurrying since Sept. 11, 2001, to find secure locations abroad where it could detain and interrogate captives without risk of discovery, and without having to give them access to legal proceedings.

Little is known about the CIA's captives, the conditions under which they are kept -- or the procedures used to decide how long they are held or when they may be freed. That has prompted criticism from human rights groups, and from some in Congress and the administration, who say the lack of scrutiny or oversight creates an unacceptable risk of abuse.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), vice chairman of the House intelligence committee who has received classified briefings on the CIA's detainees and interrogation methods, said that given the long-term nature of the detention situation, "I think there should be a public debate about whether the entire system should be secret.

"The details about the system may need to remain secret," Harman said. At the least, she said, detainees should be registered so that their treatment can be tracked and monitored within the government. "This is complicated. We don't want to set up a bureaucracy that ends up making it impossible to protect sources and informants who operate within the groups we want to penetrate."

The CIA is believed to be holding fewer than three dozen al Qaeda leaders in prison. The agency holds most, if not all, of the top captured al Qaeda leaders, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Abu Zubaida and the lead Southeast Asia terrorist, Nurjaman Riduan Isamuddin, known as Hambali.

CIA detention facilities have been located on an off-limits corner of the Bagram air base in Afghanistan, on ships at sea and on Britain's Diego Garcia island in the Indian Ocean. The Washington Post reported last month that the CIA has also maintained a facility within the Pentagon's Guantanamo Bay complex, though it is unclear whether it is still in use.

In contrast to the CIA, the military produced and declassified hundreds of pages of documents about its detention and interrogation procedures after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. And the military detainees are guaranteed access to the International Committee of the Red Cross and, as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, have the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court.

continues ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41475-2005Jan1.html

[reddy]

One proposal under review is the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries. The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, the senior administration official said.

I need a head-scratching smiley to illustrate my state of perplexedness. They want to throw these people in prison for life without benefit of a trial, but they want to make sure that their rights are protected??? HUH?

[MrDave]

I need a head-scratching smiley to illustrate my state of perplexedness. They want to throw these people in prison for life without benefit of a trial, but they want to make sure that their rights are protected??? HUH?

Well, in most of these cases there isn't enough evidence to convict them in court. If you can't prove what you believe to be true it only makes sense to lock them up forever but do it nicely.

[aila]

you're innocent until proven guilty, but we don't have enough evidence to go to court, so we're going to lock you up forever and a day until maybe we find the evidence. it is true, you might be innocent and if we find that out 25 years from now, we'll release you and say we're sorry, but until that day comes keeping you in prison is the chance we have to take. besides, we don't know what else to do with you.

but first we have to go to congress and ask for money to build prisons to keep you in.

if this isn't the biggest crock of b.s. to come down the pike...

.... with liberty and justice for all!

[dandylin]

I just read this little snippet on the situation and thought I'd share

The Bush Gulag

Welcome to the Bush Gulag.

Unconstrained by a Supreme Court decision last June that required at least some semblance of due process for detainees, the Bush Administration is now contemplating lifetime detentions for suspected terrorists without granting them access to any courts, according to an article by Dana Priest in The Washington Post.

So Bush will be sending detainees to some modern-day Siberia to rot for the rest of their lives.

“It’s a bad idea,” says Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, who says Congress must look into the constitutionality of the proposal. That look shouldn’t take too long.

One plan under consideration is for the US to build a new prison at Guantánamo. The Pentagon is expected to ask Congress for $25 million for construction. “The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners the government believes have no more intelligence to share,” the Post story said.

But if there is no more intelligence to be gained, what’s the excuse for the United States to deny them access to the courts? (In its Supreme Court pleadings, the Justice Department said that granting detainees access to courts would interfere with the intelligence-gathering process.)

Another plan is to send these detainees back to their home countries but to stash them in new US-built prisons there, which would be run by the local government.

The obvious problem is that many of these governments are notorious for torture.

The State Department told the Post that it would ask these countries to respect human rights, which it would monitor.

But US practice to date does not inspire confidence.

In fact, since 9/11, the CIA has been picking up suspected terrorists and sending them to countries whose interrogators specialize in torture.

In CIA parlance, these are called “renditions.”

But what is being rended, by the CIA’s actions and by this latest proposal straight out of Solzhenitsyn, is international law and the US reputation—if there’s anything left of that by now.

-- Matthew Rothschild

[MrDave]

This is sick. I encourage anyone who has any faith in our country and who believes we don't have to bow down to terrorists and throw out our democratic traditions in the war on terrorists to write some letters and have your voices heard.

I'm so freaking tired of Bush playing God.

[Instigator]

I'm so freaking tired of Bush playing God.


I agree, I just wish he would play executioner.

[beverhart]

I agree, I just wish he would play executioner.


:cheer7: :cheer7: :cheer7:

[MrDave]

I agree, I just wish he would play executioner.

Your wish has come true already.

[Instigator]

Your wish has come true already.

Not if we are talking jails, heck all we need are walls, a scrap of cloth for a blindfold and a pack of Marlboro's or two.

[reddy]

Not if we are talking jails, heck all we need are walls, a scrap of cloth for a blindfold and a pack of Marlboro's or two.


Right! Who needs trials? Let's do away with ALL of them, and just execute everyone we think might have commited a crime, or might sometime down the road.

hey inst, how's your driving record? got any. . . tickets? :smile9:

[Instigator]

Right! Who needs trials? Let's do away with ALL of them, and just execute everyone we think might have commited a crime, or might sometime down the road.

hey inst, how's your driving record? got any. . . tickets? :smile9:


let's not get crazy here, I was speaking about "detentions for suspected terrorists", not my driving record.

:halo:

[beverhart]

let's not get crazy here, I was speaking about "detentions for suspected terrorists", not my driving record.

:halo:


Weren't these people captured in a war zone, outside of the boundries of the US and citizens of countries other than the US? What then makes them subject to our Constitution and Laws? :sherlock:

[aila]

Weren't these people captured in a war zone, outside of the boundries of the US and citizens of countries other than the US? What then makes them subject to our Constitution and Laws? :sherlock:

maybe because we are humane.... or at least i would like to think we are. if they're guilty, punish them, keep them in solitary, or kill them. couldn't care less.

but the point here is that there isn't even enough evidence to bring them in a court for a hearing, much less a trial. how can you hold them indefinitely?

[Rick]

Weren't these people captured in a war zone, outside of the boundries of the US and citizens of countries other than the US? What then makes them subject to our Constitution and Laws? :sherlock:
This is taken from the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

It seems like we've violated each and every one of those.

[aila]

This is taken from the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

It seems like we've violated each and every one of those.

Thank you for this. I hope some of the readers realize that this is not a LEFT piece of propaganda.

[MrDave]

Weren't these people captured in a war zone, outside of the boundries of the US and citizens of countries other than the US? What then makes them subject to our Constitution and Laws? :sherlock:

Isn't our own executive branch, military and our own intelligence services bound by our Constitution and Laws?

[Instigator]

This is taken from the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

It seems like we've violated each and every one of those.


Well since they have already been "violated", how about we lop off their heads, then drag them through the streets while citizens continue to denegrate their bodies and finally hang them and burn them.

[iluvmichele]

This is sick. I encourage anyone who has any faith in our country and who believes we don't have to bow down to terrorists and throw out our democratic traditions in the war on terrorists to write some letters and have your voices heard.

I'm so freaking tired of Bush playing God.
president@whitehouse.gov

[beverhart]

This is taken from the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

It seems like we've violated each and every one of those.


I find it pretty interesting that there is a plethora of finger pointing at our Government for even the slightest breach of any protocol but I haven't seen near the outrage of those pointing fingers about the same actions taken against, not troops, but civilian contractors over there attempting to help the Iraqi people... most of what I have seen from the "finger pointers" is disdain for anything "American" and outrage only for "our" actions.... :worry:

We haven't taken any hostages (b) that I'm aware of nor have we passed any sentences (d) yet, so we haven't broken them all... I can't say the same for the opposition who the finger pointers seem to "give approval to by virtue of their silence" :rolleyes:

[beverhart]

Isn't our own executive branch, military and our own intelligence services bound by our Constitution and Laws?


as they relate to the Citizens of this Country... where do forgein citizens get protection under our Constitution and Laws?

[MrDave]

Well since they have already been "violated", how about we lop off their heads, then drag them through the streets while citizens continue to denegrate their bodies and finally hang them and burn them.

Guilt by association? Guilt by rumor? Guilt by gut feeling? Or guilt by evidence?

[cowleyh]

Maybe the U.S. is naive. And perhaps we should treat war like fractional math.

Find the least common denominator. We'll stoop to their level to find the solution. Sound reasonable?

[Instigator]

Guilt by association? Guilt by rumor? Guilt by gut feeling? Or guilt by evidence?


uhhh... what?

[cowleyh]

as they relate to the Citizens of this Country... where do forgein citizens get protection under our Constitution and Laws?
when they come into contact with an american...or when they threaten to sue.

[beverhart]

when they come into contact with an american...or when they threaten to sue.

Sad but true... :worry:

[Rick]

Well since they have already been "violated", how about we lop off their heads, then drag them through the streets while citizens continue to denegrate their bodies and finally hang them and burn them.
What would that accomplish? The object is to be better than antagonist.

[Rick]

I find it pretty interesting that there is a plethora of finger pointing at our Government for even the slightest breach of any protocol but I haven't seen near the outrage of those pointing fingers about the same actions taken against, not troops, but civilian contractors over there attempting to help the Iraqi people... most of what I have seen from the "finger pointers" is disdain for anything "American" and outrage only for "our" actions.... :worry:

What outrage are you looking for? There is no recourse that can be taken except for disgust and prayers/condolences for family.

[MrDave]

as they relate to the Citizens of this Country... where do forgein citizens get protection under our Constitution and Laws?

So I can murder a foreign visitor to the US and get away with it? Or am I bound by our laws? Can my government kill my wife because she is not a citizen? What if a US soldier assasinates a soldier in the British Army in Iraq?

Each falls under different laws, both local and international - different agreements and treaties.

Do you support the government arresting my wife and imprisoning her without evidence of wrongdoing that can be presented in court? Didn't the Supreme Court rule that some measure of due process was required at Guantanamo?

What is your position - non-citizens have no rights whatsoever under the Constitution?

Here is the Amendment in question, if you would like to discuss it:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

-------

I believe that addresses your question about rights under the Constitution for non-citizens at least.

[beverhart]

So I can murder a foreign visitor to the US and get away with it? Or am I bound by our laws? Can my government kill my wife because she is not a citizen? What if a US soldier assasinates a soldier in the British Army in Iraq?

Each falls under different laws, both local and international - different agreements and treaties.

Do you support the government arresting my wife and imprisoning her without evidence of wrongdoing that can be presented in court? Didn't the Supreme Court rule that some measure of due process was required at Guantanamo?

What is your position - non-citizens have no rights whatsoever under the Constitution?

Here is the Amendment in question, if you would like to discuss it:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

-------

I believe that addresses your question about rights under the Constitution for non-citizens at least.


Actually, it shows that non-citizens not in the borders of this country are NOT afforded the protection as this amendment specifically states "within it's jurisdiction"... I'm not questioning anything within the borders of our country, I'm talking about those non-citizens outside our borders...

[tommy]

i am very proud of all my government empoyees MrDave and if this tactic just helps one american i will be a happy camper ---- to each his own i guess

[MrDave]

uhhh... what?

I am asking what your standard is for determining who should be put in prison for life. It sounds like as long as they are in the same country it is OK with you.

[cowleyh]

Actually, it shows that non-citizens not in the borders of this country are NOT afforded the protection as this amendment specifically states "within it's jurisdiction"... I'm not questioning anything within the borders of our country, I'm talking about those non-citizens outside our borders...
Yes, sadly, one of my best friends from junior high was raped and murdered by an illegal when she was home from college during Christmas break. He was given protection after protection...after his legal granddad turned him in. In fact, he was almost deported to mexico instead of being prosecuted for her murder.
In high school (after i had moved away), she was voted sweetest senior. :worry:
Coddle, coddle, coddle.

[MrDave]

Maybe the U.S. is naive. And perhaps we should treat war like fractional math.

Find the least common denominator. We'll stoop to their level to find the solution. Sound reasonable?

I guess if we have no shame, no standards of decency, no morals, no standards of justice, no religious values, no need for allies or no international standing to worry about, no desire to protect the innocent, and want to act like the Nazis then I guess you are right - very reasonable.

Glad to see what standards you set for the US. Very enlightening.

[cowleyh]

I guess if we have no shame, no standards of decency, no morals, no standards of justice, no religious values, no need for allies or no international standing to worry about, no desire to protect the innocent, and want to act like the Nazis then I guess you are right - very reasonable.

Glad to see what standards you set for the US. Very enlightening.
You fell into my trap, MrDave. You are correct: The enemy has no shame, no standards of decency, no morals, etc, etc. Yet, many are still outraged when we dare to toe the line. The enemy has crossed all the lines drawn in the sand but we still want to protect them...even the ones that are ready and willing to slit the throats of relief workers.

Why with the Nazi referece at every turn? Dude... :worry:

[arouet]

I agree, I just wish he would play executioner.

Not if we are talking jails, heck all we need are walls, a scrap of cloth for a blindfold and a pack of Marlboro's or two.

Well since they have already been "violated", how about we lop off their heads, then drag them through the streets while citizens continue to denegrate their bodies and finally hang them and burn them.



You know what scares me? That unless some of you are just playing for effect, you're no different then Bin Laden or any other terrorist. Your mindset is exactly the same. Let's just kill them all, we'll sort them out later. How is that any different? You're murderers and haters at heart. The only difference is that you want to kill them and they want to kill us. It doesn't matter if the person getting killed is an innocent bystander. I'm all for going after the terrorists, but not potentially innocent people.

You justify your killing by allegiance to country, they justify theirs by allegiance to religion. I actually thought that there were real people on the other side. Scared and angry like I was, just different in the form that the anger and fear took. I might as well have been sitting and debating with Bin Laden. What a waste of time. Well better to learn now than later I guess.

[MrDave]

as they relate to the Citizens of this Country... where do forgein citizens get protection under our Constitution and Laws?

I was trying to answer this question.

Again, I did not say our Constitution provides protection for everyone outside of our country, but for those people that are subject to our control it was already decided they are supposed to be afforded due process. Building prisons in other countries is a loophole they want to exploit. The legality is up for debate. However, I am saying this is wrong and goes against what it means to be an American. This falls into the same category as allowing our government to hand over prisoners to be tortured in Jordan.

I suppose you are generally in favor of torturing and imprisoning people without evidence as long as it is legal under our Constitution. Correct me if I am wrong.

[cowleyh]

Hornets nest, arouet. :laugh:

[beverhart]

What outrage are you looking for? There is no recourse that can be taken except for disgust and prayers/condolences for family.

Sure there is... people scream loud when an American soldier is caught on camera shooting an enemy combatant who may or may not be ready to end his life... as if he should jeapordize his and his fellow troops safety in order to ensure he acts in a manner similar to a street cop preparing to read a suspect his miranda rights.... but the comments I've seen when contractors have lost their lives to terrorists thugs is that "they shouldn't have been over there anyway"... that attitude and commentary is the psychological operations brass ring that terrorists want and hope for... bad mouthing our government is our right under free speech and it's also a weapon more effective as the planes flown into the twin towers... think about it :worry:

[MrDave]

You fell into my trap, MrDave. You are correct: The enemy has no shame, no standards of decency, no morals, etc, etc. Yet, many are still outraged when we dare to toe the line. The enemy has crossed all the lines drawn in the sand but we still want to protect them...even the ones that are ready and willing to slit the throats of relief workers.

Why with the Nazi referece at every turn? Dude... :worry:

Some trap.

If you give me the evidence that they have acted as terrorists and killed our guys then they should be punished and imprisoned. If you don't have the evidence then you don't have any reason to imprison them for life.

Is that so hard to understand?

[cowleyh]

Sure there is... people scream loud when an American soldier is caught on camera shooting an enemy combatant who may or may not be ready to end his life... as if he should jeapordize his and his fellow troops safety in order to ensure he acts in a manner similar to a street cop preparing to read a suspect his miranda rights.... but the comments I've seen when contractors have lost their lives to terrorists thugs is that "they shouldn't have been over there anyway"... that attitude and commentary is the psychological operations brass ring that terrorists want and hope for... bad mouthing our government is our right under free speech and it's also a weapon more effective as the planes flown into the twin towers... think about it :worry:
you know...sadly, you are so right. i think the iraqi who was shot got more sympathy than the contractors who were burned and strung up. wow.

[MrDave]

I have to go pick up my wife's mother at the airport. Hopefully our government didn't shoot down the plane.

Goodnight all!

[beverhart]

I was trying to answer this question.

Again, I did not say our Constitution provides protection for everyone outside of our country, but for those people that are subject to our control it was already decided they are supposed to be afforded due process.

Another judicial construction :worry:

Building prisons in other countries is a loophole they want to exploit. The legality is up for debate. However, I am saying this is wrong and goes against what it means to be an American. This falls into the same category as allowing our government to hand over prisoners to be tortured in Jordan.

Loopholes are what our legal system is all about... :) the legality isn't up for debate, it's not on our soil, not subject to the same Constitutional protections as within our borders... our Government handing over prisoners to allies isn't against any law either....

I suppose you are generally in favor of torturing and imprisoning people without evidence as long as it is legal under our Constitution. Correct me if I am wrong.

I'm in favor of letting our troops fight the war without the interference from lawyers.... their involvement creates more unsafe conditions for our troops... :halo:

[reddy]

let's not get crazy here, I was speaking about "detentions for suspected terrorists", not my driving record.

:halo:

I think "suspected" is the key word here. As I understand it, throwing people in jail for life because they are SUSPECTED of being something is contrary to what our country is supposed to stand for - freedom and justice for all. Something that some of you might want to keep in mind - the FBI has been investigating some Americans for suspicious activity. Do you advocate imprisoning them for life because there is insufficient evidence to take them to trial, or is that only acceptable for non-Americans?

[Rick]

Sure there is... people scream loud when an American soldier is caught on camera shooting an enemy combatant who may or may not be ready to end his life... as if he should jeapordize his and his fellow troops safety in order to ensure he acts in a manner similar to a street cop preparing to read a suspect his miranda rights.... but the comments I've seen when contractors have lost their lives to terrorists thugs is that "they shouldn't have been over there anyway"... that attitude and commentary is the psychological operations brass ring that terrorists want and hope for... bad mouthing our government is our right under free speech and it's also a weapon more effective as the planes flown into the twin towers... think about it :worry:
I think the atrocities we commit and attempt to supress are far better propaganda than citizens disgusted with our administration.
However, you make these accusations yet I've never seen them anywhere. Why is that?

[beverhart]

I think the atrocities we commit and attempt to supress are far better propaganda than citizens disgusted with our administration.
However, you make these accusations yet I've never seen them anywhere. Why is that?

The "atrocities" we commit? Making a bunch of prisoners "vogue" for the camera? :laugh: I can see where they could be permanently scarred for that... :rolleyes:


However, you make these accusations yet I've never seen them anywhere. Why is that?

Because you haven't been around much... read through some of the old threads... you'll be amazed at what you find.

[Rick]

Because you haven't been around much... read through some of the old threads... you'll be amazed at what you find.
Yeah I did. All I came up with was alot of the same one-liners from right-wingers like you. However, all the compassion seem to come from the people you accuse of hating. Like I said, why is that?

[reddy]

The "atrocities" we commit? Making a bunch of prisoners "vogue" for the camera? :laugh: I can see where they could be permanently scarred for that... :rolleyes:



Obviously, it wouldn't bother you to be posed naked with a bunch of strangers, but to Muslims, it's an atrocity. Everyone on this planet doesn't think like Americans do.

[Rick]

The "atrocities" we commit? Making a bunch of prisoners "vogue" for the camera? :laugh: I can see where they could be permanently scarred for that... :rolleyes:

This post just shows that you've got the same mind set as the guards. Good for you, you've found a clique!

[cowleyh]

This post just shows that you've got the same mind set as the guards. Good for you, you've found a clique!
:worry: :worry:

[cowleyh]

Obviously, it wouldn't bother you to be posed naked with a bunch of strangers, but to Muslims, it's an atrocity. Everyone on this planet doesn't think like Americans do.
Is it an atrocity to rape women? Oh...nevermind. I guess I'll leave our female POWs out of this.

[beverhart]

Yeah I did. All I came up with was alot of the same one-liners from right-wingers like you. However, all the compassion seem to come from the people you accuse of hating. Like I said, why is that?


Retiring Sen. Zell Miller Joining Fox News (http://www.online-sweepstakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204203)

and how's this for illustrating my point?

This post just shows that you've got the same mind set as the guards. Good for you, you've found a clique!


all it takes is some reading through the threads... :worry:

[beverhart]

Obviously, it wouldn't bother you to be posed naked with a bunch of strangers, but to Muslims, it's an atrocity. Everyone on this planet doesn't think like Americans do.


cetainly ranks up their with a good old fashioned beheading, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I don't think other people hold the same beliefs I do, but if we're going to have a war waged against an enemy that has no problem committing atrocities and then let them skate on through "our" system of justice so they can work the system like a street thug while out hoards of attorneys sit back and attempt to "ensure their rights"... sorry, but war is hell and it's never pretty but don't hamstring our troops with a laundry list of do's and don'ts while expecting them to accomplish a mission... "support our troops" is more than just a bumper sticker :halo:

[Rick]

:worry: :worry:
You should be rolling your eyes at your colleague's crude attempt at humor, not mine.

[beverhart]

Yeah I did. All I came up with was alot of the same one-liners from right-wingers like you. However, all the compassion seem to come from the people you accuse of hating. Like I said, why is that?


This post just shows that you've got the same mind set as the guards. Good for you, you've found a clique!


You should be rolling your eyes at your colleague's crude attempt at humor, not mine.

Like I said, all it takes is a little reading :rolleyes:

[Rick]

To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains.
Mary Pettibone Poole, A Glass Eye at a Keyhole, 1938

[beverhart]

To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains.
Mary Pettibone Poole, A Glass Eye at a Keyhole, 1938


Reading is fundamental, Margaret McNamara, 1966

[reddy]

Is it an atrocity to rape women? Oh...nevermind. I guess I'll leave our female POWs out of this.

Oh, I get it. Two wrongs DO make a right. :rolleyes:

[Aisling]

Is it an atrocity to rape women? Oh...nevermind. I guess I'll leave our female POWs out of this.
Is it an atrocity for our troops to rape men and boys? Oh . . . nevermind - I guess you don't want to discuss whether atrocities by one side means it's okay for the other side.

[Instigator]

I like this idea, we want Americans tried like Americans when they are overseas, we should try the suspected terrorists they way they would be tried in their home country. I think that would put a swift end to the debate, as they would be on their trip to their "promised land". We are just trying to expedite the process.

[MrDave]

Actually, it shows that non-citizens not in the borders of this country are NOT afforded the protection as this amendment specifically states "within it's jurisdiction"... I'm not questioning anything within the borders of our country, I'm talking about those non-citizens outside our borders...

Woah - I think we agreed on something else and didn not realize it.

Many of the folks in Guantanamo were in the US when arrested, so I think we agree that, under the Constitution, that they should be afforded some protections. Right?

My wife is getting the in-laws, so I'm back! :cheer7:

[MrDave]

Is it an atrocity to rape women? Oh...nevermind. I guess I'll leave our female POWs out of this.

Of course it is. What trap are you laying this time? :smile9:

[SandyToes]

Maybe it is time for the Libs to decide which Blue state that they would like to send all of these suspects to. The Government can then agree to release them all in that state after we build a 1000ft wall to keep the rest of the Country safe. Any nominations?

[MrDave]

I like this idea, we want Americans tried like Americans when they are overseas, we should try the suspected terrorists they way they would be tried in their home country. I think that would put a swift end to the debate, as they would be on their trip to their "promised land". We are just trying to expedite the process.

Lets act like terrorists and dictators! What a grand idea. Then we can invade ourselves and overthrow our own government.

[Instigator]

Lets act like terrorists and dictators! What a grand idea. Then we can invade ourselves and overthrow our own government.


I don't think we have the troop strength left to overthrow our government.

:laugh:

[reddy]

cetainly ranks up their with a good old fashioned beheading, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

I don't think other people hold the same beliefs I do, but if we're going to have a war waged against an enemy that has no problem committing atrocities and then let them skate on through "our" system of justice so they can work the system like a street thug while out hoards of attorneys sit back and attempt to "ensure their rights"... sorry, but war is hell and it's never pretty but don't hamstring our troops with a laundry list of do's and don'ts while expecting them to accomplish a mission... "support our troops" is more than just a bumper sticker :halo:

:rolleyes: So, in your eyes, if some people behave like animals, we're entitled to do the same? Nice.
You must be missing the point. Our government wants to throw people in jail for life because they MIGHT have done something, OR might be thinking about doing something. How can you possibly not understand how wrong this is? :worry:

[Instigator]

Lets act like terrorists and dictators! What a grand idea. Then we can invade ourselves and overthrow our own government.

I have to ask but I am sure I missed it in some other thread, are you for capital punishment or against?

[Aisling]

You know what scares me? That unless some of you are just playing for effect, you're no different then Bin Laden or any other terrorist. Your mindset is exactly the same. Let's just kill them all, we'll sort them out later. How is that any different? You're murderers and haters at heart. The only difference is that you want to kill them and they want to kill us. It doesn't matter if the person getting killed is an innocent bystander. I'm all for going after the terrorists, but not potentially innocent people.

You justify your killing by allegiance to country, they justify theirs by allegiance to religion. I actually thought that there were real people on the other side. Scared and angry like I was, just different in the form that the anger and fear took. I might as well have been sitting and debating with Bin Laden. What a waste of time. Well better to learn now than later I guess.
Because I'm a Christian, I don't think it's amusing to make jokes about religion or hell. That just goes against the grain. I wouldn't dream of making fun of a person who was about to face a death sentence or celebrate a person receiving the death sentence. In my opinion, people who say the things you referred to in your post truly believe in their hearts that this would be a good way to go or they wouldn't say them at all. And you're right, there's no point in attempting to debate with them.

It has been widely reported that many of our Iraqui prisoners had no connection with the terrorists. They may just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Like walking down their street - in Iraq - to try to buy some bread for their families.) Isn't one of the latest reasons we're fighting this war to "bring democracy" to them? Last time I checked, democracy was supposed to include behaving in a humane and legal manner.

[MrDave]

president@whitehouse.gov

Thanks for that. As you may have noticed, the public outcry was cited as a reason why the Bush administration backed off (flip flopped) of its harsh definitions of what torture was legal. My whining and moaning was certainly part of that outcry.

:jump:

[MrDave]

I have to ask but I am sure I missed it in some other thread, are you for capital punishment or against?

Is this a trap?

I a generally against it because I have issue with the evidence against folks up for the death penalty and with the inequity of its use. I tend to resist governments killing their own citizens. I think there are enough cases in the US where the death penalty could be shown as being a mistake.

That said, if someone let me flip the switch on Osama I would do it in a heartbeat. If the evidence is rock solid and the offence Egregious enough then I do not have a problem with it.

[reddy]

Maybe it is time for the Libs to decide which Blue state that they would like to send all of these suspects to. The Government can then agree to release them all in that state after we build a 1000ft wall to keep the rest of the Country safe. Any nominations?

Oh please. :rolleyes: The election is long gone - get over that simplistic-media blue/red gimmick.

[MrDave]

I don't think we have the troop strength left to overthrow our government.

:laugh:

:laugh:

Good one!

[SandyToes]

Oh please. :rolleyes: The election is long gone - get over that simplistic-media blue/red gimmick.
You missed the point. How do you feel about letting them out to live in YOUR neighborhood?

[MrDave]

Because I'm a Christian, I don't think it's amusing to make jokes about religion or hell. That just goes against the grain. I wouldn't dream of making fun of a person who was about to face a death sentence or celebrate a person receiving the death sentence. In my opinion, people who say the things you referred to in your post truly believe in their hearts that this would be a good way to go or they wouldn't say them at all. And you're right, there's no point in attempting to debate with them.

It has been widely reported that many of our Iraqui prisoners had no connection with the terrorists. They may just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Like walking down their street - in Iraq - to try to buy some bread for their families.) Isn't one of the latest reasons we're fighting this war to "bring democracy" to them? Last time I checked, democracy was supposed to include behaving in a humane and legal manner.


With respect to Iraq, there were also people in Iraq using the US to intervene in private feuds - reporting false activities and sending their personal foes into a US prison. This is the kind of abuse requiring some standard of evidence can help avoid.

That said, I would not suggest we need to resort to the same level of evidence that is needed in the US, as long as we do not condemn these people to torture or life in prison. For temporary holding or questioning I would not expect much of a standard because it is a war zone. However, once we get into these strong violations of human rights, then I think due process is definately needed.

We cannot act like terrorists or dictators and claim we are fighting for the sake of their freedom. We can act like a civilized country at war and still accomplish our goals.

[aila]

You missed the point. How do you feel about letting them out to live in YOUR neighborhood?

wouldn't they be deported back to their own country?

[MrDave]

You missed the point. How do you feel about letting them out to live in YOUR neighborhood?

I think you are missing the point. Who are you talking about? Iraqi citizens arrested in Iraq? Muslims arrested in the US but who we do not have the evidence to convict them of any crime? Or people we have proof that they collaborated with terrorists or killed our soldiers and civilians?

I say OK to the first two and no to the last one.

[aila]

Mr. Dave....maybe i misunderstood, but i gathered these were the prisoners held at Gitmo....and that being the case, they would either have to send them to Miami or deport them back to their homeland. I think deportation.

[Aisling]

wouldn't they be deported back to their own country?
Seems like the US government would send them back - and probably they'd want to return to their homes and families. I don't think there's a worry about having them spreading out across the U.S.

I know that we held German prisoners in some POW camps (in the U.S.) during WW II. I believe all the prisoners were returned to Germany at the end of the war.

[reddy]

You missed the point. How do you feel about letting them out to live in YOUR neighborhood?

You didn't actually make a point - you made a ridiculous suggestion. If they haven't been tried nor convicted of any crime - they are as welcome to live in my neighborhood as anyone else. If they are SUSPECTED of being terrorists, then the authorities have a duty to keep them under surveillance - just as they would (or should) a suspected stalker, child molester, or rapist. Rounding up suspects and throwing them in dungeons for life without a trial is medieval and contrary to the principles on which our country was founded.

[cowleyh]

But then we'd be accused of being big brother. no winners here.

[MrDave]

You didn't actually make a point - you made a ridiculous suggestion. If they haven't been tried nor convicted of any crime - they are as welcome to live in my neighborhood as anyone else. If they are SUSPECTED of being terrorists, then the authorities have a duty to keep them under surveillance - just as they would (or should) a suspected stalker, child molester, or rapist. Rounding up suspects and throwing them in dungeons for life without a trial is medieval and contrary to the principles on which our country was founded.

Well put! :jump:

[MrDave]

But then we'd be accused of being big brother. no winners here.

The level of evidence needed to put someone under surveilance is less than that of putting them in jail for life. I think people would be a lot less upset about that. Do you only see the world in black and white? Should we put shoplifters to death? Or do you see a logical difference between putting some shoplifing kid on probation and sending a murderer to prison for life or giving him the death penalty?

Since I know you can see the subtle differences in law then I am guessing your comment was sarcastic and not really your true opinion on the issue.

[SandyToes]

Reddy and MrDave have now volunteered their neighborhoods as the new residence of freed suspected (But we can't prove it in a court of Law) Terrorist. Please send your addresses to Gitmo as soon as it is convenient. We will be sure to mention your names when we send the notification letters to your neighbors. :frown3:

[MrDave]

Reddy and MrDave have now volunteered their neighborhoods as the new residence of freed suspected (But we can't prove it in a court of Law) Terrorist. Please send your addresses to Gitmo as soon as it is convenient. We will be sure to mention your names when we send the notification letters to your neighbors. :frown3:

Hmm. Absolutely no effort to even read what was written or reply to it. :worry: Typcial.

[reddy]

Reddy and MrDave have now volunteered their neighborhoods as the new residence of freed suspected (But we can't prove it in a court of Law) Terrorist. Please send your addresses to Gitmo as soon as it is convenient. We will be sure to mention your names when we send the notification letters to your neighbors. :frown3:

Yet another rapier-like response. :rolleyes:

[cowleyh]

The level of evidence needed to put someone under surveilance is less than that of putting them in jail for life. I think people would be a lot less upset about that. Do you only see the world in black and white? Should we put shoplifters to death? Or do you see a logical difference between putting some shoplifing kid on probation and sending a murderer to prison for life or giving him the death penalty?

Since I know you can see the subtle differences in law then I am guessing your comment was sarcastic and not really your true opinion on the issue.
See...here's the thing. A shoplifter doesn't cause death and destruction when he or she steals... In order to keep tabs on a suspected terrorist, we have to watch them 24/7, listen in on phone calls and other private conversations, check their background, etc, etc. Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't these things people were complaining about when the patriot act came out? are these people now in favor of such surveilance?
On top of all this, we would have to decipher the 'ham and eggs for breakfast' codes they use to prevent deadly and destructive attacks, and then defend ourselves if we don't get it right....and something happens.
it's so easy to talk about giving these suspects (of whom i know very little about - such as where they were when they were apprehended, whether or not they were armed, etc) a free pass, when we (civilians) don't know anything about their situations.
sure, if they were simply standing on the street corner when a bust was made, let 'em go. if they were in a room chanting with armed al qaeda fighters, nope.

[reddy]

They're not talking about just the ones already in custody. They're talking about anyone, anywhere, ever. They want to be able to throw anyone in jail, forever, anytime in the future, for any reason they see fit. All they have to do is say "terrrorist," and some guy is toast.

[MrDave]

See...here's the thing. A shoplifter doesn't cause death and destruction when he or she steals... In order to keep tabs on a suspected terrorist, we have to watch them 24/7, listen in on phone calls and other private conversations, check their background, etc, etc. Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't these things people were complaining about when the patriot act came out? are these people now in favor of such surveilance?
On top of all this, we would have to decipher the 'ham and eggs for breakfast' codes they use to prevent deadly and destructive attacks, and then defend ourselves if we don't get it right....and something happens.
it's so easy to talk about giving these suspects (of whom i know very little about - such as where they were when they were apprehended, whether or not they were armed, etc) a free pass, when we (civilians) don't know anything about their situations.
sure, if they were simply standing on the street corner when a bust was made, let 'em go. if they were in a room chanting with armed al qaeda fighters, nope.

I cannot speak for all people. I can speak for myself. The Patriot Act removed checks and balances in some instances and probably made some unconstitutional changes to law. It also strengthened some laws that will help fight terrorism. Just because I do not think it is perfect does not mean I do not support hunting down terrorists.

Do you have any standard at all for what someone must do to be thrown into jail for life? Tell me, if someone called the FBI and said you were a terrorist, is that enough evidence to put you away for life? What if you called the FBI and said that some Muslim man was a terrorist. Is that enough evidence? What about if a suspected terrorist signed one of your legal documents as a witness. Is that enough? What if someone in your neighborhood, whom you may have had a drink with at some point, was a suspected terrorist. Is that enough? What if a suspected terrorist who was being tortured fingered you as a terrorist. Is that enough evidence?

Would you want a chance to defend yourself? Would you want the government to actually have evidence against you before putting you in jail?

Sheesh.

[Instigator]

They're not talking about just the ones already in custody. They're talking about anyone, anywhere, ever. They want to be able to throw anyone in jail, forever, anytime in the future, for any reason they see fit. All they have to do is say "terrrorist," and some guy is toast.


I believe the original post addressed, "...including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody..."

[reddy]

I believe the original post addressed, "...including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody..."

"The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations"

[Instigator]

"The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations"


So if we put the 2 posts together we have covered everything said in the OP.

[cowleyh]

I cannot speak for all people. I can speak for myself. The Patriot Act removed checks and balances in some instances and probably made some unconstitutional changes to law. It also strengthened some laws that will help fight terrorism. Just because I do not think it is perfect does not mean I do not support hunting down terrorists.

Do you have any standard at all for what someone must do to be thrown into jail for life? Tell me, if someone called the FBI and said you were a terrorist, is that enough evidence to put you away for life? What if you called the FBI and said that some Muslim man was a terrorist. Is that enough evidence? What about if a suspected terrorist signed one of your legal documents as a witness. Is that enough? What if someone in your neighborhood, whom you may have had a drink with at some point, was a suspected terrorist. Is that enough? What if a suspected terrorist who was being tortured fingered you as a terrorist. Is that enough evidence?

Would you want a chance to defend yourself? Would you want the government to actually have evidence against you before putting you in jail?

Sheesh.
sheesh. like i keep saying, i haven't seen the evidence they have on these people. i don't think you have, either. i'm sure it's more than someone who had a drink with a terrorist and someone who had a terrorist witness your signature.

and if some terrorist fingered me... uh, don't want to go there. :laugh:

seriously, it seems as though you don't trust the evidence they do have...and the reasons they have for holding them. many of the suspects have already been released, because it was determined that they were not a threat. the remaining ones are felt to be a threat by more than one person.

the extreme muslim organizations are not something we can easily penetrate. i guess we could release 'em all and just see what happens.

[MrDave]

sheesh. like i keep saying, i haven't seen the evidence they have on these people. i don't think you have, either. i'm sure it's more than someone who had a drink with a terrorist and someone who had a terrorist witness your signature.

and if some terrorist fingered me... uh, don't want to go there. :laugh:

seriously, it seems as though you don't trust the evidence they do have...and the reasons they have for holding them. many of the suspects have already been released, because it was determined that they were not a threat. the remaining ones are felt to be a threat by more than one person.

the extreme muslim organizations are not something we can easily penetrate. i guess we could release 'em all and just see what happens.

They have released hundreds of people after a couple years in prison. Why is that? Was the evidence not there? If not, then why were they there for two years? Were they only a threat for the first year of so and then they were suddenly OK?

I am saying they need to present the evidence they have. That is how our system works - that is the system they should follow. If they need different laws to govern how they deal with these people then it should be put to congress, debated publically, and then voted on.

This administration was already corrected by the courts on their not following the laws of the US. It is time they acted a bit more responsibly.

[LastLaugh]

Weren't these people captured in a war zone, outside of the boundries of the US and citizens of countries other than the US? What then makes them subject to our Constitution and Laws? :sherlock:
Let's just flay them alive and nail them to a cross.

[LastLaugh]

as they relate to the Citizens of this Country... where do forgein citizens get protection under our Constitution and Laws?
So you think the rest of the world is not worthy of the rights that Americans hold dear. Then why are we fighting for a democracy in Iraq?

If we are not willing to extend basic human rights to foriegners, then we should have no expectation of that treatment in return from any foreign government.

Why should their be a difference between torture by the good ol' U.S.A. and middle eastern terrorists? Because we are a civilized country. If you wish for us to retreat to barbarism, then I say launch the nukes now and get it over with. I'm ready, are you?

[LastLaugh]

You fell into my trap, MrDave. You are correct: The enemy has no shame, no standards of decency, no morals, etc, etc. Yet, many are still outraged when we dare to toe the line. The enemy has crossed all the lines drawn in the sand but we still want to protect them...even the ones that are ready and willing to slit the throats of relief workers.

Why with the Nazi referece at every turn? Dude... :worry:
So who is the enemy? With the amounts of prisoners that have already been released from Guantanamo, who is guilty and who is innocent? By your standards we should torture and condemn people to life in prison without knowing their guilt or innocence.

[LastLaugh]

i am very proud of all my government empoyees MrDave and if this tactic just helps one american i will be a happy camper ---- to each his own i guess
ALL of them?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/01/congress.traficant/
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/torrecelli.ethics/index.html
http://www.ctnow.com/news/politics/hc-rowlanda11223,1,5556842.photo
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/lips/bios/barrybio.html
Etc., etc., etc.
and of course the ever resourceful Tom Delay -
The House Republican leader, Tom DeLay — Congress's undisputed master of the fund-raising universe — has begun mapping New York for the Republican National Convention next August. Mr. DeLay, dubbed The Hammer, thinks he has found a way around the new law banning soft-money contributions from influence-hungry corporate donors, who have long financed galas, dinners and yacht cruises for conventioneers of both parties.

Mr. DeLay is inviting donors to use a children's charity as a channel to pay up to $500,000 for access to posh convention events. He insists that this is a legal way to float the costs of the political fun. It also secures donors a tax break when some of the money — most, Mr. DeLay promises — is spent on abused and neglected children. The Internal Revenue Service had better move quickly to vet this new twist in fat-cat politicking, which critics are denouncing as illegal. If approved, it would probably become a freshet for influence peddling because the donations would be unlimited, undisclosed and unregulated. Democrats might imitate this money mischief.

Mr. DeLay, who has an acknowledged reputation in children's charity work in his home state, Texas, is marketing the perks by a fanciful mapping of Manhattan. The Upper East Side Package costs $500,000 for two dinners with Mr. DeLay, plus a luxury convention perch, a V.I.P. cruise and tickets to hobnob with members of Congress. The Greenwich Village Package is mysteriously at the pittance end: a mere $10,000 gets you a cruise minus Mr. DeLay. Not only are the other boroughs ignored, but so are grand locales of New York political history. The old courthouse bootblack stand deserves its own package. That's where George Washington Plunkitt held forth a century ago on politicians' endless hunger for what, then and now, was termed honest graft. "I seen my opportunities and I took 'em," Mr. Plunkitt famously said, nearly 100 years before Mr. DeLay's lucrative remapping of New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/opinion/18TUE2.html?ex=1104987600&en=381e3d2f2cdf1bfd&ei=5070&oref=login

[LastLaugh]

The "atrocities" we commit? Making a bunch of prisoners "vogue" for the camera? :laugh: I can see where they could be permanently scarred for that... :rolleyes:

Because you haven't been around much... read through some of the old threads... you'll be amazed at what you find.
Voguing? is that a new term for beating prisoners to death?

[reddy]

So if we put the 2 posts together we have covered everything said in the OP.

. . . or at least the aspects of who would or could be effected.

[dandylin]

They're not talking about just the ones already in custody. They're talking about anyone, anywhere, ever. They want to be able to throw anyone in jail, forever, anytime in the future, for any reason they see fit. All they have to do is say "terrrorist," and some guy is toast.
Very insigtful reddy. And these things will continue as long as the "fear factor" is used by people in power.

And that is what scares so many of us and why so many of us, who actually see the writing on the wall, and those of us who don't want to see history repeat itself, are making such a racket over these abuses and overstepping of powers.

It's a scary time we live in and because "you" don't see anything that is being done as prophetic, doesn't mean these things aren't happening. Or maybe you don't want to see it.

[beverhart]

Woah - I think we agreed on something else and didn not realize it.

Many of the folks in Guantanamo were in the US when arrested, so I think we agree that, under the Constitution, that they should be afforded some protections. Right?

My wife is getting the in-laws, so I'm back! :cheer7:


If they are arrested in the US, then absolutely they should be afforded protection under our Constitution...

[beverhart]

Voguing? is that a new term for beating prisoners to death?


well, if that's your take on it then we could use the same term interchangably with "beheading" :rolleyes:

[beverhart]

So you think the rest of the world is not worthy of the rights that Americans hold dear. Then why are we fighting for a democracy in Iraq?

If we are not willing to extend basic human rights to foriegners, then we should have no expectation of that treatment in return from any foreign government.

Why should their be a difference between torture by the good ol' U.S.A. and middle eastern terrorists? Because we are a civilized country. If you wish for us to retreat to barbarism, then I say launch the nukes now and get it over with. I'm ready, are you?

I think they are worthy, but isn't it a left position that we shouldn't "impose our values" upon others? As far as rights that we hold dear, so are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness... something the Iraqis have had withheld from them by a murderous regime that has been displaced... Nukes? :rolleyes: a little over the top aren't you? How about weeding out the terrorists and taking them out of commission while providing the citizens of Iraq the opportunity to feel life without oppression?

[beverhart]

I like this idea, we want Americans tried like Americans when they are overseas, we should try the suspected terrorists they way they would be tried in their home country. I think that would put a swift end to the debate, as they would be on their trip to their "promised land". We are just trying to expedite the process.

Sharpen your swords and let the beheadings begin :laugh:

[beverhart]

:rolleyes: So, in your eyes, if some people behave like animals, we're entitled to do the same? Nice.
You must be missing the point. Our government wants to throw people in jail for life because they MIGHT have done something, OR might be thinking about doing something. How can you possibly not understand how wrong this is? :worry:


I think you are missing my point... it has nothing to do with behaving like animals... it has to do with OUR Constitutional protection extending beyond our borders... Ever see the movie Midnight Express? Americans don't have the protection of our Constitution once we step off of US soil so extending it to non-citizens outside the boundries of the US is giving the enemy we are fighting the ability to use "loopholes" to drag us down by allocating legal resources to an area that shouldn't be a consideration... There must be some pretty good jokes about it floating around in Taliban and Al Queda circles :rolleyes:

[beverhart]

They have released hundreds of people after a couple years in prison. Why is that? Was the evidence not there? If not, then why were they there for two years? Were they only a threat for the first year of so and then they were suddenly OK?

I am saying they need to present the evidence they have. That is how our system works - that is the system they should follow. If they need different laws to govern how they deal with these people then it should be put to congress, debated publically, and then voted on.

This administration was already corrected by the courts on their not following the laws of the US. It is time they acted a bit more responsibly.

The same thing happens right here in the US... with US citizens... people being held for trial sometimes are held for 2 years or more before getting a hearing in our overburdened court system... and now we want to further burden the court system with issues related to non-citizens in other countries? Exactly the kind of burden the terrorist want to put on the American people... The 9/11 attack was first an attack at a physical building, shock and demoralization, the second effect that was part of the planning thought process was to create a disaterous financial impact which we witnessed as the markets nearly collapsed like the twin towers... :worry:

[pechuna]

I agree, I just wish he would play executioner.

Exactly!

[reddy]

I think you are missing my point... it has nothing to do with behaving like animals... it has to do with OUR Constitutional protection extending beyond our borders... Ever see the movie Midnight Express? Americans don't have the protection of our Constitution once we step off of US soil so extending it to non-citizens outside the boundries of the US is giving the enemy we are fighting the ability to use "loopholes" to drag us down by allocating legal resources to an area that shouldn't be a consideration... There must be some pretty good jokes about it floating around in Taliban and Al Queda circles :rolleyes:

You are the one missing the point. This article makes no mention of limitations on the locale of the arrest. Only that it is related to suspected terrorism. The fact that you believe that human beings should be subject to barbaric practices simply because they aren't citizens of our country is distasteful, but not terribly surprising. What does continue to amaze me is that the individuals who shout the loudest about the greatness of America and how wonderful it is that we're spreading democracy around the world, turn around and say that only american citizens deserve the basic protection afforded by our constitution. So. . . if we throw a few hundred innocent foreigners in jail for life - so what? Everyone deserves to be free, unless we decide otherwise? Does the phrase "human rights" have any meaning at all to you?

[beverhart]

You are the one missing the point. This article makes no mention of limitations on the locale of the arrest. Only that it is related to suspected terrorism. The fact that you believe that human beings should be subject to barbaric practices simply because they aren't citizens of our country is distasteful, but not terribly surprising. What does continue to amaze me is that the individuals who shout the loudest about the greatness of America and how wonderful it is that we're spreading democracy around the world, turn around and say that only american citizens deserve the basic protection afforded by our constitution.

I don't think I'm missing the point since the story states that those prisoners are held at Gitmo they were taken prisoner outside of the US.... the "suspected" terrorists taken inside the US have been held in US prisons and tried in US courts and asumptions made about me again... not terribly surprising :rolleyes:

and Yes, the basic protections of our Constitution only apply here.



So. . . if we throw a few hundred innocent foreigners in jail for life - so what? Everyone deserves to be free, unless we decide otherwise? Does the phrase "human rights" have any meaning at all to you?

I personally don't see ANY aggressor in a war zone as being "innocent", but that's just me... :rolleyes:

Of course "human rights" has meaning to me... but a better tack would be to ask those families that have had loved ones beheaded on film if they think "human rights" have any meaning to those that perpetrated the act :worry:

[LastLaugh]

I think they are worthy, but isn't it a left position that we shouldn't "impose our values" upon others? ?
1. If you were replying to someone from the left, that statement might make a point.
2. Even if you were replying to someone on the left your point would most likely be meaningless, because just like the right, the lefy holds a wide variety of views.
As far as rights that we hold dear, so are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness... something the Iraqis have had withheld from them by a murderous regime that has been displaced... ?
Shall I once again go through the litany of non-democratic countries with repressive regimes that had direct ties to terrorists, including Al Qaeda
Nukes? :rolleyes: a little over the top aren't you?
Are you forgetting that 1/3rd of the Axis of Evil already has nukes?

[LastLaugh]

The same thing happens right here in the US... with US citizens... people being held for trial sometimes are held for 2 years or more before getting a hearing in our overburdened court system... and now we want to further burden the court system with issues related to non-citizens in other countries? Exactly the kind of burden the terrorist want to put on the American people... The 9/11 attack was first an attack at a physical building, shock and demoralization, the second effect that was part of the planning thought process was to create a disaterous financial impact which we witnessed as the markets nearly collapsed like the twin towers... :worry:
Ever hear of the right to a speedy trial?
Both the civilian and military justice systems are already being burdened by Guantanamo cases based on this administration's wrongful use of power.

[beverhart]

1. If you were replying to someone from the left, that statement might make a point.
2. Even if you were replying to someone on the left your point would most likely be meaningless, because just like the right, the lefy holds a wide variety of views.

That was merely a response to your point... Our Constitution doesn't apply outside of our borders... period.

Shall I once again go through the litany of non-democratic countries with repressive regimes that had direct ties to terrorists, including Al Qaeda

For what purpose?

Are you forgetting that 1/3rd of the Axis of Evil already has nukes?

Not at all... however your statement was

If you wish for us to retreat to barbarism, then I say launch the nukes now and get it over with

Where was there any mention of "barbarism"? My response that your suggested approach was "over the top" addresses the extremist approach to conflict resolution of "dropping nukes now"...

[beverhart]

Ever hear of the right to a speedy trial?
Both the civilian and military justice systems are already being burdened by Guantanamo cases based on this administration's wrongful use of power.


You know, I have heard of that right... seems that there are an extrodinarily large number of cases that need addressing here, and the number grows daily..... The administration's wrongful use of power? The PsyOps Brass Ring that supports terrorists and their cause that I spoke of earlier :worry:

[LastLaugh]

The administration's wrongful use of power? The PsyOps Brass Ring that supports terrorists and their cause that I spoke of earlier :worry:
The Administration by it's reversal on the use of interrogation techniques has condemned itself.

[oldroses]

Right! Who needs trials? Let's do away with ALL of them, and just execute everyone we think might have commited a crime, or might sometime down the road.

hey inst, how's your driving record? got any. . . tickets? :smile9:

:highfive:

You are the one missing the point. This article makes no mention of limitations on the locale of the arrest. Only that it is related to suspected terrorism. The fact that you believe that human beings should be subject to barbaric practices simply because they aren't citizens of our country is distasteful, but not terribly surprising. What does continue to amaze me is that the individuals who shout the loudest about the greatness of America and how wonderful it is that we're spreading democracy around the world, turn around and say that only american citizens deserve the basic protection afforded by our constitution. So. . . if we throw a few hundred innocent foreigners in jail for life - so what? Everyone deserves to be free, unless we decide otherwise? Does the phrase "human rights" have any meaning at all to you?

Another great post! :clap:

[oldroses]

president@whitehouse.gov

Is that who our posts are reported to now? :nono:

[dandylin]

Is that who our posts are reported to now? :nono:
Oh my oldroses! :cool2:

[LastLaugh]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[beverhart]

The Administration by it's reversal on the use of interrogation techniques has condemned itself.


Wasn't that due to pressures from inside our country? the brass ring...

[reddy]

I don't think I'm missing the point since the story states that those prisoners are held at Gitmo they were taken prisoner outside of the US.... the "suspected" terrorists taken inside the US have been held in US prisons and tried in US courts and asumptions made about me again... not terribly surprising :rolleyes:

and Yes, the basic protections of our Constitution only apply here.

I personally don't see ANY aggressor in a war zone as being "innocent", but that's just me... :rolleyes:

Of course "human rights" has meaning to me... but a better tack would be to ask those families that have had loved ones beheaded on film if they think "human rights" have any meaning to those that perpetrated the act :worry:

"One proposal under review is the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries"

Guantanamo Bay is mentioned as ONE of the proposals under review, and the article is addressing new options for all terrorist suspects taken - in the past, present, and future.

Yes, you're absolutely right. The protections afforded by our Constutition don't technically extend beyond our borders. Certainly that means we're free to do anything we like to non-Americans once we cross that line, and that is clearly being demonstrated in recent years by the export of terrorist suspects to countries that sanction torture. I guess I just expect too much compassion from people.

"I personally don't see ANY aggressor in a war zone as being "innocent", but that's just me... "

Neither do I. We're not talking about "aggressors" however. We're talking about people that might be aggressors - either in a war zone, or elsewhere. You are rewriting the article by adding your own assumptions.

[carogonza]

Is that who our posts are reported to now? :nono:
:laugh: