NationStates Jolt Archive

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has called for the closure of the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

He is reported to have serious doubts about whether the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" is legal or fair.

In a speech in London, he said the camp had become a symbol of injustice and its existence was "unacceptable".

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the US did not want to release people who might "end up on the battlefield" or commit terrorist acts.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has called the camp in Cuba an "anomaly".

But in the strongest worded condemnation yet from a British government minister, Lord Goldsmith said: "The existence of Guantanamo remains unacceptable.

"It is time, in my view, that it should close. Not only would it, in my personal opinion, be right to close Guantanamo as a matter of principle, I believe it would also help to remove what has become a symbol to many - right or wrong - of injustice.

"The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol."

Around 490 detainees are in Guantanamo Bay, which opened in January 2002.

There has been international criticism of conditions at the US camp and the length of time detainees have been held there without trial.

Rights groups have said the detainees, held on suspicion of involvement in terrorism, are mistreated through cruel interrogation methods - a charge the US denies.

Fair trial

Lord Goldsmith told the Royal United Services Institute there was a case for limiting some rights for collective security.

But he said the right to a fair trial should never be compromised.

Nine British nationals at Guantanamo were returned to the UK in 2004 and 2005 after government intervention.

Lord Goldsmith said the UK was "unable to accept that the US military tribunals proposed for those detained at Guantanamo Bay offered sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards".

He went on to defend the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK's Human Rights Act.

"Fundamental rights must be protected if we are to preserve our democracies but given the current threat to our national security we have to be flexible about how we achieve this," he said.

'Right balance'

Despite recent legal challenges to control orders, Lord Goldsmith contended that the protection of the public from the risk of terrorism "by means of civil orders and the use of secret intelligence to make out the case is untouched".

And he said deportation agreements with countries with a record of human rights abuses meant to guarantee a returnee's safety were a way of achieving the "right balance between collective security and fundamental liberties".

Lord Goldsmith also defended the creation of new criminal offences in the Terrorism Act 2006 to counter "some features of al-Qaeda type terrorism which distinguish it from other forms of crime".

"Where we depart from traditional ways of guaranteeing civil liberties we should be clear that our actions are proportionate to the threat and needed to meet it," he said.

Echoing the words of US President George W Bush - who in a TV interview on Sunday said he would like to "end" the detention centre - spokesman Mr McCormack said the US would "like nothing better than at some point in the future to close down Guantanamo".

"Nobody wants to be a jailer for the world," he added, saying "many detainees" had moved back to their countries of origin.

"But the fact of the matter is that the people there are dangerous people.

"One thing we don't want to do is release people now who might at some point in the future end up on the battlefield facing our troops or somebody else's troops, or committing acts of terrorism against civilians."

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4759317.stm)

Good. Not that I expect for a moment that anything will be done, but even the British government is saying it now...

Finally. Bush won't listen, but still, good that the British are against it too, now. How many more countries before he closes it?

Oh I suspect that we will close Guantanamo sooner or later. After all, we have lots of other places where we can torture - oops, i mean interrogate - prisoners at.

You see, it really doesn't matter whether Guantanamo remains open or not, or any other place. There are so many resources available to put prisoners in so many different places that it's impossible for anyone to know them all.

Finally. Bush won't listen, but still, good that the British are against it too, now. How many more countries before he closes it?
You see, it's not the rest of the world's to close, it's ours. We won it, and we can do what we want with it, until someone proves what is going on there.

You see, it's not the rest of the world's to close, it's ours. We won it, and we can do what we want with it, until someone proves what is going on there.
Well, whadya know? Saddam has been using the exact same speech, and yet it did not work for him.

Well, whadya know? Saddam has been using the exact same speech, and yet it did not work for him.
Only World will not invade US to disarm it, because it has nukes in it. Same as N.Korea.

Only World will not invade US to disarm it, because it has nukes in it. Same as N.Korea.
Why should they? We are disarming (our nuclear arsenal) at a faster rate than any other contry on the planet.

You see, it's not the rest of the world's to close, it's ours. We won it, and we can do what we want with it, until someone proves what is going on there.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you leased it, rather than won it, no?

Well, whadya know? Saddam has been using the exact same speech, and yet it did not work for him.
Well maybe the UN should get some better inspectors. If they've ever actually found something, it'd be news to me.

You see, it's not the rest of the world's to close, it's ours. We won it, and we can do what we want with it, until someone proves what is going on there.

You 'won it'?

I don't think being on a lease, albeit a permanent one, quantifies as you having 'won it'.

Edit: Aw, goddamit Bodies.

You see, it's not the rest of the world's to close, it's ours. We won it, and we can do what we want with it, until someone proves what is going on there.

If the rest of the world doesn't know it's happening, does it mean torture is ok to use? I don't think so. It's our responsibility to close it.

Oh I suspect that we will close Guantanamo sooner or later. After all, we have lots of other places where we can torture - oops, i mean interrogate - prisoners at.

You see, it really doesn't matter whether Guantanamo remains open or not, or any other place. There are so many resources available to put prisoners in so many different places that it's impossible for anyone to know them all.

The least the world can do is show disapproval though, the theory being that America will eventually listen.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you leased it, rather than won it, no?
Same difference. We have to back out of the contract in order to lose the land, and it's not like Cuba has the muscle to make us do that.

The least the world can do is show disapproval though, the theory being that America will eventually listen.

That's an interesting theory.

Only World will not invade US to disarm it, because it has nukes in it. Same as N.Korea.
I didn't say that it should or could or will. I was pointing out how certain justifications only work for the US. Manifest Destiny, I guess.

...and we can do what we want with it, until someone proves what is going on there.

Huh?

You 'won it'?

I don't think being on a lease, albeit a permanent one, quantifies as you having 'won it'.
If it's a lease that is already paid for, and has no visible endpoint, what's the difference between it and winning it? We took advantage of Cuba after we liberated them. Too bad, but you can't blame us for gaining something for the dead Americans that we left on their soil. Or you can, but it isn't going to get you anywhere.

Same difference. We have to back out of the contract in order to lose the land, and it's not like Cuba has the muscle to make us do that.

No, thats not what the contract is. The contract says it needs a majority from both the population of the US and Cuba to agree to have it returned to Cuban sovreignty.

You didn't 'win' anything.

Why should they? We are disarming (our nuclear arsenal) at a faster rate than any other contry on the planet.
All right, then. Carry on.:)

Huh?

It would appear this chappie believes there's no evidence of torture etc happening there. Perhaps you could enlighten him?

Same difference. We have to back out of the contract in order to lose the land, and it's not like Cuba has the muscle to make us do that.

Cuba doesn't, the world might, but it's our decision, which needs to be made, but I'm skeptical whether it will be Bush that closes it, he's too fond of getting his way through whatever means he deems necessary.

Well maybe the UN should get some better inspectors. If they've ever actually found something, it'd be news to me.
So, let me see. If you tell me I should go into my neighbours' kitchen and look for a severed head, it is my fault if I don't find one? Wow, this is so interesting.

If it's a lease that is already paid for, and has no visible endpoint, what's the difference between it and winning it? We took advantage of Cuba after we liberated them. Too bad, but you can't blame us for gaining something for the dead Americans that we left on their soil. Or you can, but it isn't going to get you anywhere.

Yes, you can, and it is going to get you somewhere if you decide to do something about it by not taking advantage of them any more..

So, let me see. If you tell me I should go into my neighbours' kitchen and look for a severed head, it is my fault if I don't find one? Wow, this is so interesting.
Is there a severed head in the kitchen? Do you have reason to believe there is one there? Will you be in physical danger if you are found? It is possible that, yes, you would be responsible if you do not find a "severed head in the kitchen".

It would appear this chappie believes there's no evidence of torture etc happening there. Perhaps you could enlighten him?

It isn't that that worries me, it is the apparent rationale behind the statement.

Am I misconstruing it if I read it like this? -

The USA can do whatever it wants just so long as nobody knows what it is doing, and then it has to stop.


So, the only crime is getting caught?

It isn't that that worries me, it is the apparent rationale behind the statement.

Am I misconstruing it if I read it like this? -

The USA can do whatever it wants just so long as nobody knows what it is doing, and then it has to stop.


So, the only crime is getting caught?
If we are doing something wrong, won't we eventually get caught? No? Isn't there enough skepticism of everything that the US says to believe someone will find something? Once they do you can start complaining, but they have to have evidence first.

It isn't that that worries me, it is the apparent rationale behind the statement.

Am I misconstruing it if I read it like this? -

The USA can do whatever it wants just so long as nobody knows what it is doing, and then it has to stop.


So, the only crime is getting caught?

Shakes me up a bit as well. A crime is a crime, whether or not it's secret.

(1) Is there a severed head in the kitchen? (2) Do you have reason to believe there is one there? (3) Will you be in physical danger if you are found? It is possible that, yes, you would be responsible if you do not find a "severed head in the kitchen".

Bringing this back to Iraq:

(1) To the very best of our knowledge, no.
(2) Not really.
and,
(3) are you suggesting that the weapons-inspectors were acting hugger-mugger?

If we are doing something wrong, won't we eventually get caught? No? Isn't there enough skepticism of everything that the US says to believe someone will find something? Once they do you can start complaining, but they have to have evidence first.

You mean like the mass of evidence of torture in Guatanamo and the 'Black-Ops' camps the CIA set up? The camps Amnesty International & Co are up in arms about? The ones the British, your closest ally, are calling for to be closed.


Hell, they're not calling for Guantanamo to be closed because they don't like the colour scheme, for crying out loud!

It would appear this chappie believes there's no evidence of torture etc happening there. Perhaps you could enlighten him?
Produce the evidence, or a link to the evidence from a credible source. Or any source, doesn't matter. Just come up with something.
Until then, shut up and sit down.

If we are doing something wrong, won't we eventually get caught? No? Isn't there enough skepticism of everything that the US says to believe someone will find something? Once they do you can start complaining, but they have to have evidence first.

You have to have evidence to prove it, but just because it hasn't been proved doesn't mean it's not wrong. It's not rational to just assume that somebody will find something, so you might as well keep doing it until they do.

If we are doing something wrong, won't we eventually get caught? No? Isn't there enough skepticism of everything that the US says to believe someone will find something? Once they do you can start complaining, but they have to have evidence first.

It was you that implied that something hideous was happening in Guantanamo, not me.

...and we can do what we want with it, until someone proves what is going on there.

Bringing this back to Iraq:

(1) To the very best of our knowledge, no.
(2) Not really.
and,
(3) are you suggesting that the weapons-inspectors were acting hugger-mugger?
We weren't talking about Iraq. Do you have anything relevant to this conversation?
EDIT: Point three was not talking about the weapons inspectors, I meant is there a time limit on the inspection process, meaning that you cannot do a thourough job.

Produce the evidence, or a link to the evidence from a credible source. Or any source, doesn't matter. Just come up with something.
Until then, shut up and sit down.

Do you really believe the US is benevolently holding prisoners in Cuba where nobody can see what is happening so that they can have their privacy?

Is there a severed head in the kitchen? Do you have reason to believe there is one there? Will you be in physical danger if you are found? It is possible that, yes, you would be responsible if you do not find a "severed head in the kitchen".
The point was: the Americans tell the World that there is a severed head in their neighbour's kitchen, and then blame the inspectors for not finding one (without being able to find one themselves). The UN inspectors are "teh evil" for not having found what America knew was there without searching, and, ultimately, without finding it herself.
And God forbid anyone should imply or attempt to prove that America is doing something contemptible on its own territory.

Produce the evidence, or a link to the evidence from a credible source. Or any source, doesn't matter. Just come up with something.
Until then, shut up and sit down.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng - Amnesty International Report

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042696_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-MY-HELL-IN-CAMP-X-RAY-name_page.html - Daily Mirror Report by ex-prisoner

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4262095.stm - BBC Report

EDIT: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302380.html - Washington Post Report


This enough, or are they not believable for some reason?

Produce the evidence, or a link to the evidence from a credible source. Or any source, doesn't matter. Just come up with something.
Until then, shut up and sit down.
Yes, the British gvt calls for shutting the camp down as part of its secret plan to destroy America by pretending to be its ally.

And, if "evidence" or "credible source" is what pointed towards Iraqi WMDs...

We weren't talking about Iraq. Do you have anything relevant to this conversation?

Weren't we?:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10934796&postcount=9

It was you that implied that something hideous was happening in Guantanamo, not me.
Yes, indeed we can do whatever we want. I'm not saying that it has to be evil, though I can see how you might interpret it that way. What is going on there doesn't have to be evil, but the truth is the rest of the world doesn't really know what is going on. It is possible that there is torture, but it is also possible that there is none, just interrogation.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I choose my words carefully, and I don't like to be misrepresented.

Yes, the British gvt calls for shutting the camp down as part of its secret plan to destroy America by pretending to be its ally.

Shhhh! You'll reveal our plan to get our 13 Colonies back!

Yes, indeed we can do whatever we want. I'm not saying that it has to be evil, though I can see how you might interpret it that way. What is going on there doesn't have to be evil, but the truth is the rest of the world doesn't really know what is going on. It is possible that there is torture, but it is also possible that there is none, just interrogation.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I choose my words carefully, and I don't like to be misrepresented.

The horrid torturing (As shown in the links posted above) are just interrogation, then? Bloody brilliant techniques then. Good god man, look at the links and believe - there is huge amounts of torture going on.

Yes, indeed we can do whatever we want. I'm not saying that it has to be evil, though I can see how you might interpret it that way. What is going on there doesn't have to be evil, but the truth is the rest of the world doesn't really know what is going on. It is possible that there is torture, but it is also possible that there is none, just interrogation.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I choose my words carefully, and I don't like to be misrepresented.


If there is only legal interrogation, then your statement makes little sense:

...and we can do what we want with it, until someone proves what is going on there.

- unless you are claiming that the US would also stop legal interrogation in Guantanamo if it were proven that it were carrying out legal interrogation there.

Weren't we?:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10934796&postcount=9
Saddam was a terrorist, these people are allegedly terrorists, so no, we weren't directly talking about Iraq.

Yes, indeed we can do whatever we want. I'm not saying that it has to be evil, though I can see how you might interpret it that way. What is going on there doesn't have to be evil, but the truth is the rest of the world doesn't really know what is going on. It is possible that there is torture, but it is also possible that there is none, just interrogation.
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I choose my words carefully, and I don't like to be misrepresented.

The US isn't just holding them there for their health. If it was interrogation, we could have done it somewhere else. And the world wouldn't just request closure because they like sticking their noses into other countries' business. That's the UN's job.

Saddam was a terrorist, these people are allegedly terrorists, so no, we weren't directly talking about Iraq.

If Saddam was a terrorist why hasn't he been tried for terrorism?

Saddam was a terrorist, these people are allegedly terrorists, so no, we weren't directly talking about Iraq.
So, America went after Saddam for him "being a terrorist"? Hm. That's not what I remember.
Oh, and may I see some evidence for that? Or a link to the evidence from a credible source. Or any source, doesn't matter. Just come up with something.
Until then, shut up and sit down.

If there is only legal interrogation, then your statement makes little sense:

- unless you are claiming that the US would also stop legal interrogation in Guantanamo if it were proven that it were carrying out legal interrogation there.
No, though it certainly sounds like it, don't it?;) We could be just interrogating them, in which case, there would be no reason to stop, so I imagine they wouldn't.

No, though it certainly sounds like it, don't it?;) We could be just interrogating them, in which case, there would be no reason to stop, so I imagine they wouldn't.

See above links and posts. They're not just interrogating them.

So, America went after Saddam for him "being a terrorist"? Hm. That's not what I remember.
Oh, and may I see some evidence for that? Or a link to the evidence from a credible source. Or any source, doesn't matter. Just come up with something.
Until then, shut up and sit down.
HeHeHe, you see what they did there, they repeated something that I said earlier, only it was back at me. Wow, I'm going to need a sec.
No, that wasn't the only reason, or even the main reason, but in the context of the argument, he is a terrorist, so that was what I was responding to. My main point were that while they are not unconnected, the Iraq war and the war on terrorism are separate.

See above links and posts. They're not just interrogating them.
I'll look at the links when you guys slow down a bit, it's one on however many of you there are. geesh.:rolleyes:

Yes, the British gvt calls for shutting the camp down as part of its secret plan to destroy America by pretending to be its ally.

And, if "evidence" or "credible source" is what pointed towards Iraqi WMDs...
CHRIST!!! Two different things, will you people please stay focused?

My main point were that while they are not unconnected, the Iraq war and the war on terrorism are separate.

So what was the invasion of Iraq about then?

CHRIST!!! Two different things, will you people please stay focused?

What's wrong with debating both?

Produce the evidence, or a link to the evidence from a credible source. Or any source, doesn't matter. Just come up with something.
Until then, shut up and sit down.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4831408.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2086823.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4262095.stm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511932005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html
http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/02/week_4/24_begg3.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/guan-a06.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_05_05_fbi_email.pdf

Enough?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4831408.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2086823.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4262095.stm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511932005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html
http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/02/week_4/24_begg3.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/guan-a06.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_05_05_fbi_email.pdf

Enough?

*whistle*

HeHeHe, you see what they did there, they repeated something that I said earlier, only it was back at me. Wow, I'm going to need a sec.
No, that wasn't the only reason, or even the main reason, but in the context of the argument, he is a terrorist, so that was what I was responding to. My main point were that while they are not unconnected, the Iraq war and the war on terrorism are separate.
So, let me see: do you invent a separate reality for every time Bush admits he was wrong?
"Cannot find WMDs" turns into "We weren't looking for WMDs"
"Saddam is a terrorist" turns into "the war on terror (lovely term!) is not connected with Saddam", but then:
"we do not have many reasons that we could make public on the issue of why we went to war" turns into "Saddam is a terrorist"
however, if it should arise that:
"no proof has been found or could ever be found for the completely paralogical sentence 'Saddam was connected with Al Qaida' ", it turns into "Saddam had WMDs"

Of course, if the World is to point out that it has questions about Guantanamo, you basically state that:

"AMERICA IS DOING NOTHING WRONG, BUT IT COULD JUST AS WELL DO WHATEVER IT PLEASES"

What's wrong with debating both?
Because, as I said earlier, there's only one of me, and many more of you.:headbang:

Because, as I said earlier, there's only one of me, and many more of you.:headbang:
Well, if you weren't prepared to continue you shouldn't have started in the first place.

So, let me see: do you invent a separate reality for every time Bush admits he was wrong?
"Cannot find WMDs" turns into "We weren't looking for WMDs"
"Saddam is a terrorist" turns into "the war on terror (lovely term!) is not connected with Saddam", bu then:
"we do not have many reasons that we could make public on the issue of why we wnt to war" turns into "Saddam is a terrorist"
however, if it should arise that:
"no proof has been found or could ever be found for the completely paralogical sentence 'Saddam was connected with Al Qaida' " turns into "Saddam had WMDs"
Seriously, if you guys don't stop trying to drag something else into this, I'm going to just stop, and you won't have done anything. I have different and somewhat unresolved thoughts about the Iraq war, but I have much different views about Guantanamo. It's not my fault that the rest of you can't see some separation. I understand that there was deception involved in getting America involved in the war, though how much is debateable. Still, until I get some EDIT: (SPELLING)reinforcements, I can't take on both, so please keep the two issues separate!

Well, if you weren't prepared to continue you shouldn't have started in the first place.
I'm not quitting, just saying to slow down, (as I have already said) I am only one person.

So, let me see: do you invent a separate reality for every time Bush admits he was wrong?
"Cannot find WMDs" turns into "We weren't looking for WMDs"
"Saddam is a terrorist" turns into "the war on terror (lovely term!) is not connected with Saddam", but then:
"we do not have many reasons that we could make public on the issue of why we went to war" turns into "Saddam is a terrorist"
however, if it should arise that:
"no proof has been found or could ever be found for the completely paralogical sentence 'Saddam was connected with Al Qaida' ", it turns into "Saddam had WMDs"

Of course, if the World is to point out that it has questions about Guantanamo, you basically state that:

"AMERICA IS DOING NOTHING WRONG, BUT IT COULD JUST AS WELL DO WHATEVER IT PLEASES"
Am I going to have to start reposting what I have said earlier? Go back and read the rest of the argument. Please, it will be enlightening.

"AMERICA IS DOING NOTHING WRONG, BUT IT COULD JUST AS WELL DO WHATEVER IT PLEASES"

...and will continue doing nothing wrong, until someone proves that it is doing nothing wrong.

Am I going to have to start reposting what I have said earlier? Go back and read the rest of the argument. Please, it will be enlightening.
I was strictly referring to the point. If the US can question (especially if it does so while there is suspicion that the questioning is in fact driven by personal interests masquerading as the common good - as seen from my previous post), it sure as hell can be questioned iself.
If you consider the Iraq thing to be digressing, let me ask you again why you consider the following to be true (as I am led to believe from your posts):
"AMERICA IS DOING NOTHING WRONG, BUT IT COULD JUST AS WELL DO WHATEVER IT PLEASES".

...and will continue doing nothing wrong, until someone proves that it is doing nothing wrong.
Is this aimed at him, or at me? I'm sorry, just the pure brilliance of the tactic has astonished me, leaving me confused and surprised.:confused:

P.S. The quote system on this site could use an upgrade.

If you consider the Iraq thing to be digressing, let me ask you again why you consider the following to be true (as I am led to believe from your posts):
"AMERICA IS DOING NOTHING WRONG, BUT IT COULD JUST AS WELL DO WHATEVER IT PLEASES".
Did I say that was the truth? Really? Show me.

Did I say that was the truth? Really? Show me.
Didn't Bodies Without Organs make it quite clear in post 41?

Well i certainly don't agree that the US should be able to do whatever it pleases, but you can't flow with the intl community...

I was strictly referring to the point. If the US can question (especially if it does so while there is suspicion that the questioning is in fact driven by personal interests masquerading as the common good - as seen from my previous post), it sure as hell can be questioned iself.
1. Whose personal interests? For whose common good?
2. I'm not saying that the US cannot be questioned, they have been. I'm just saying that they haven't been caught doing anything (I say caught here because in reality I don't know if they are doing anything illegal), as of yet.

Didn't Bodies Without Organs make it quite clear in post 41?
Didn't my reply clear up any questions about what I meant? (#46)
Once again read what I say, don't just look at it.

Let us get back on track here. The question of whether torture is being carried out or not in Guantanamo is a side issue to this statement, which has at its heart the statement that

the UK was "unable to accept that the US military tribunals proposed for those detained at Guantanamo Bay offered sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards".

1. Whose personal interests? For whose common good?
Does this mean that we are debating Iraq now? Am I allowed to?
I thought I had made it clear (and you probably heard this before): if all the reasons argued by the US turn out to be false, and instead the US finds some perks in it, it should mean "personal interests" (or, if not, very limited ones). The US admin. was not just using arguments to make the issue presentable for the American public (with the "Saddam-Osama connection"), but also for the world itself ("WMDs"). Hence, I am led to believe that Bush has been trying to con the entire world ("common good").

2. I'm not saying that the US cannot be questioned, they have been. I'm just saying that they haven't been caught doing anything (I say caught here because in reality I don't know if they are doing anything illegal), as of yet.
1. Wasn't the US proven to have done something? I mean, consider that this is coming after a US ally decides to call for the site to be closed... Also, look at the links provided. Plus, it is not precisely as if the US were not already caught doing this at other locations (yes, we've all seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib)
2. Has Saddam been caught doing anything?

Didn't my reply clear up any questions about what I meant? (#46)
Once again read what I say, don't just look at it.
I had, and I have read it again. It still makes no sense whatsoever.

Does this mean that we are debating Iraq now? Am I allowed to?
I thought I had made it clear (and you probably heard this before): if all the reasons argued by the US turn out to be false, and instead the US finds some perks in it, it should mean "personal interests" (or, if not, very limited ones). The US admin. was not just using arguments to make the issue presentable for the American public (with the "Saddam-Osama connection"), but also for the world itself ("WMDs"). Hence, I am led to believe that Bush has been trying to con the entire world ("common good").


1. Wasn't the US proven to have done something? I mean, consider that this is coming after a US ally decides to call for the site to be closed... Also, look at the links provided. Plus, it is not precisely as if the US were not already caught doing this at other locations (yes, we've all seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib)
2. Has Saddam been caught doing anything?
K, that's it, I'm sorry, but I just can't keep this up. I have already explained this, all of it. Just because you are too lazy to read what I say isn't my fault. I know that you are going to say that I gave up, or that you have "won". I don't see it that way, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I really did mean that I didn't want to repeat myself, so from now on I just won't post on this thread. It's not how I wanted it to end, but that's too bad.

I had, and I have read it again. It still makes no sense whatsoever.
I can't be held responsible for your level of understanding ( I know that sounds elitist, but then it is a little bit).

K, that's it, I'm sorry, but I just can't keep this up. I have already explained this, all of it. Just because you are too lazy to read what I say isn't my fault. I know that you are going to say that I gave up, or that you have "won". I don't see it that way, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I really did mean that I didn't want to repeat myself, so from now on I just won't post on this thread. It's not how I wanted it to end, but that's too bad.
Look, LaLaland0. 80% of your replies on this thread were about how I (or others) "don't get you", without providing a legible statement of what we "should get". The other part, we have talked about a severed head analogy that you did not seem to get.

I had, and I have read it again. It still makes no sense whatsoever.

It does make sense in itself, but the problem is that it is incompatible with #4.

I can't be held responsible for your level of understanding ( I know that sounds elitist, but then it is a little bit).
As is apparent from this thread, you would not assume responsability for your own posts. So, my level of understanding could not have ever asked for you as caretaker.

Look, LaLaland0. 80% of your replies on this thread were about how I (or others) "don't get you", without providing a legible statement of what we "should get".

What it seems we 'should get':

The US is doing nothing illegal in Guantanamo (to the best of LL0's knowledge).
Even if it were doing something illegal, it hasn't been proven yet.
Even if it were proven, the rest of the world would not have the means to force it to stop.

What it seems we 'should get':

The US is doing nothing illegal in Guantanamo (to the best of LL0's knowledge).
Even if it were doing something illegal, it hasn't been proven yet.
Even if it were proven, the rest of the world would not have the means to force it to stop.
Yes, but LL0 also implied that the World cannot prove if the US is doing wrong. If anything proven wrong is America's to stop, then all a non-transparent US gvt will defend itself from the gaze of the American public (the only public it should care about, I am to understand) by blocking the access of a World which does not actually have the means to stop it on its own.
It is still Manifest Destiny.

If anything proven wrong is America's to stop, then all a non-transparent US gvt will defend itself from the gaze of the American public (the only public it should care about, I am to understand) by blocking the access of a World which does not actually have the means to stop it on its own.

Read that sentence and tell me if it makes sense to you.

Read that sentence and tell me if it makes sense to you.
You're right, I should proofread myself. In my defense, it is 5:30 AM over here.
Let me rephrase:
If anything proven wrong is only America's to stop, then a non-transparent US gvt will defend itself from the gaze of the American public (the only public it should care about, I am to understand) by blocking the access of a proxy World, one which does not actually have the means to stop it on its own. I mean: this is basically trusting the American gvt to supervise itself.