NationStates Jolt Archive

They're trying to make the US look bad. They don't have a problem blowing themselves up in crowds of people. This shouldn't suprise you or us.
i think is a more reasoned interpretation of the comments. the key word is asymmetrical - i.e., not a direct act of war or violence against the US, but an action by people who inarguably have nothing to lose to further fan the flames of extremism back home and maybe increase the threshold of western guilt. it was an indirect act with the intent, i'd say, of causing additional problems for the US.

it's a pretty common tactic for al Qaeda captives to tug at the heartstrings of the west, and it usually works pretty well.

The joke's on you, buddy. You seem to like to ignore the fact that many of the detainees at Gitmo were not arrested for committing terrorism, but rather, were just picked up in random dragnets or else sold into custody without evidence against them, but you ignoring the facts doesn't change them. All those poor bastards thought nobody had any reason to suspect them, either, but wow, I guess they were wrong. What makes you any different?

And as for the real terrorists, guess what? They KNOW for a fact that they've got morals too. From their point of view, they are being persistent in fighting for their rights, too. You have that belief in common with them. Of course, they are wrong. Maybe you have that in common with them, too.

As for agreeing to disagree, sorry. This issue is to important for that. When one side speaks, the opposition must speak up also.

i know but there will be no winner in this arguement you know that.... i know that anyone still reading tis thread knows that... it is a fact get two people on the complete opposites of the political spectrum debating.. there is never a winner....

And as for your the terrorists think what they are doing is right.... so you condone what they are doing... ??

And also many MANY innocent people sitting in AMERICAN prisons right now have no one fighting for them.. why don't you start there.. then we can worry about GITMO

AQ is still a very real threat though...
Yes, although it's hugely blown out of proportions by the media.

but it is the best way to describe what we are doing... the closest thing
Yes, as I said, the US is at war in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan. Not that that has anything to do with Al Qaeda and Muslim extremism.
There is both a war, and there is terrorism. But so far the administration hasn't connected the dots, which is because a) they're incompetent ideologues and b) because it's an impossibility to fight terrorism by means of warfare.

:p come up w/ a better term for me to use and i will use it ^^
I don't think one needs one general term, because it's not one lone problem. It'll probably be enough to call things and events by their individual names.

Okay there are a few flaws with this:

1. Obviously this is a maganzine with Anti-War and Anti-American slant.

2. Three people hanged themselves, Three! Come on, more people than that commit suicide in an american prison everyday, so show me the diffrence between the suicide rate of Gitmo (with low human rights) and an average american prison (with high human rights).

3. Everyone complaining about the abuses that sometimes happen at Gitmo (which I admit and am embarssed that our armed forces allow) put yourself in the situation of some of these soilders, who lose friends and family to these people. It's not like Gitmo is the detention of innocent people, these are known insurgents who were trying to kill Americans. It's not an excuse for the actions of the prison guards, but still an explanation why human rights at gitmo arent top priority.

4. Gitmo is not on American soil, all claims of habeus corpus and such are completely irrelvant considering they only apply to citizens and people inside the United States. Besides this, Gitmo human rights violations are significantly over emphasized in the media, considering that media is generally not allowed and most stories are rumor.

5. A terrorist manual found in Afghanistan in 2002 instructed detained terrorist to complain of human rights abuses. If I can find the link to this article then I'll post it, but I remember reading it for debate.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]
Yes, as I said, the US is at war in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan. Not that that has anything to do with Al Qaeda and Muslim extremism.
There is both a war, and there is terrorism. But so far the administration hasn't connected the dots, which is because a) they're incompetent ideologues and b) because it's an impossibility to fight terrorism by means of warfare.
QUOTE]

i agree .. although i am idealistic myself... i don't like our current administration... i respect them (by now u should know i am all about the respect) but i do not agree with them one bit...

Also as was said before we need to figure out how to dig terrorism up by the roots...

i am admitting that in your eyes it may not be ... but you do not have to make a spectacle of it.. there is nothing wrong w/ two different people having two different opinions... Cheap shots are not fair that is why they are called cheap shots :p
You're right, in my eyes, yours is not a principled stance, but you are wrong, I do have to make a spectacle of it because the lack of principles IS the key to the whole problem. It is the very reason I oppose your stance. In order to argue against you, I must -- and will -- attack your stance as unprincipled. (Oh, and it's unethical, too, btw.)

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]
Also as was said before we need to figure out how to dig terrorism up by the roots...

A great deal of the terriost problems around the world are based on religion, making it basically impossible to fix the root of the terrorism problem, ~unless of course you want to wipe out the religion *cough* hitler *cough*~

~= sarcasm

so basically half of the us would be on your hit list?.. i know bad analogy but it's late and it's the best one i've got ^^
Half of whom? I am in the majority, globally.

1. Obviously this is a maganzine with Anti-War and Anti-American slant.
Ahem...prove it. It's the Sydney Morning Herald, one of the biggest newspapers in Australia (a country with troops in Iraq, just in case you were unaware) and owned by the Fairfax Corporation.

Also as was said before we need to figure out how to dig terrorism up by the roots...
Slight correction: How to dig up violent islamist extremism. Terrorism has always been around and will always be around. It's a fact of life.

And you can start here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314

i know but there will be no winner in this arguement you know that.... i know that anyone still reading tis thread knows that... it is a fact get two people on the complete opposites of the political spectrum debating.. there is never a winner....
History shows that my side always wins in the end because my side is the side of law and social stability. Unfortunately, it takes time to defeat your side, and while we are working on it, you usually keep on killing people.

And as for your the terrorists think what they are doing is right.... so you condone what they are doing... ??
Cute attempt to twist my words. I said THEY think they are right. And then I said they were wrong about that.

And I said that you think you are right, and that you are wrong about that.

Clear now?

And also many MANY innocent people sitting in AMERICAN prisons right now have no one fighting for them.. why don't you start there.. then we can worry about GITMO
And now you want to tell me what issues I'm allowed to address? What's the matter? You don't feel up to defending your unprincipled stance on GITMO? That's not the way to get me to quit hammering at it.

You're right, in my eyes, yours is not a principled stance, but you are wrong, I do have to make a spectacle of it because the lack of principles IS the key to the whole problem. It is the very reason I oppose your stance. In order to argue against you, I must -- and will -- attack your stance as unprincipled. (Oh, and it's unethical, too, btw.)

as i believe of yours... letting them go?... it is unthinkiable in my beliefs... the way i was raised.. and what i grew up to believe.. i value my family and the safty of my family and friends over all else.. i know if i were related to a gitmo prisoner i would want them out yes... but that is the thing.. i am not.. and if it can pottentially keep my family alive and can potentially keep them out of harms way.. i say keep them locked up... my heart is in the right place... as is yours.. but my priorities are different then yours as well.

I don't honestly recall if I've been in agreement with you on a number of issues or not, but let me be the first to shake your hand regarding your contributions to the discussion thread. Well spoken.
Thank you kindly. I don't think we've ever spent much time in the same thread before. I hope we'll continue to agree on things. :)

And now you want to tell me what issues I'm allowed to address? What's the matter? You don't feel up to defending your unprincipled stance on GITMO? That's not the way to get me to quit hammering at it.

no i was sugesting a more constructive outlet for the time being.. you can try to save the world maybe...

i am sorry that was an uncalled for statement...

but no it was a suggested alternate topic is all.. what is so wrong about my stance.. everyone is entitled to their opinion... anything i say now will be repetitive of what i have said all night long... you can debate whatever you want with me.. i'm up to it

If ANY other country in the world had a camp where people were being held without trial, America would be having a hissy fit. Do what I say, not what I do seems to be American policy.

Human rights is an American ideal, unless it gets in the way of a government looking for scapegoats it seems.

Ahem...prove it. It's the Sydney Morning Herald, one of the biggest newspapers in Australia (a country with troops in Iraq, just in case you were unaware) and owned by the Fairfax Corporation.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Australian-guards-urged-to-leave-Iraq/2006/06/10/1149815340749.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/WORLD/Bush-needs-win-for-troops-to-quit-Iraq/2006/06/10/1149815334868.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/washington-not-expected-to-relax-military-muscle/2006/06/09/1149815315469.html

Three articles in the past day or so (not sure with then time diffrence) expressing extreme anti-americanism and anti-Iraq war.

Also, Michael Gawenda, author of the article, is a known liberal with a left-slant, meaning he is against the War. (not saying all liberal's are, just this particular one)

as i believe of yours... letting them go?... it is unthinkiable in my beliefs... the way i was raised.. and what i grew up to believe.. i value my family and the safty of my family and friends over all else.. i know if i were related to a gitmo prisoner i would want them out yes... but that is the thing.. i am not.. and if it can pottentially keep my family alive and can potentially keep them out of harms way.. i say keep them locked up... my heart is in the right place... as is yours.. but my priorities are different then yours as well.
When did I say "let them go"? Quote me, please. I never said any such thing. I call for the rule of law and application of due process to the prisoners. The same legal rights I would expect if I were accused of a crime. Tell me how that amounts to "let them go"?

The fact that you see no way but to trash the rule of law, no alternative but to abandon all of the principles the US was based on and reduce this country to the level of our enemies, is a strong indicator of how much you have allowed your fear to corrupt your thinking.

no i was sugesting a more constructive outlet for the time being.. you can try to save the world maybe...

i am sorry that was an uncalled for statement...

but no it was a suggested alternate topic is all.. what is so wrong about my stance.. everyone is entitled to their opinion... anything i say now will be repetitive of what i have said all night long... you can debate whatever you want with me.. i'm up to it
I consider opposing you to be very constructive. I do it to defend the principles of my country and the laws that really are what keep us safe.

The fact that you see no way but to trash the rule of law,

Point for you here. Gitmo should not be any diffrent than the japenese interment (sp? it's late) camps of the 40's and 50's. It is inherently the same issue, yet handled in two extremely diffrent ways. Bad form by the current adminstration.

When did I say "let them go"? Quote me, please. I never said any such thing. I call for the rule of law and application of due process to the prisoners. The same legal rights I would expect if I were accused of a crime. Tell me how that amounts to "let them go"?

The fact that you see no way but to trash the rule of law, no alternative but to abandon all of the principles the US was based on and reduce this country to the level of our enemies, is a strong indicator of how much you have allowed your fear to corrupt your thinking.

yes i do feAR THEM... BECAUSE THEY KNOW NO BOUNDS... AND I DO THINK THEY THEY DESERVE ALL LEGAL REPRESENTATION THAT WE HAVE TO PFFER... BUT THERE IS LITTLE TO NO EVIDENCE TO SWING EITHER WAY.. MANY OF THEM ARE INNOCENT... AND TO PROOVE THAT WOULD BE A GREAT STRIDE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.... BUT UNTILL YOU PROOVE THEM GUILTY OR INNOCENT YOU cannot let them go.. there is that possibility that they will harm someone close to me... or myself... there is no telling what steps they will take they are extremists who fear naught... not even death... because they think that the death of an infidel will bring them to allah ( yes i know this is a generalization... so i will say some of the islamic jihadists and extemist) sorry caps got stuck ^^

Three articles in the past day or so (not sure with then time diffrence) expressing extreme anti-americanism and anti-Iraq war.
You mean these are extreme anti-american and anti-Iraq war?
Dozens of Australians working as private security guards in Iraq are being urged to leave the war-torn country following the death of a Queensland man north of Baghdad.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the man's death on Thursday highlighted the dangers of living and working in Iraq.
...
© 2006 AAP
US President George W Bush said on Friday he would like to see American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible but reiterated US resolve to stay until the Iraqi government is able to secure the country on its own.

Seeking to quell speculation that the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on Wednesday would open the way for US troop reductions, Bush said the death of al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq would "help a lot" but would not end the Iraq war.
...
© 2006 Reuters, Click for Restrictions
WASHINGTON: Senior Bush Administration and military officials have acknowledged there is little chance of the US reducing troop numbers in Iraq to 100,000 by December, a goal that earlier in the year had seemed within reach.
...
© The New York Times
Just making sure you got the right links there...

Also, Michael Gawenda, author of the article, is a known liberal with a left-slant, meaning he is against the War. (not saying all liberal's are, just this particular one)
Are you from the US or from Oz?

1) The article is not from the SMH itself, but from Associate Press.
2) Who's Michael Gawenda? Which article are you talking about?
3) Don't misuse terms. "Liberal" means this (http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/oldwhig4ever/).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Australian-guards-urged-to-leave-Iraq/2006/06/10/1149815340749.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/WORLD/Bush-needs-win-for-troops-to-quit-Iraq/2006/06/10/1149815334868.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/washington-not-expected-to-relax-military-muscle/2006/06/09/1149815315469.html

Three articles in the past day or so (not sure with then time diffrence) expressing extreme anti-americanism and anti-Iraq war.

Also, Michael Gawenda, author of the article, is a known liberal with a left-slant, meaning he is against the War. (not saying all liberal's are, just this particular one)

Not one of those posts show the news mans "antiwar" or "anti American" stance. Your skin must be paper thin if you actually believe they do. Not in any of those posts does the newsman state an opinion, he reports what other people are saying. So the truth (ie australian security men have been urged to leave iraq, for example) is Un American?.

yes i do feAR THEM... BECAUSE THEY KNOW NO BOUNDS... AND I DO THINK THEY THEY DESERVE ALL LEGAL REPRESENTATION THAT WE HAVE TO PFFER... BUT THERE IS LITTLE TO NO EVIDENCE TO SWING EITHER WAY.. MANY OF THEM ARE INNOCENT... AND TO PROOVE THAT WOULD BE A GREAT STRIDE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.... BUT UNTILL YOU PROOVE THEM GUILTY OR INNOCENT YOU cannot let them go.. there is that possibility that they will harm someone close to me... or myself... there is no telling what steps they will take they are extremists who fear naught... not even death... because they think that the death of an infidel will bring them to allah ( yes i know this is a generalization... so i will say some of the islamic jihadists and extemist) sorry caps got stuck ^^

A lot of american citizens know no bounds when it comes to defense of their religion or way of life, yet they're not locked up?

I disagree, however, on your point of 'most are innocent.' Come on, this people werent picked up for nothing, i have enough faith in the armed forces that they pick up people for doing something, sure a few may get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, but a vast majority are guilty.

A lot of american citizens know no bounds when it comes to defense of their religion or way of life, yet they're not locked up?

I disagree, however, on your point of 'most are innocent.' Come on, this people werent picked up for nothing, i have enough faith in the armed forces that they pick up people for doing something, sure a few may get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, but a vast majority are guilty.


Not much fun for the ones who ARE innocent and have no recourse to the rule of law. But hey , the majority are guilty so suck it up.

A lot of american citizens know no bounds when it comes to defense of their religion or way of life, yet they're not locked up?

I disagree, however, on your point of 'most are innocent.' Come on, this people werent picked up for nothing, i have enough faith in the armed forces that they pick up people for doing something, sure a few may get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, but a vast majority are guilty.

it wasn't you cryin foul play .... sorry for that... i have just been noing these forums for so long i don't know... yes americans take for granted their freedoms of speech... but most 9another generalization) do not go out and murder random civilians as quickly and brutally as tey can... they would be tried and sntanced to death... which is exactly what we should do with the guilty detainees 9they aren't even prisoners0 at gitmo... try them if found guilty sentances to death... and the ones found innocent should be granted amnesty... and monitered for a period after relese of course... to make sure we do not make a mistake... (once again i do apoligize for catagorizing you with the FANATICS)

1) The article is not from the SMH itself, but from Associate Press.
2) Who's Michael Gawenda? Which article are you talking about?
3) Don't misuse terms. "Liberal" means this.

1. Irrelvant, they pick the news that's printed, it's not forced.
2. He's the author of the article of page 1, the main point of the topic.
3. that's not liberal means anymore, it's a theory of politics from the 70's. Also, I understand that liberal wasnt the best word, but left-wing still fits.
4. yes the links are right, it wasnt the news i was disputing, read below

Not one of those posts show the news mans "antiwar" or "anti American" stance. Your skin must be paper thin if you actually believe they do. Not in any of those posts does the newsman state an opinion, he reports what other people are saying. So the truth (ie australian security men have been urged to leave iraq, for example) is Un American?.


It's not the fact that they report the news that gives an article a biast, but the way in which the news is reported. Calling US troops in Iraq 'military muscle' is forming a biast opinion. The fact is that SMH pick's the news that is and is not printed. Also, diffrent authors within the paper have biast. Although the news service is moderate as a whole, the author complaining about Gitmo (Michael Gawenda) is not for his left-wing stance on positions. This makes the particular article biast. I'll admit that calling the whole Newspaper biast was stretching it, and apologize for that.

yes i do feAR THEM... BECAUSE THEY KNOW NO BOUNDS... AND I DO THINK THEY THEY DESERVE ALL LEGAL REPRESENTATION THAT WE HAVE TO PFFER... BUT THERE IS LITTLE TO NO EVIDENCE TO SWING EITHER WAY.. MANY OF THEM ARE INNOCENT... AND TO PROOVE THAT WOULD BE A GREAT STRIDE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.... BUT UNTILL YOU PROOVE THEM GUILTY OR INNOCENT YOU cannot let them go.. there is that possibility that they will harm someone close to me... or myself... there is no telling what steps they will take they are extremists who fear naught... not even death... because they think that the death of an infidel will bring them to allah ( yes i know this is a generalization... so i will say some of the islamic jihadists and extemist) sorry caps got stuck ^^
This is nothing but your fear talking. You're jumping at shadows, spinning terrifying visions in your own head and making up fantasies about people wanting to "let them go." Whoever said those words? Hm? Show me the post where anyone said "let them go."

You admit that many of the detainees are likely to be innocent and that they should be given their day in court. Yet how is that supposed to happen, when the Bush admin refuses to bring actual charges against them? Frankly, your remarks about how you think they deserve proper legal rights rings false in light of how convinced you are that they are a threat to you, even though you admit they might not be. Well, here's a hard fact for you -- you don't get to punish people for things they have not done. You don't get to incarcerate them before convicting them at trial.

GITMO should be closed, and when it is closed the detainees should be handed over to the US legal system, which will submit them to the due process of the law. This will include reviews of evidence against them, the bringing of indictments, the assignment of defense attorneys, public trials, and for those who are convicted, appropriate punishments.

That is what the US should be doing.

Point for you here. Gitmo should not be any diffrent than the japenese interment (sp? it's late) camps of the 40's and 50's. It is inherently the same issue, yet handled in two extremely diffrent ways. Bad form by the current adminstration.
It was bad form in the 1940s too.

And it's spelled "internment."

GITMO should be closed, and when it is closed the detainees should be handed over to the US legal system, which will submit them to the due process of the law. This will include reviews of evidence against them, the bringing of indictments, the assignment of defense attorneys, public trials, and for those who are convicted, appropriate punishments.

That is what the US should be doing.

A few problems.

1. Who would try them? What court system do you turn them over to?

2. As of now, the might as well stay at Gitmo. American media has made it impossible for any of the Gitmo detainees to recieve a fair trial here and the states, and media in general has made it impossible for fair trial any where in the world. If you leave it up to an appointed judge, the his/her biast on the matter and what he/she has been told throughout the past 1+ will build a case within his/her mind before any evidence is presented. The average american on a jury would have an even harder time setting aside the biast opinion and case already made up in their own minds. However good your idea may be and may seem still doesnt mean justice will be properly served.

This is nothing but your fear talking. You're jumping at shadows, spinning terrifying visions in your own head and making up fantasies about people wanting to "let them go." Whoever said those words? Hm? Show me the post where anyone said "let them go."

You admit that many of the detainees are likely to be innocent and that they should be given their day in court. Yet how is that supposed to happen, when the Bush admin refuses to bring actual charges against them? Frankly, your remarks about how you think they deserve proper legal rights rings false in light of how convinced you are that they are a threat to you, even though you admit they might not be. Well, here's a hard fact for you -- you don't get to punish people for things they have not done. You don't get to incarcerate them before convicting them at trial.

GITMO should be closed, and when it is closed the detainees should be handed over to the US legal system, which will submit them to the due process of the law. This will include reviews of evidence against them, the bringing of indictments, the assignment of defense attorneys, public trials, and for those who are convicted, appropriate punishments.

That is what the US should be doing.

I don't like bush .. i don't agree with bush on iraq, on gitmo... but there comes a time where a line needs to be drawn... why close gitmo?... all it is is a detainment center... Put the accused on trial... convict them... and put them back in a cell untill transport to an actual "prison can be made..of course you cannot put them in an american prison butr nonetheless....

it is only natural... that is human nature to fathom the worst possible outcome.. and yes fear can cloud the judgement.. but here it is not fear.. it is doubt

It was bad form in the 1940s too.

And it's spelled "internment."

Wasn't defending the camps in the 40's. I was saying that if the government deems it necessary to keep these people detained then they should stick with the rule of law previously established for the detention of 'threats'.

Thank you for correcting the spelling error, I knew it looked funny but didn't really care.

He's the author of the article of page 1, the main point of the topic.
How do you know that? He's the editor of the Age, another newspaper. I couldn't find any mention of his name on that page.

that's not liberal means anymore, it's a theory of politics from the 70's. Also, I understand that liberal wasnt the best word, but left-wing still fits.
Use left-wing, not liberal. Liberalism is a set of political theories (not from the seventies, unless you mean the 1770's). Its meaning does not change, all that changes is that people are now using the word as a misnomer. All I'm saying is: don't repeat it. It annoys real liberals like me.

yes the links are right, it wasnt the news i was disputing, read below
They are three bloody news reports. Not opinion pieces.

US troops in Iraq 'military muscle' is forming a biast opinion.
"Military Muscle" is a snazzy way of writing a headline! It's an alliteration.
All newspapers do it, regardless of politics. And even if it was a new word, made up by the SMH - how is that bias, for crying out loud? It doesn't even have a negative connotation.

Also, diffrent authors within the paper have biast.
Yes, like these two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Devine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Henderson

Although the news service is moderate as a whole, the author complaining about Gitmo (Michael Gawenda) is not for his left-wing stance on positions. This makes the particular article biast.
That's called an argument ad hominem. You need to address the article itself, not the author.
Complaining about Camp X-Ray is hardly a leftist thing to do. Millions of people from all walks of life have done so, including such leftist icons as Pope Benedict, Tony Blair, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Angela Merkel.

And besides, Gawenda is hardly a lefty, dude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gawenda

A few problems.

1. Who would try them? What court system do you turn them over to?
Do you mean which court would have jurisdiction? I would have no problem with a special court being created by Congress and the judiciary branch for the purpose. I might be okay with a military tribunal IF the proceedings are public.

2. As of now, the might as well stay at Gitmo. American media has made it impossible for any of the Gitmo detainees to recieve a fair trial here and the states, and media in general has made it impossible for fair trial any where in the world. If you leave it up to an appointed judge, the his/her biast on the matter and what he/she has been told throughout the past 1+ will build a case within his/her mind before any evidence is presented. The average american on a jury would have an even harder time setting aside the biast opinion and case already made up in their own minds. However good your idea may be and may seem still doesnt mean justice will be properly served.
First of all, I disagree with you that a fair trial cannot be had in the US. I also disagree with you about biased judges. The whole point of judges is that they are impartial, meaning they set aside their personal biases and follow the law. But if you are so certain that there is no way to get an impartial jury in the US, then refer the cases to the Hague or back to the home countries of the detainees.

Difficulty in bringing a case to trial is no excuse to leave a prisoner to rot without even charges being brought against him.

Wasn't defending the camps in the 40's. I was saying that if the government deems it necessary to keep these people detained then they should stick with the rule of law previously established for the detention of 'threats'.

You mean... The legal system?

I don't like bush .. i don't agree with bush on iraq, on gitmo... but there comes a time where a line needs to be drawn... why close gitmo?... all it is is a detainment center... Put the accused on trial... convict them... and put them back in a cell untill transport to an actual "prison can be made..of course you cannot put them in an american prison butr nonetheless....

it is only natural... that is human nature to fathom the worst possible outcome.. and yes fear can cloud the judgement.. but here it is not fear.. it is doubt
What part of NO CHARGES BEING BROUGHT AGAINST DETAINEES do you not understand?

Why should GITMO be closed? Because it is outside the jurisdiction of the US legal system and there is no independent supervision of its managment and, thus, no way to make sure prisoners are not being mistreated, that's why.

And why can't you put them in an American prison? If a proper charge is brought and an indictment handed down, prisoners charged with terrorism can easily be remanded into custody without bail to await trial. And then they will be in a proper prison where they can see their lawyers and keep track of their own cases.

How do you know that? He's the editor of the Age, another newspaper. I couldn't find any mention of his name on that page.


Use left-wing, not liberal. Liberalism is a political set of theories (not from the seventies, unless you mean the 1770's). Its meaning does not change, all that changes is that people are now using the word as a misnomer. All I'm saying is: don't repeat it. It annoys real liberals like me.


They are three bloody news reports. Not opinion pieces.


"Military Muscle" is a snazzy way of writing a headline! It's an alliteration.
All newspapers do it, regardless of politics. And even if it was a new word, made up by the SMH - how is that bias, for crying out loud? It doesn't even have a negative connotation.


Yes, like these two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_Devine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Henderson


That's called an argument ad hominem. You need to address the article itself, not the author.
Complaining about Camp X-Ray is hardly a leftist thing to do. Millions of people from all walks of life have done so, including such leftist icons as Pope Benedict, Tony Blair, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Angela Merkel.

And besides, Gawenda is hardly a lefty, dude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gawenda

1. Top left-hand corner. Also, the age is an affiliat of the SMH.

2. agreed, left-wing is a more appropriate term for Gawenda

3. News is and always will be reported with a intention and biast behind it, you can't argue that.

4. Ad-homeniem would be saying "Gawenda is stupid so don't believe him." There is a diffrence between an ad-hominem attack and attacking the person's political stance. By attacking the political stance, you aren't calling out the specific person, but the idea's and concept's that the person promotes.

5. You're wikipedia article on Gawenda does not prove his biast one way or the other....he's also the editor of The Age along with being SHM's Washington correspondant, The Age is a known left newspaper which may conservatives look down upon.

Do you mean which court would have jurisdiction? I would have no problem with a special court being created by Congress and the judiciary branch for the purpose. I might be okay with a military tribunal IF the proceedings are public.


First of all, I disagree with you that a fair trial cannot be had in the US. I also disagree with you about biased judges. The whole point of judges is that they are impartial, meaning they set aside their personal biases and follow the law. But if you are so certain that there is no way to get an impartial jury in the US, then refer the cases to the Hague or back to the home countries of the detainees.

Difficulty in bringing a case to trial is no excuse to leave a prisoner to rot without even charges being brought against him.

Special hearings have been proven not to work in the pass, the tried it with the Creppy Directive, bascially trying suspected terrorist, and ended up detaining 4000+ Muslim men while only "proving" that four of them had terrorist connections.

If judges werent biased, then it wouldnt be such a big deal of who's appointed to the supreme court, and bush wouldn't push for conservative judges.

Wasn't using the difficulty of a trial as an excuse, just pointing out that the prisoners will be detained either way.

What part of NO CHARGES BEING BROUGHT AGAINST DETAINEES do you not understand?

Why should GITMO be closed? Because it is outside the jurisdiction of the US legal system and there is no independent supervision of its managment and, thus, no way to make sure prisoners are not being mistreated, that's why.

And why can't you put them in an American prison? If a proper charge is brought and an indictment handed down, prisoners charged with terrorism can easily be remanded into custody without bail to await trial. And then they will be in a proper prison where they can see their lawyers and keep track of their own cases.

I SAID THEY SHOULD TRY THEM meaning they SHOULD bring charges up against them

so shut it down just b/c u don't agree with it?...huh i don't agree with where it is how it is situated and all that jurisdiction crud... but really it is a DETAINMENT CENTER it doens't have to be cofortable... unless we should give prisinors Satalite TV comfy couches and access to the internet... really

we couldn't put them in american prisons.. do you think the prisinors would take to them very well? i am not sayinf this becaus ei am against it.. it would probably be in the best interest of the convicted (if/when they are convicted) to be in a seperate prison ... it would be for their safty.. many of the american prisoners aren't in there for no reason... do u want the convicted terrorist to die anyways?

And why can't you put them in an American prison? If a proper charge is brought and an indictment handed down, prisoners charged with terrorism can easily be remanded into custody without bail to await trial. And then they will be in a proper prison where they can see their lawyers and keep track of their own cases.

What chance does a suspected terrorist have in an American prison? NONE

1. Top left-hand corner. Also, the age is an affiliat of the SMH.
Hmm, maybe I have a different set-up for my browser or something.
The Age is an affiliate because the two are owned by the same corporation, Fairfax, as I said before.

2. agreed, left-wing is a more appropriate term for Gawenda
You have yet to prove that. The Age supported John Howard during his term as editor.

3. News is and always will be reported with a intention and biast behind it, you can't argue that.
Oh, I sure can and do. It's opinion pieces and infotainment where the bias is, and in the way they are identified and seperated from actual news. But the facts don't change, and reporting news is just that: writing about the facts.
And the fact of the matter in this case is that these people have killed themselves, and that a US official called that an "act of war".
If there is bias in that article, I would like you to show me.

4. Ad-homeniem would be saying "Gawenda is stupid so don't believe him."
No, by definition an ad hominem argument (being Latin for "directed at the person") is one that ignores the argument, and instead argues against the person rather than at the argument. It doesn't have to resort to insults.
Or, to quote wiki once more:
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
By attacking the political stance, you aren't calling out the specific person, but the idea's and concept's that the person promotes.
But you did not do that. Not only did you fail to demonstrate that Gawenda even holds these views, but you also failed to demonstrate how they make his article any less valid.
Your argument wasn't about leftist ideology, nor about Gitmo nor about Iraq. It was something like "This dude is a lefty, don't pay attention to the article".

The Age is a known left newspaper which may conservatives look down upon.
The Age is not a leftist newspaper either. I ask you again: Where do you come from? Where do you get this info from? Why are you making these assertions, hoping that I won't notice? I live in Australia, you know.

Of course you did not had to spill 3 bullets in their head to suicide them... How astonishing...

Amirica is becoming shy in killing matters, they prefer the slow Chinese death since Mr Nixon trip in China...


Tou are absolved, the mecreants were just a bunch of infidels, amen.


The High Priest
- Fidel among Fidels -

What chance does a suspected terrorist have in an American prison? NONE

Erm.. are you implying that the US is being nice by putting them in GITMO to keep them away from the angry criminals in the normal US jails?? Aww good ol' George Bush, so nice of him to give those suspected terrorists special treatment (pyschological & physical torture etc..)

--

Oh and who was the person who said The Age is a leftist newspaper because I live in Australia too and that couldn't be any further from the truth.. there is NO WAY IN HELL it is leftist.

Hmm, maybe I have a different set-up for my browser or something.
The Age is an affiliate because the two are owned by the same corporation, Fairfax, as I said before.


You have yet to prove that. The Age supported John Howard during his term as editor.


Oh, I sure can and do. It's opinion pieces and infotainment where the bias is, and in the way they are identified and seperated from actual news. But the facts don't change, and reporting news is just that: writing about the facts.
And the fact of the matter in this case is that these people have killed themselves, and that a US official called that an "act of war".
If there is bias in that article, I would like you to show me.


No, by definition an ad hominem argument (being Latin for "directed at the person") is one that ignores the argument, and instead argues against the person rather than at the argument. It doesn't have to resort to insults.
Or, to quote wiki once more:


But you did not do that. Not only did you fail to demonstrate that Gawenda even holds these views, but you also failed to demonstrate how they make his article any less valid.
Your argument wasn't about leftist ideology, nor about Gitmo nor about Iraq. It was something like "This dude is a lefty, don't pay attention to the article".


The Age is not a leftist newspaper either. I ask you again: Where do you come from? Where do you get this info from? Why are you making these assertions, hoping that I won't notice? I live in Australia, you know.

1. The man writes for both newspapers.

2. My original post was calling the article extreme because the author is biast to wanting more civil liberties/human rights (slightly the same), therefore causing exaggeration of the problem based on his views.

3. I took a page from your book and called The Age a leftist paper from here....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age

4. Honestly, stop quoting wiki, I did it because i'm not familiar with The Age, but a majority of wiki is whack. Especially the ad-homeniem. If I were to say "Gawenda thinks Iraq is bad, but he cant bench press 100 pounds, so how would he know because he's not a manly man" then that would be an ad-hom attack. However, political views dont fall under ad-hom attacks. This is something I regularly have to use, i know what i'm talking about here. Just like everything, there is a boundry of what is and is not ad-homeniem.

Now I'm just going to stop, because no offense, but I might as well argue with a wall. Maybe then I'll stop getting out-there defenitions of what something is and is not.

The relationship between The Age 's political views (or supposed views) and its business model remains complex. The bulk of The Age's readership comes from the tertiary educated middle class of Melbourne, who are generally seen as holding liberal views on many issues, which The Age continues to reflect, particularly on "conscience" issues

Erm.. are you implying that the US is being nice by putting them in GITMO to keep them away from the angry criminals in the normal US jails?? Aww good ol' George Bush, so nice of him to give those suspected terrorists special treatment (pyschological & physical torture etc..

No I'm saying a terrorist would be dead within two days of entering a prison. At least in Gitmo they're not dead. If you're not going to read the whole damn argument, please stay out. You missed out by about 5 pages. Sorry if I seem like an ass here, but I'm done dealing nicely with retarded comments.

Special hearings have been proven not to work in the pass, the tried it with the Creppy Directive, bascially trying suspected terrorist, and ended up detaining 4000+ Muslim men while only "proving" that four of them had terrorist connections.

If judges werent biased, then it wouldnt be such a big deal of who's appointed to the supreme court, and bush wouldn't push for conservative judges.

Wasn't using the difficulty of a trial as an excuse, just pointing out that the prisoners will be detained either way.
Gosh, you don't think that maybe that was because, out of 4000+ Muslim men, only four could be proven to actually have terrorist connections?

The Creppy Directive (or should that read "crappy"?) -- what was that? Was it that dragnet Bush ordered immediately after 9/11, the one which, like everything else he does, was carried out with total incompetence?

Gosh, you don't think that maybe that was because, out of 4000+ Muslim men, only four could be proven to actually have terrorist connections?

The Creppy Directive (or should that read "crappy"?) -- what was that? Was it that dragnet Bush ordered immediately after 9/11, the one which, like everything else he does, was carried out with total incompetence?


You misunderstand, they detained and then deported 4,000 people while only "proving" four to be guilty.

No, it was by (then) Attorney General John Ashcroft. It was not carried out with incompetence, but a program specifically targeting middle class muslim men, which were detained months before taken to special detention hearings created by congress where the "terrorist" were given no legal representation and an appointed (by Ashcroft) judge made the soul decesion of guilty or innocent based on the testimony of federal investigators.

I SAID THEY SHOULD TRY THEM meaning they SHOULD bring charges up against them

so shut it down just b/c u don't agree with it?...huh i don't agree with where it is how it is situated and all that jurisdiction crud... but really it is a DETAINMENT CENTER it doens't have to be cofortable... unless we should give prisinors Satalite TV comfy couches and access to the internet... really

we couldn't put them in american prisons.. do you think the prisinors would take to them very well? i am not sayinf this becaus ei am against it.. it would probably be in the best interest of the convicted (if/when they are convicted) to be in a seperate prison ... it would be for their safty.. many of the american prisoners aren't in there for no reason... do u want the convicted terrorist to die anyways?
No, they should shut it down for the reason I stated: Because there is no way for it to be properly controlled. I like the way you completely ignore any part of your opponent's arguments that actually counter your arguments.

The fact is, if you think the GITMO detainees deserve due process of law, then you must agree with me that they should be taken out of GITMO because their incarceration there is a direct violation of due process. If you give them due process, you must hand them over to the US legal system, not keep them locked up in Cuba, beyond the jurisdiction of US law. Unless you want Cuba to try them for us? Didn't think so. Neither do I.

I also like the way you try to put words in my mouth. How many times so far have you ignored what I've actually said in favor of claiming that I want to coddle terrorists? And yet you claim you've been respectful in this thread. Try showing me enough respect to respond to what I actually say, and not try to paint me as your personal boogeyman.

Oh, and if they get convicted, then they are, in fact, terrorists, and then I don't give a damn what happens to them in prison. I only care about what happens to people who are not convicted of anything.

You misunderstand, they detained and then deported 4,000 people while only "proving" four to be guilty.
Which detentions were grossly unconstitutional, by the way.

No, it was by (then) Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Who did not work for Bush in any way, of course.

It was not carried out with incompetence, but a program specifically targeting middle class muslim men, which were detained months before taken to special detention hearings created by congress where the "terrorist" were given no legal representation and an appointed (by Ashcroft) judge made the soul decesion of guilty or innocent based on the testimony of federal investigators.
Right. A grossly unconstitutional violation of civil rights that produced next to nothing in the way of positive results. You don't call that incompetence? So are you saying it was supposed to go like that?

Oh, and if they get convicted, then they are, in fact, terrorists, and then I don't give a damn what happens to them in prison. I only care about what happens to people who are not convicted of anything.

So are you saying because they believe diffrently then us, and believe that America is the 'bad guy', then their life is meaningless and can be disposed of for that fact? Look at the other side, I'm sure people of Iraq see American Soldier's as terrorist, so would you like our troops to have the same treatment if the tables were turned? This part of your post makes me lose a lot of respect for your arguments and even makes me regret agreeing with some parts here and there.

Right. A grossly unconstitutional violation of civil rights that produced next to nothing in the way of positive results. You don't call that incompetence? So are you saying it was supposed to go like that?

Yes. In my opinion the system was specifically set up, not to catch terrorist, but to deport these men. Catching a terrorist was like a bonus. It was set up to be seen as a 'look here we're doing something' sort of thing, regardless of results.

Ashcroft worked for Bush, but he's the damn president, who doesn't work for Bush but still has that kind of power? exactly

Here's something new:

Pentagon Identifies 3 Guantanamo Suicides (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-guantanamo-suicides,0,7602691.story?page=1&coll=ny-sports-headlines)

And some notes:

1) It's Associated Press. Which means "Bushevik, Please. What Liberal Bias?"

2)

One of the Guantanamo detainees who committed suicide had been cleared for transfer to another country, a second was involved in a 2001 prison uprising in Afghanistan where a CIA agent died, and a third had ties to al-Qaida, the Pentagon said Sunday.

Now why would someone be cleared for transfer if he was a terrorist like the 101st Fighting Keyboarders here insist?

3) Two of them were Saudi, and the third was Yemeni; not Afghan or Iraqi. As if that makes a difference to the 101st who thinks all Mid-Easterners are dirty brown-skinned Muslim Borgs.

4)

None of the three had been formally charged.

Again if they're terrorists like the 101st Fighting Keyboarders insist, where are the charges?

5)

Only 10 detainees have been charged with crimes and face military tribunals ordered by President Bush.

Yeah, they're all terrorists according to the 101st. :rolleyes:

6)

Denbeaux said he had intended to cheer Rahman up by showing him a newspaper article quoting President Bush as saying he wanted to close the jail. But the lawyer said guards confiscated the article because detainees are barred from seeing news of current events.

0H N0ES!! DEAR LEADER CHAIRMAN BUSH WANTS TO CLOSE DOWN GUANTANAMO!! DOES THIS MEAN HE'S A COMMIE LIBERAL AL-QAEDA TERRORIST!?

But to a more serious point, why isolate prisoners from current events? How are they going to exploit breaking developments if they're incarcerated?

7)

"Where we have evidence they ought to be tried, and if convicted they ought to be sentenced," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on CNN's "Late Edition."

He said that without charges, many of the prisoners are "just out there in limbo, and that creates a very difficult situation."

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, backed Bush's comments Friday that the Guantanamo camp holds some very dangerous terrorists, but said on CNN that more needs to be done to figure out which detainees aren't a threat.

"There has to be a good procedure that balances the need to keep these people off the street with the need to find out who in fact is a terrorist," he said.

Damn Liberals! How dare they insist those dirty brown-skinned Muslims are entitled to due process!!

But hey, they're just dying on purpose to make America look bad. :rolleyes:

Yes. In my opinion the system was specifically set up, not to catch terrorist, but to deport these men. Catching a terrorist was like a bonus. It was set up to be seen as a 'look here we're doing something' sort of thing, regardless of results.

Ashcroft worked for Bush, but he's the damn president, who doesn't work for Bush but still has that kind of power? exactly
So you consider it the proper job of the US government to waste time, effort and tax dollars, and trash the laws it was supposed to uphold, just in order to "look busy" without actually making any effort to address the actual problem of terrorism? You think that was the right thing for them to do? Is that why you think it was carried out in a competent manner?

Sorry, that is not what I expect my government to do for me. As a taxpayer, it is not what I pay them to do, and therefore, I call it incompetence. In fact, that's the nicest thing I could call it.

My original post was calling the article extreme because the author is biast to wanting more civil liberties/human rights (slightly the same), therefore causing exaggeration of the problem based on his views.
And I have asked you to explain a number of times now. The main part of the article is talking about what a US spokesperson admitted to have happened, followed by a more general outline of what the controversy is all about.
How in hell's name is that bias? What wouldn't be bias in your view?

I took a page from your book and called The Age a leftist paper from here....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age
It says that it roughly coincides with the views of their readers. No shit.
It also says that the current editor has been accusing of dumping right-wing columnists, thus initiating a shift to the left. In other words, during the previous editor's time (namely Gawenda) it was considered centrist.

Especially the ad-homeniem. If I were to say "Gawenda thinks Iraq is bad, but he cant bench press 100 pounds, so how would he know because he's not a manly man" then that would be an ad-hom attack.
Want me to find any number of definitions from other websites?

However, political views dont fall under ad-hom attacks. This is something I regularly have to use, i know what i'm talking about here. Just like everything, there is a boundry of what is and is not ad-hominem*.
The point is that there needs to be a clear link between what you say about the author and what the argument is. Instead of addressing the source, you accused the author of being a leftist, as if that would somehow weaken the argument - it doesn't. You're using the accusation as a proxy for actually identifying bias in the article itself.
Whatever you want to call that, it's not a valid way of arguing.
*corrected misspelling

Now I'm just going to stop, because no offense, but I might as well argue with a wall. Maybe then I'll stop getting out-there defenitions of what something is and is not.
The only way you'll be able to do that is to stay in your own little world in which no one will dare challenge your views. Running away from a discussion is no solution.

How sad we have no more Japanese prisoners camps...
It was holidays compared with US humane camps for gerbils.

Mr Adolphe had the courage of his word, the US, NO...

That camp is no prison it's worst than any nippon or hitlerist prison we never saw before, something like the Great Inquisition Jails... However the Inquisition Jails were reserved for Catholics not for the infidels...



The High Priest
- No more US -

It´s not that the camp exists as such that pisses me off. It´s the American "holier than thou" attitude when dealing with other nations on "human rights" issues.

If America believes in Human rights as opposed to thier "rights" then the camp should be closed and the inmates moved to mainland USA to face proper trial hearings. Those found guilty should face the full majesty of the law, whilst those found innocent should be released.

Either a person held by a government is a criminal or a POW and the rule of law applies to thier treatment, or the rule of law has failed it´s own test; to apply equally and fairly to all.

Guantanamo Bay and CIA interrogation flights. It´s hard to see the torch of justice that America says it carries, when the government holds such double standards.

Gitmo, not to mention the invasion of Iraq, is symptomatic for the arrogant policies of the US. Acts like these, and several others, are eroding the support from other contries (read: most of the world).

The US has few loyal allies left (exept for the UK...). In Europe, public opinion is changing. Spain has left the coalition, and Italy has announced a withdrawal. Others will follow. Russia and China have never been completely aboard, they just play nice for the moment. The states who do not question American policies will abandon ship if they are presented with a better offer.

The War on Terror will not dominate the next generations, the Cold War is over, but the world is gearing up for the next big one. If USA wishes to alienate its former allies, the coming decades might prove to be a bumpy ride.

The Bush dynasty will probably go into history as the last ruling house in the American Empire.

Send the government after me... if they come get me... so be it... they have no reson to even suspect me... but if they did... i'll go quietly
:p

"If it'll prove a point, then I'll go quietly when they come and arrest me even if I know that I've done nothing wrong"? Congratulations, we've just found the most sedate person... ever. Maybe 2nd most- after Gandhi. I'd say it's a bluff. If they broke your door down to arrest you, and you *knew* you were an innocent person, you might not fight back but are we to believe you wouldn't even protest??

According to Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-chief-brands-suicides-acts-of-warfare/2006/06/11/1149964396421.html).


Huh?


OK.
So this means some Jihadis have sodded off to meet muhammad in hell?
Mission accomplished - trash dissapeared.
Sounds good to me!

OK.
So this means some Jihadis have sodded off to meet muhammad in hell?
Mission accomplished - trash dissapeared.
Sounds good to me!

Ah, but they were innocent.

I know this, because of Innocent until proven guilty.

They weren't proven guilty or, for that matter, ever charged, therefore they had to be innocent. Therefore, they couldn't be trash.

If you were to charge them and prove their guilt, then yes, they would be trash, until then, they're innocent.

As was pointed out earlier - 86% of these were not caught in the act of doing anything wrong.

Ah, but they were innocent.

I know this, because of Innocent until proven guilty.

They weren't proven guilty or, for that matter, ever charged, therefore they had to be innocent. Therefore, they couldn't be trash.

If you were to charge them and prove their guilt, then yes, they would be trash, until then, they're innocent.

As was pointed out earlier - 86% of these were not caught in the act of doing anything wrong.

They're dead, we're alive.

Not doing anything wrong and innocent: you mean, like, they were caught during a baptist revival?

They're dead, we're alive.
Thats your argument? :rolleyes: Alive= innocent. Dead= They must be guilty of something.


Not doing anything wrong and innocent: you mean, like, they were caught during a baptist revival?
Christian = Good.
Muslim= Bad.

At least you don't hid your hatred.

Thats your argument? :rolleyes: Alive= innocent. Dead= They must be guilty of something.


Christian = Good.
Muslim= Bad.

At least you don't hid your hatred.


My argument is much much easier.

Someone not in our uniform = Valid Military Target.

Thats your argument? :rolleyes: Alive= innocent. Dead= They must be guilty of something.


Christian = Good.
Muslim= Bad.

At least you don't hid your hatred.

Actually, regardless of who they are, if we've finished interrogating them, and we determine that they intend to remain violent enemies of the US, we give them each a cyanide pill to use if they want to kill themselves.

My argument is much much easier.

Someone not in our uniform = Valid Military Target.

Oh goody! Civilians are now "Valid Military Targets".

Oh goody! Civilians are now "Valid Military Targets".

Especially if they get in the way...


Do you know how much it would damage my notional tank if I were to drive right over an entire village of opponents of OUR way of life?

My argument is much much easier.

Someone not in our uniform = Valid Military Target.


Having worn "our" uniform for 24 years, I can safely say, you Sir are an arse.

Having worn "our" uniform for 24 years, I can safely say, you Sir are an arse.

Nah.
I just follow the RoE's in operation during the Clinton Years.

Especially if they get in the way...


Do you know how much it would damage my notional tank if I were to drive right over an entire village of opponents of OUR way of life?

Notice, not ''if they get in the way''.... but ''especially if they get in the way''.... meaning even they they weren't 'in the way', they would still be valid targets, without the bloodlust for wholesale slaughter you seem to have.

What a nice human being you are.

Notice, not ''if they get in the way''.... but ''especially if they get in the way''.... meaning even they they weren't 'in the way', they would still be valid targets, without the bloodlust for wholesale slaughter you seem to have.

What a nice human being you are.

I don't do 'Nice'. I do the Chaka Zulu-thing. Nice guys don't win wars.

Anyway, do you have any idea how much damage it would do to my notional tank if I were to drive it over a village-full of enemies of OUR way-oh-life?

Nice guys don't win wars.
Hehe, neither do you, mate. Unless you're a four-star general of course, and not just some kid in front of a PC.

I'd say that the vast majority of officers in pretty much any military on the planet will tell you that killing civilians doesn't win you wars.

Hehe, neither do you, mate. Unless you're a four-star general of course, and not just some kid in front of a PC.

I'd say that the vast majority of officers in pretty much any military on the planet will tell you that killing civilians doesn't win you wars.

True.
Retired by now.
But I did my bit and then some during the Clinton-years.

I still think that systematically attacking logistical elements such as civilian POL-stores with close-to-zero regard to collateral damage was very cold-hearted, but it did help us to get the job done in the Balkans.

Hehe, neither do you, mate. Unless you're a four-star general of course, and not just some kid in front of a PC.

I'd say that the vast majority of officers in pretty much any military on the planet will tell you that killing civilians doesn't win you wars.

If anything it makes it a damned sight harder. Unless you kill them all of course. Doing that would elevate you into some interesting company: Pol Pot, Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Torquemada.

To deliberately kill unarmed civilians is reprehensible. It´s bad enough when it happens by accident, to do it deliberately moves you beyond the pale.

...but it did help us to get the job done in the Balkans.
Debatable really. Not that that had anything to do with the civilians, but I don't think the Balkans are really sorted out, and the bombing campaign alone probably didn't do the trick.

Debatable really. Not that that had anything to do with the civilians, but I don't think the Balkans are really sorted out, and the bombing campaign alone probably didn't do the trick.

*would tend to agree*

We did have lots of other things going for us as well.

If anything it makes it a damned sight harder. Unless you kill them all of course. Doing that would elevate you into some interesting company: Pol Pot, Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Torquemada.

To deliberately kill unarmed civilians is reprehensible. It´s bad enough when it happens by accident, to do it deliberately moves you beyond the pale.


Meanwhile, these alleged civilians killed themselves.
Always NICE when a muddle clears itself out.
:D

I have been utterly disgusted by the attitude of some of the Americans on this thread. After September the 11th there was worldwide mourning. When the next major attack takes place in America I hope you'll have the decency not to act suprised at the complete lack of sympathy.

Over the last few years you have descended from the moral highground to a stinking cesspit which you call freedom.

You have alienated your friends and allies through your arrogance and disregard for the international community.

You have dishonoured the memory of every soldier, sailor and airman who laid down their lives in defiance of evil and oppression in both World Wars.

I dare do all that may become a man;
Who dares do more is none.
Macbeth

I have been utterly disgusted by the attitude of some of the Americans on this thread. After September the 11th there was worldwide mourning. When the next major attack takes place in America I hope you'll have the decency not to act suprised at the complete lack of sympathy.

Over the last few years you have descended from the moral highground to a stinking cesspit which you call freedom.

You have alienated your friends and allies through your arrogance and disregard for the international community.

You have dishonoured the memory of every soldier, sailor and airman who laid down their lives in defiance of evil and oppression in both World Wars.

I dare do all that may become a man;
Who dares do more is none.
Macbeth

Harsh but with more than a grain of truth.

If anything it makes it a damned sight harder. Unless you kill them all of course. Doing that would elevate you into some interesting company: Pol Pot, Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Torquemada.

To deliberately kill unarmed civilians is reprehensible. It´s bad enough when it happens by accident, to do it deliberately moves you beyond the pale.

It won wars and battles for the Mongols and for Tamerlane.

It won wars and battles for the Mongols and for Tamerlane.


DK, you and I are hopelesly prejudiced in favour of bloodthirsty Mongols...

*grins*

It won wars and battles for the Mongols and for Tamerlane.

Thats your argument? I mean, is it?

So, by your logic we should also reinstate slavery, prima nocta, serfdom and a thousand and one other institutions we as a species have already grown out of?.

Barbarity is barbarity regardless of the symbol you carry around your neck.

Thats your argument? I mean, is it?

So, by your logic we should also reinstate slavery, prima nocta, serfdom and a thousand and one other institutions we as a species have already grown out of?.

Barbarity is barbarity regardless of the symbol you carry around your neck.

No, I'm just saying that if you're willing to do it, it works.

Unlike you, I do not suffer from delusions of morality.

Thats your argument? I mean, is it?

So, by your logic we should also reinstate slavery, prima nocta, serfdom and a thousand and one other institutions we as a species have already grown out of?.

Barbarity is barbarity regardless of the symbol you carry around your neck.


We've grown outta those because...
they're the ways of pathetic loosers!

Especially slavery...
*spits at image of Marse Robert*

The Earth civilization is mentally retarded by these evil dreamers from the stolen continent.
The only goal is to make war to hide the deficiencies of their economy, the petrol jackass is happy as any government taxing petrol.

In the same time real values hides cuz Big Bastard could kill you if you aim to liberty (just the fun to hear that word).

Many of them do not even know they are contaminated, their too big head hides their delicate navel, the jewel center of any world.

God forbid, America is dead. Amen. :gundge:

So the "act of war" or "PR-move (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5069230.stm)" included one man who was to be freed - but he just wasn't informed of it yet? He was declared a "safe person, free to be released (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm)"?

So this means that an innocent person is dead at Guantanamo, due to the current administration and its policies. Well done. Very well done. :rolleyes:


2. Three people hanged themselves, Three! Come on, more people than that commit suicide in an american prison everyday, so show me the diffrence between the suicide rate of Gitmo (with low human rights) and an average american prison (with high human rights).
More people, yes... But that's three out of 505, if I remember the number of detainees correctly. That means 0.6%?

In 2003, in the US, a total of 59 people (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/shipjtab.htm) commited suicide - in state and local prisons all over the US. That means that out of a prison population of 2,078,570 the percentage was 0.003%
That is a vast difference if you just look at the percentages.

3. Everyone complaining about the abuses that sometimes happen at Gitmo (which I admit and am embarssed that our armed forces allow) put yourself in the situation of some of these soilders, who lose friends and family to these people. It's not like Gitmo is the detention of innocent people, these are known insurgents who were trying to kill Americans. It's not an excuse for the actions of the prison guards, but still an explanation why human rights at gitmo arent top priority.
Utaybi had been declared a "safe person, free to be released" but the US needed a country to send him to, Professor Denbeaux said.
"Known insugents"? Doesn't always appear that way, does it?

4. Gitmo is not on American soil, all claims of habeus corpus and such are completely irrelvant considering they only apply to citizens and people inside the United States.
Didn't Rasul v. Bush come to a different conclusion?

So this means that an innocent person is dead at Guantanamo, due to the current administration and its policies. Well done. Very well done. :rolleyes:


More people, yes... But that's three out of 505, if I remember the number of detainees correctly. That means 0.6%?


They've released well over 600, so it's probably closer to 0.3 percent.

Additionally, it's telling that they couldn't find a nation that was willing to take him.

Maybe he killed himself because he knew he could never go home - his home country refused to take him, even though the US said he was harmless.

So this means that an innocent person is dead at Guantanamo, due to the current administration and its policies. Well done. Very well done. :rolleyes:

An innocent person isn't dead because of the administration and policies.

An innocent person is dead because they committed suicide.

Anyone slightly familiar with the psychology of suicide know better than to try and blame it on external sources. For a person to commit suicide they have to be mentally ill; no form of external pressure can force this, although it can be a catalyst.

Why do terrorist sympathizers always try to blame terrorist actions on the victims? Does it get any more absurd than blaming the administration for a man's suicide? And is this not just a double-standard geared toward the pro-terror, anti-US agenda? Unless you blame every suicide that results from depression or forloness in prison on some external source, then it is a double-standard to do that here.

They've released well over 600, so it's probably closer to 0.3 percent.

Additionally, it's telling that they couldn't find a nation that was willing to take him.

Maybe he killed himself because he knew he could never go home - his home country refused to take him, even though the US said he was harmless.
You know, I asked this question a few pages back and no one answered it, so I'll try again--what do we do in that situation. We snatch a guy for whatever reason, and it turns out he's innocent, but we can't send him home because they won't take him. We don't want him and nobody else wants him--what do we do with him? Don't we have a responsibility as a nation to set it as right as we can? It's our fault the guy got fucked over, after all.

You know, I asked this question a few pages back and no one answered it, so I'll try again--what do we do in that situation. We snatch a guy for whatever reason, and it turns out he's innocent, but we can't send him home because they won't take him. We don't want him and nobody else wants him--what do we do with him? Don't we have a responsibility as a nation to set it as right as we can? It's our fault the guy got fucked over, after all.

Well, if it was up to me, I would give him US citizenship.

But, I have views on US citizenship that neither the Republicans nor Democrats could swallow.

I've felt that as long as you are willing to be a productive member of society, you can come to the US. I don't even have a language requirement.

An innocent person isn't dead because of the administration and policies.

An innocent person is dead because they committed suicide.

Anyone slightly familiar with the psychology of suicide know better than to try and blame it on external sources. For a person to commit suicide they have to be mentally ill; no form of external pressure can force this, although it can be a catalyst.
Arguable. What caused that mental illness? Can it be directly attributed to the isolation and indefinite detention? The interregation techniques used? The torture, if they were indeed tortured?

These conditions follow directly from the policies of the current administration. If this caused the mental illness you're talking about, then the administration indeed have blood on their hands.


Why do terrorist sympathizers always try to blame terrorist actions on the victims? Does it get any more absurd than blaming the administration for a man's suicide? And is this not just a double-standard geared toward the pro-terror, anti-US agenda?
And who are you talking about now, exactly?

Unless you blame every suicide that results from depression or forloness in prison on some external source, then it is a double-standard to do that here.
Not every suicide, but some suicides may be blamed on some external source. Again, you would have to examine what caused the mental illness, and whether or not steps were taken to remedy the situation when the illness was discovered. It would all depend on the individual case.

<snip>
The Bush dynasty will probably go into history as the last ruling house in the American Empire.
Damn, I certainly hope so. We were never supposed to have ruling houses, dynasties, kings or any of that sort of thing in the first place. Now we see why.

What chance does a suspected terrorist have in an American prison? NONE
Apparently, they don't have much chance in GITMO either.

My argument is much much easier.

Someone not in our uniform = Valid Military Target.
I'm not in a US uniform. Of course, I am a US civilian, but by your "easy" argument, the mere fact that I am not in the right uniform makes me "the enemy." :rolleyes:

Especially if they get in the way...


Do you know how much it would damage my notional tank if I were to drive right over an entire village of opponents of OUR way of life?
"OUR way of life"?? WHOSE way of life would that be, in particular? Because I can tell you, from the content of your posts, you and I do not share the same way of life. Oh, and in other threads, haven't you claimed to be a "furriner," i.e. not a US citizen? So, what way of life is GITMO defending for you, then? Because it sure as hell isn't mine.

I don't do 'Nice'. I do the Chaka Zulu-thing. Nice guys don't win wars.

Anyway, do you have any idea how much damage it would do to my notional tank if I were to drive it over a village-full of enemies of OUR way-oh-life?
Notional tanks -- those are the ones that run on bullshit, right?

I have been utterly disgusted by the attitude of some of the Americans on this thread. After September the 11th there was worldwide mourning. When the next major attack takes place in America I hope you'll have the decency not to act suprised at the complete lack of sympathy.

Over the last few years you have descended from the moral highground to a stinking cesspit which you call freedom.

You have alienated your friends and allies through your arrogance and disregard for the international community.

You have dishonoured the memory of every soldier, sailor and airman who laid down their lives in defiance of evil and oppression in both World Wars.

I dare do all that may become a man;
Who dares do more is none.
Macbeth
As an American, it saddens me that I have to agree with these statements. They are all true. My countrymen have disgraced both their own characters and the nation's. How appropriate that you quoted Macbeth. Remember how that character ended up.

According to Navy Rear Admiral Harry Harris, commander of Guantanamo (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-chief-brands-suicides-acts-of-warfare/2006/06/11/1149964396421.html).


Huh?

:D
Did the yanks hire the former iraqi minister of information or something?

Act of war? Or did they just get tired of being raped and tortured by some of the shining examples of American bravery such as Lynndie England?

Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.




The famed geneva convention...

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Already struggling to improve its image abroad, the United States went into damage control mode on Monday after a senior State Department official called three suicides in Guantanamo Bay a "great PR move."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack distanced the department from the remark made on Sunday by deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy Colleen Graffy.

"I would just point out in public that we do not see it (the suicides) as a PR stunt," McCormack told reporters.

He said the United States was seriously concerned about the deaths of the two Saudis and a Yemeni, who hanged themselves in the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where the United States has held foreign security detainees since January 2002.

Graffy's comment irked State Department image crafters who fear it could further erode America's image among allies already critical of U.S. human rights practices after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal when U.S. personnel abused inmates.

Graffy is a deputy of special envoy Karen Hughes, a close confidant of President George W. Bush, who heads a campaign to improve the U.S. image abroad, especially in Islamic countries. Her comment was seen as a setback in those efforts.

State Department's image gurus also viewed a remark by Guantanamo prison commander, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, describing the suicides as acts of "asymmetrical warfare," as a blunder.

Several State Department officials, all of whom declined to be named because the issue was so sensitive, said Graffy had chosen her words poorly and noted that Harris's comments were not repeated by other Bush administration officials.

McCormack said he would not try to dissect the motives of the prisoners who killed themselves.
Linky-link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200845.html)

Close... it... now...

*edits*

I'd also like to say that Graffy must have the hardest job in the world.

Make the US look good overseas? Ha!

Close... it... now...

*edits*

I'd also like to say that Graffy must have the hardest job in the world.

Make the US look good overseas? Ha!
Yes, but at least she has demonstrated that she is the right woman in th eright place, eh? :p

*sigh*

*sigh*
That one expression sums up my attitudes to US foreign policy perfectly at the moment.

Linky-link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200845.html)

President Bush is on a campaign to improve the image of the USA abroad? Interesting.

His resignation might do the trick... Though, the yanks would probably elect some kind of a cannibalistic half-mechanical supervillain to replace him.

President Bush is on a campaign to improve the image of the USA abroad? Interesting.

His resignation might do the trick... Though, the yanks would probably elect some kind of a cannibalistic half-mechanical supervillain to replace him.
No, Dick Cheney doesn't need to be elected, he is already the vice president :p

No, Dick Cheney doesn't need to be elected, he is already the vice president :p

Sheer brilliance, kudos!

No, Dick Cheney doesn't need to be elected, he is already the vice president :p

:D Sorry, wasn't thinking.

:D Sorry, wasn't thinking.
Great setup, nevertheless :D

They're dead, we're alive.

Which means they'll forever be innocent of their crimes, while we can still be proven guilty.

Yes, but at least she has demonstrated that she is the right woman in th eright place, eh? :p

*sigh*
right person?
I guess...
This is what she had to say to Amnesty International's complaints about gitmo:
"In the Second World War, Americans and Britons who were captured were held until the end of hostilities. They were not read rights or given a dime to call their lawyer."
Wow. what a comeback.

The deputy assistant secretary of state publicly Godwin'd herself and favourably compared current US methods of holding prisoners to those of Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.

Bet that makes you proud to be a USian.

The famed geneva convention...

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Yep, and I point your attention to the third paragraph you quoted. Here--I'll quote it again for you:
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
So much for that "not having any rights" bit.

So much for that "not having any rights" bit.


The Nazz


But did you not look thgrough the
tribunals ?????

Psychological Warfare. Dirty Suiciding bastards! :mad:

;)


yea...weay different then detonating a bomb in a market...lol...yuor a fucktard...no offence.

you intentionally kill innocents...you suck...but i guess it is cool with you,not me...

i will spend my life hunting you down and bringing you to justice...and it will be far more fair then behaeadings...asshat.

Those 6 million Jews had no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against the German Reich. Don't blame us for their deaths, it's their own fault. They got what they deserved!

What has become of America? This is sad, really...

yea...very different than detonating a bomb in a market...lol...yuor a fucktard...no offence.

you intentionally kill innocents...you suck...but i guess it is cool with you,not me...

i will spend my life hunting you down and bringing you to justice...and it will be far more fair then behaeadings...asshat.
Quite right.
Forgetting of course that even by the Pentagon's own admissions that 55% of those held in gitmo have done nothing.
But hey! They deserve to die anyway, don't they? Cause someone of their religion did something bad somewhere else.
Good thing no Christians have ever done bad things...

3rd Reich Propaganda-Marschall Ritter Siegfried von Judentod zu Semitenfeind
What a name! :p

You can talk
Us can talk
the damage is done

No one can believe a word from such a country.
Even Japan or Germany were not so arrogant.
the american dream is a nitemare.
America is a lost future.
Wake up Nations, this planet is in search of a decent model.
Something far away from america.

You can talk
Us can talk
the damage is done

No one can believe a word from such a country.
Even Japan or Germany were not so arrogant.
the american dream is a nitemare.
America is a lost future.
Wake up Nations, this planet is in search of a decent model.
Something far away from america.


The jihadis killed themselves - saving us all the trouble.

What a wonderful day :D

Quite right.
Forgetting of course that even by the Pentagon's own admissions that 55% of those held in gitmo have done nothing.
But hey! They deserve to die anyway, don't they? Cause someone of their religion did something bad somewhere else.
Good thing no Christians have ever done bad things...

Not that I dont believe you, but have you got a link to confirm that 55% figure?

The jihadis killed themselves - saving us all the trouble.

What a wonderful day :D
Too bad at least one of them weren't a jihadist, huh?

Meh, you don't care.