Terrorist rights???

[Beef]

I really cant believe that this is an issue, but somehow, it doesnt suprise me that it is.

Do you think that the TERRORISTS being held at Camp X-Ray in Cuba are being treated fairly ?? If you ask me, they have it pretty fucking good!! Compared to the conditions they lived in in Afghanistan, they are in the Penthouse right now! Or perhaps we should treat them like American prisoners tend to be treated when they are captured by other nations... beat them constantly and drag them through the streets!!

These are potentially some of the most dangerous people in the world, who would not think twice about killing themselves to take you or me with them. Yet, people(liberal pussies) feel the need to make sure they have every opportunity to recieve comfort and aid, make sure, they are feeling ok.... give me a break!!! I say let them sleep in a building less than 100 ft from where they are being held and then tell me that you dont want them to be contained the way they are!!

[Optimist Prime]

You're proud to be an American right Beef? Well, with out the following words, American would have never existed.

"...That all men are created equal, that they are indowed by their Creator certain inailiable rights..."

[Beef]

Im not saying they should have no rights whatsoever...
But for people to be complaining about what they THINK is happening based on a few pictures is just rediculous!

[Optimist Prime]

Thats riducluas (sp?) so is everything else in the world.

[The1calledTKE]

They probably have more rights than their women did back home.

[James]

Well, we don't know how they are really being treated and we don't know what they are capable of or what they know.

I don't much care what we do to them. We could take them out and execute them wahtever. I do care if we pervert, circumscribe, or make a mockery of our Laws to do it because the consitution and our laws are the only thing that protects us from abuses by people with power.

For whatever reason our governmental structure has evolved into organized distrust. Our Founders seems to be astute students of human nature and knew that not all people are equal in their decision making capabilities. Therefore we have a Constitution that guarentees due process. ITs our Contract.

So again, while I don't care what we do with them, I do care if we start twisting our rules, because that is a slippery slope.

[matthewg]

Originally posted by James
Well, we don't know how they are really being treated and we don't know what they are capable of or what they know.

So again, while I don't care what we do with them, I do care if we start twisting our rules, because that is a slippery slope.

well said!! I think all that matters is that people apply the rules they make to themselves AND to others. Double standards should not be accepted for the sake of credibility.

[damasa]

damn that, they shouldn't have any rights, given the circumstances and the threats they are still giving to the guards at Camp X-Ray about wanting to kill Americans, i see the situation as acceptable. Further, since they aren't classified as P.O.W.'s, they aren't granted prisoner rights under the Geneva Convention.

So, Fack 'em.

[James]

They aren't classified as POW's because we are deliberately not considering them POW's and no one is in a position to tell us what to do. Fine with me, I certainly don't need the drama of anger and self righteousnes to justify getting information from them and then executing them or whatever.

You might want to think twice about torturing and killing prisoners though. IT doesn't bode well for american soldiers and civilians in the future.

The universe has a maxim: Take what you want . . . and pay for it.

So we need to figure out exactly what we want here and how to get it and then colldly execute those objectives. Without the sugarcoating and bullshit. And then we better be willing to face trhe consequences, usually unforseen, without complaining.

Originally posted by damasa
damn that, they shouldn't have any rights, given the circumstances and the threats they are still giving to the guards at Camp X-Ray about wanting to kill Americans, i see the situation as acceptable. Further, since they aren't classified as P.O.W.'s, they aren't granted prisoner rights under the Geneva Convention.

So, Fack 'em.

[Optimist Prime]

I thought this was a war we were fighting? We took prisoners. Therefore they are prisoners of war. This is called logic.

[moe.ron]

Fine with me, but we better stop critizing other governments also. Let's not be hypocritical.

Let stop saying we represent democracy, cause our past doesn't say so.

Let's be honest and say we want to kick ass and our foreign policy has little to do with democracy or freedom, our foreign policy is our best interest. It's called REal Politik.

My suggestion:
Get rid of the Leahey Amendment and start training the Indonesian forces to get rid of terrorist threat in Indonesia. Like what we are doing with the Phillipines. However, we got to smack Congressman Brownback of Texas and tell him to shut the freak up. Saying that the Phillipines is the next afghanistan is stupid, esp. with Arroyo gaining opposition about US involvement not only from her adversary, but also from her Vice President and her foreign minister.

[damasa]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
I thought this was a war we were fighting? We took prisoners. Therefore they are prisoners of war. This is called logic.

this isn't a philosophy course my friend. They haven't yet been classified as pow's. AND, personally, I hope they aren't, they don't deserve or need rights, IMO.

d

[Beef]

TECHNICALLY, there has been no declaration of war, so there could be no prisoners of war. Technically anyways...
Most of these "poeple" arent even Afghan, they are forgein Al Qaida fighters..

When i saw images of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners shackled, wearing blacked-out goggles, ear muffs and surgical masks, kneeling in open-air cages, i feel very, very bad and sad.

These guys arent little angels that made a small mistake and deserve a slap on the wrist. These are the scum of the earth and are being treated much better than they truely deserve...

[moe.ron]

On a site note, I saw the funniest t-shirt ever. It has a picture of christ being escorted out of an American Airline flight. The caption said "If Jesus was alive, he would not be welcomed in American Airline."

OK people, flame me. :)

[dzrose93]

Originally posted by Curiousgirl
When i saw images of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners shackled, wearing blacked-out goggles, ear muffs and surgical masks, kneeling in open-air cages, i feel very, very bad and sad.

Yeah, well when I saw the ruins of the World Trade Center towers, the plane that went down in Pennsylvania, and the damage that was done to the Pentagon, I felt very, very bad and sad also.

These guys would slit our soldiers' throats if given the opportunity, and they would be more than happy to give away information about the base if they were to escape. So, I don't feel one bit sorry for the fact that they are being treated as dangerous prisoners. That's exactly what they are. If they didn't want to face the consequences, then they shouldn't have started the war. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. All of my sympathy has been given to the 9/11 victims, and I have none to spare on these butchers of innocents.

[juniorgrrl]

Originally posted by Curiousgirl
When i saw images of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners shackled, wearing blacked-out goggles, ear muffs and surgical masks, kneeling in open-air cages, i feel very, very bad and sad.

When I see countless mothers giving birth without their husbands there, children without parents, the ruins of a beautiful building complex reduced to rubble, the pentagon broken, all because those bastards were involved in some way with the 9/11 attacks, that makes me feel very very bad and sad.

An American boy was CANED in Singapore for vandalizing a car. These people belonged to a group that helped pull off an act of mass terrorisim and we feel bad becasue they're in a chain gang?! :eek: :confused: :mad:

[James]

Alright people, I am sending a giant eyeroll out to almost all of you :rolleyes:.

A lot of you need to stop with the angry rhetoric because there is no point and it clouds the issues. Also, its a weknes of character if you need anger, rationaization, and self justification in order to do unpleasant things that need to be done. Its also dangerous to dehumanize your opponent. Which is what some of the terms you are using indicate.

There is very little value judgement here. Its not about right or wrong, thats too complicated and hard to defend. ITs realy about Us against Them. Lets keep it that way and stop trying to us words like deserve . . . all it does is open us up to attacks on the flaws in our our self justifications.

I agree with Arya that we need to just come out and say it like the way it is. We are like Machiavelli with a conscience given us by TV.

But I understand that most people need the propaganda and rah rah to feel better about themselves and the unpleasant things that need to be done. Kind of like a PC fantasy land. Weak, but again a trait that will allow me to make more money and be more successful as life goes on (sounds of cash registers in the background).

As a related but off topic Pessimists are often a lot more realistic in their assessments of reality, but optimists are more happy, if delusional.

[ZZ-kai-]

Bad and Sad? Are you freakin kiddin me? I can't believe anyone would feel that way. These are the guys who are the backbone of the fools who killed 3,000 of your brothers and sisters, and you feel bad? These same people were given bagels on their plane trip to Cuba and were de-liced because us Americans are humane. I'd say thats pretty nice of the US Military. Hmm, clean orange jump suits, heat, food, water, no more lice....thats pretty darn good.

I say fuk these guys.......I wish they would turn them over to the public, I'd be the first one in line to kick them in the junk.

Originally posted by Curiousgirl
When i saw images of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners shackled, wearing blacked-out goggles, ear muffs and surgical masks, kneeling in open-air cages, i feel very, very bad and sad.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by James

I agree with Arya that we need to just come out and say it like the way it is. We are like Machiavelli with a conscience given us by TV.


Exactly, I mean I know the Indonesian want to get rid of the extremist, but they need the training and the arms (which they buy, we don't give them). Unfortunately, the LEahy amendment forbid our militray from training them and them buying arm. Why, because of East Timor, which, by the way, we were also party too. So let's cut this propogandan bs and help our friends. I encourage ya all to contact your local congressman and tell themto dump the leahy amendment.

[The1calledTKE]

Just give the terrorist the same rights that the terrorist gave the people in the towers, pentagon and planes. Simple enough.

[James]

_______________________:rolleyes:


Originally posted by zntke711
Just give the terrorist the same rights that the terrorist gave the people in the towers, pentagon and planes. Simple enough.

[AlphaGam1019]

Originally posted by James
_______________________:rolleyes:




______________________ ! :p

[moe.ron]

$#^%@%&#@%&#$*&^%&#^#@%$%@$#^%$&%$&$#%^@^%$@!%$@%^%#

That is Hello in K-Pax :)

[AlphaGam1019]

Originally posted by Arya
$#^%@%&#@%&#$*&^%&#^#@%$%@$#^%$&%$&$#%^@^%$@!%$@%^%#

That is Hello in K-Pax :)


lol...do you also know any other out of this world languages?

[moe.ron]

Ngiyenza azi cishe ncane zulu

No, but I do know very little zulu

[dzrose93]

Originally posted by James
Alright people, I am sending a giant eyeroll out to almost all of you :rolleyes:.

A lot of you need to stop with the angry rhetoric because there is no point and it clouds the issues. Also, its a weknes of character if you need anger, rationaization, and self justification in order to do unpleasant things that need to be done. Its also dangerous to dehumanize your opponent. Which is what some of the terms you are using indicate.

Um, HELLO, is there anyone on this board who actually thinks that these guys wouldn't take over that base and kill every American in it if they could? The simple fact remains that the prisoners are, in fact, dangerous and our military is dealing with them in an appropriate manner. THAT is the issue, and if I want to throw in some angry rhetoric then I will. It doesn't mean that I have a "weak" character or need to justify anything to myself just to appease my conscience. So please don't be so condescending, James. Some of us just choose not to over-analyze every move our government makes. That doesn't make us irrational idiots who eat up every piece of propaganda handed to us, nor does it make us overzealous patriots who bury our heads in the sand every time someone cries foul over an action our country has taken concerning foreign policy.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing the whining from all the liberals protesting that the prisoners' civil rights aren't being upheld. If they want to put them up at the Ritz, then so be it. Give them the keys to those cells and let them handle those men without our military present. We'll see how long it takes them to change their tunes when there aren't any bars or guns to separate them from the religious zealots who consider all Americans to be evil and better off dead. :rolleyes:

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by James
_______________________:rolleyes:





_______________________:rolleyes:

[Beef]

Forgive me for being angry with terrorists...:rolleyes:

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by Arya


Exactly, I mean I know the Indonesian want to get rid of the extremist, but they need the training and the arms (which they buy, we don't give them). Unfortunately, the LEahy amendment forbid our militray from training them and them buying arm. Why, because of East Timor, which, by the way, we were also party too. So let's cut this propogandan bs and help our friends. I encourage ya all to contact your local congressman and tell themto dump the leahy amendment.

Dump the Leahy amendment? Are you serious?

The USA going into different countries and training various paramilitary factions is what got us into this mess in the first place. Pres. Bush senior worked with Osama Bin Ladin and his men extensively. Granted, ths was all during the cold war when we all assumed that we faced a much bigger threat in teh USSR, but we will be dealing with what came of that executive decision for decades to come.

And this is all not to mention the extreme damage that the USA did throughout Central America by using the same tactics- educating paramilitary groups which then turn around and either attack us (against which we retaliate) or against their own people (when we turn a blind eye as long as we get our oil and/or money and other goods).

The USA playing big brother might save us some short term strife, but in the long run I think it has been proven to be disastrou for all concerned.

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by Beef
Forgive me for being angry with terrorists...:rolleyes:

No one is saying don't be angry with terrorists, but htink it through.

We live in a country that is supposedly built on a system of law. Precedent is one of the pillars of our legal system. If we set a precedent of treating ANYONE, even these men (who are beneath scum IMHO) in a way that goes against our lwas, it will bite us in the butt, and we will lose the perceived high moral ground (the rest of the world dislikes us anyway, and as you can see it takes only one bad news report for us to go from America the victim to America the oppressor).

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84


Dump the Leahy amendment? Are you serious?

The USA going into different countries and training various paramilitary factions is what got us into this mess in the first place. Pres. Bush senior worked with Osama Bin Ladin and his men extensively. Granted, ths was all during the cold war when we all assumed that we faced a much bigger threat in teh USSR, but we will be dealing with what came of that executive decision for decades to come.

And this is all not to mention the extreme damage that the USA did throughout Central America by using the same tactics- educating paramilitary groups which then turn around and either attack us (against which we retaliate) or against their own people (when we turn a blind eye as long as we get our oil and/or money and other goods).

The USA playing big brother might save us some short term strife, but in the long run I think it has been proven to be disastrou for all concerned.

There is an outright ban on all arms trading, from bullets to F-16. Boeing and Lockheed could have avoided downsizing if not for the LEahey Amendment. SO, instead, the Indonesian government bought their arms from the Russians and the European. We lost billion in arms trade. And thisi s not a para-military organizaton, this is the armed force of a nation that have always supported us. Sure they are going through rough time, but we need them to be stabilized because:

(a) Indonesia is right in the middle of the world economy, 76% of the world economy uses the sea lane that goes through the region.
(b) a stable Indonesia is a stable S.E. Asia. And trust me, you do not want a destablize S.E. Asia.
(c) Indonesia could be the holy grail when it come to having a legitimate democratically elected government where the population are Muslim. (Indonesia is a democratic government)
(d) The Commender of the Pacific fleet himself says that Indonesian armed forces need the military hardware because many of their planes, tanks and boats are running down and they can not buy replacement.
(e) I'm not alone in this regard, CATO, Henry Kissinger (sure I don't like him, but you got to make pact with the devil some time), US Dept. of Defense and other want to restart the different training and selling of weapons to their armed forces.
(f) We have little or no influence on the military right now because of the LEahey AMendment. If we returned to normality, we have better influence

No more rhetoric, it's time to practice real politik.

[dzrose93]

Originally posted by skip101
Do you think it is OK for other countries to torture American POWs?

One of the main reasons that people are complaining is because the USA is not following their OWN rules of war.

How exactly are these prisoners being tortured, skip? From the reports I've read, even the Red Cross members examining the men are agreeing that the men are being treated fairly well on the base.

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by dzrose93


Lovelyivy,

I understand your point, and it's a good one. :) However, on the other hand, what does it say about our government if we bow to every demand that a protester makes about the way that we conduct our affairs? To me, it would only make us look weak if we back down. And, quite honestly, I don't think that we are treating the prisoners poorly, which is why it upsets me to hear people complaining so vehemently.

I agree that we have used higher security measures during their transport from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay than we would for other criminals, but I think we would be remiss in not doing so. When it comes right down to it, our soldiers are our main concern. Their safety comes first, and if it means that a group of dangerous prisoners has to feel a little discomfort for a time in order to insure that safety, then I don't think that we are wrong for it.

I don't presume that I know at all what is happening down in the camps. If it's ok by the Red Cross then its ok by me. But if there are concerns in the worldwide community then they need to be addressed because we are at a point where we don't want to lose support for this war- there is far too much (if only in the way of national pride) invested in it.

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by Arya


There is an outright ban on all arms trading, from bullets to F-16. Boeing and Lockheed could have avoided downsizing if not for the LEahey Amendment. SO, instead, the Indonesian government bought their arms from the Russians and the European. We lost billion in arms trade. And thisi s not a para-military organizaton, this is the armed force of a nation that have always supported us. Sure they are going through rough time, but we need them to be stabilized because:

(a) Indonesia is right in the middle of the world economy, 76% of the world economy uses the sea lane that goes through the region.
(b) a stable Indonesia is a stable S.E. Asia. And trust me, you do not want a destablize S.E. Asia.
(c) Indonesia could be the holy grail when it come to having a legitimate democratically elected government where the population are Muslim. (Indonesia is a democratic government)
(d) The Commender of the Pacific fleet himself says that Indonesian armed forces need the military hardware because many of their planes, tanks and boats are running down and they can not buy replacement.
(e) I'm not alone in this regard, CATO, Henry Kissinger (sure I don't like him, but you got to make pact with the devil some time), US Dept. of Defense and other want to restart the different training and selling of weapons to their armed forces.
(f) We have little or no influence on the military right now because of the LEahey AMendment. If we returned to normality, we have better influence

No more rhetoric, it's time to practice real politik.

I don't think that I am giving in to rhetoric, just observing the effects of former policy.

There may seem to be a number of great reasons (all of the ones you listed are compelling) but in the long run I think it will be a mistake. It is always a mistake. Once America involves itself in the affairs of any given foreign country, it generally takes a war and a couple of billion dollars spent before we get out of it again (Vietnam, Korea, Phillipines, Central America, The Middle East have all proven costly in manpower as well as capital).

As for providing arms, that would spur American industry, and then in 20 years when tht country is financially unstable from the various wars amongst the political factions that we armed, or who received the arms through corrupt dealers, and the country has split into several deadly factions resulting from the weakened centralized government that the people lost faith in when the officials 'betrayed' them by giving in to the American dogs, and they have massacred their own people and want to unify themselves as a country again, who becomes the Enemy? Us. Who is subject to a fresh wave of terrorist acts? Us.

[dzrose93]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84


I don't presume that I know at all what is happening down in the camps. If it's ok by the Red Cross then its ok by me. But if there are concerns in the worldwide community then they need to be addressed because we are at a point where we don't want to lose support for this war- there is far too much (if only in the way of national pride) invested in it.

If I'm understanding the news correctly, the main problem that people are having with our treatment of the prisoners is that they are not being classified as POW's, which means that they are in "legal limbo," so to speak, because they aren't entitled to a trial unless they are actual POW's.

Right now, the government is still trying to determine how best to deal with these men, and may be holding off on POW status until they come up with a safe, effective way to try the prisoners and, also, get information from them that will help us in our fight against terrorism. I can definitely understand why the government is hesitating. They want to be absolutely sure that they are doing everything possible to prevent future terrorist acts.

I think that we have and will continue to follow the rules of war as stated by the Geneva Convention. However, it may take us some time to sort through all of the 1,000's of prisoners that we've taken and interview them for any knowledge they have. If the rest of the world would just give us a little breathing room to accomplish that important task instead of jumping down our throats about every move we make, then I think everything will work out as it is suppose to in the end. The men will get the trials that they are entitled to, and we will feel safer as a country.

Instead, it seems as if people are just waiting for us to make a questionable move so that they can complain about it, and I don't think that the government should be rushed into anything that is so important to our national security just because we might offend another nation's idea of morality.

[dzrose93]

I do agree with you on the point you made about America getting involved in other nations' affairs. You're absolutely right. We help out certain groups when it is in our best interest to do so, without seeing the big picture and what might happen down the road. That's how Bin Laden got started -- with the help of the American military.

If our government would consider the big picture more often, we would probably not be hated so much by other countries. I think that we should still assist needy countries, but leave arms and combat lessons out of it!

[moe.ron]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lovelyivy84

Sorry to cut the quote, but it was getting a little long. By the way, I enjoy this debate, its reinvegorating to debate without name calling or other stuff.

The thing is that our manpower will never get involved in Indonesia aside from training, even that will prob. be held either in Australia or Hawaii. The difference btw the location you have staed is that it is in our best interest to support Indonesia and its military. We have cut virtually all ties with the Indonesian military. Our influence are little to none. THe military are making great progress in curtailing their abuses and, believe it or not, the Minister of Defense is a civilian, unlike the past. Another plus is that the Chief of Staff is an admiral. It's better if you e-mail me, this is prob. boring for other people.

[KillarneyRose]

My overriding concern is the safety of Americans, both civilian and military. I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it.

We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't.

[James]

That is actually the major point. Under the rules for POW's you can't interrogate them (prisoners). They are only obligated to reveal name rank and serial number. One of the reasons why we aren't calssifying them is so we can use more persuasive methods of getting information, because obviously they are not going to say much if asked nicely. And we really don't want a lot of scrutiny on that or have our hands tied by obeying rules that we get outraged about when others don't follow.
Originally posted by dzrose93


If I'm understanding the news correctly, the main problem that people are having with our treatment of the prisoners is that they are not being classified as POW's, which means that they are in "legal limbo," so to speak, because they aren't entitled to a trial unless they are actual POW's.

Right now, the government is still trying to determine how best to deal with these men, and may be holding off on POW status until they come up with a safe, effective way to try the prisoners and, also, get information from them that will help us in our fight against terrorism. I can definitely understand why the government is hesitating. They want to be absolutely sure that they are doing everything possible to prevent future terrorist acts.

I think that we have and will continue to follow the rules of war as stated by the Geneva Convention. However, it may take us some time to sort through all of the 1,000's of prisoners that we've taken and interview them for any knowledge they have. If the rest of the world would just give us a little breathing room to accomplish that important task instead of jumping down our throats about every move we make, then I think everything will work out as it is suppose to in the end. The men will get the trials that they are entitled to, and we will feel safer as a country.

Instead, it seems as if people are just waiting for us to make a questionable move so that they can complain about it, and I don't think that the government should be rushed into anything that is so important to our national security just because we might offend another nation's idea of morality.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84
There may seem to be a number of great reasons (all of the ones you listed are compelling) but in the long run I think it will be a mistake. It is always a mistake. Once America involves itself in the affairs of any given foreign country, it generally takes a war and a couple of billion dollars spent before we get out of it again (Vietnam, Korea, Phillipines, Central America, The Middle East have all proven costly in manpower as well as capital).

See, but these billions of dollars spent don't necessarily spell financial ruin for the US - Keynesian deficit spending? I think you're making the same argument for both sides here - military spending is a boon on the economy, hence repealing of the Leahy Amendment makes sense on that level . . . and wartime military spending has the same (albeit impulsory) effect, no?

(I'll look for cites later if desired. . . )

[matthewg]

Originally posted by KillarneyRose
My overriding concern is the safety of Americans, both civilian and military. I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it.

We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't.

My goodness :eek:

I think the hatred of people like the El Quaida terrorists is nurtured by exactly this attitude.
Everybody should be granted to live the life he wants to live - but what you propose is that America dictates what this life has to look like. Maybe for about 6 billion people minus 290 million Americans that is not such a perfect concept.

We cannot lower ourselves down to the level of these disgusting terrorists by applying double standards!

[lovelyivy84]

Originally posted by KSig RC


See, but these billions of dollars spent don't necessarily spell financial ruin for the US - Keynesian deficit spending? I think you're making the same argument for both sides here - military spending is a boon on the economy, hence repealing of the Leahy Amendment makes sense on that level . . . and wartime military spending has the same (albeit impulsory) effect, no?

(I'll look for cites later if desired. . . )

You have a point. But the financial aspect is not the only thing to be considered is what I am saying. Wars, whether ours or other people's, in the past have generally been good for business (sharp deviation from that trend with Vietnam) but that is just one aspect of the affect of getting involved in a foreign military action on this country.

One HUGE aspect of it is loss of life. I have family in different branches of the armed forces and am TERRIFIED for their safety should they be sent to train these groups and "accidents" happen.

Then of course there is the aspect of the way it would affect our role in international politics. The USA is a big convenient target. Other countries hate us, and some of them with damn good reason, for our past policies. Going into any other country as big brother just gives further justification for those anti-American sentiments and goads individuals and organizations to perpetrate more terrorist acts. I am not saying there is not reason to be big brother- America can be of great aid to any number of small countries, but it is a precarious and slippery slope.

Where do we stop? First we train them. Then when there might be a military action, we lend "minimal" support. Then when there are casualties we lend medical aid. Then when the country needs to be rebuilt we send advisors. It goes on and on, we spend billions and who knows what the repercussions will be? History tells us they won't be pretty.

[damasa]

Originally posted by matthewg


My goodness :eek:

I think the hatred of people like the El Quaida terrorists is nurtured by exactly this attitude.
Everybody should be granted to live the life he wants to live - but what you propose is that America dictates what this life has to look like. Maybe for about 6 billion people minus 290 million Americans that is not such a perfect concept.

We cannot lower ourselves down to the level of these disgusting terrorists by applying double standards!

ahhh, talking about al qaida and their lifestyles. Are they truly mad because they think that the u.s. is trying to push off their way of life? No, it goes much much deeper than that.


About this quote. What is the main point? You say that americans are trying to push their way of life onto other people? That's what it seems like. I didn't realize that us helping to topple the Taliban and reform the gov't of afghanistan was a push off of our lifestlye. Further, the same things that we do to try to help, such as humanitarian aid missions, peace keeping missions, etc. How does that help america to push off their way of life?
Double standards, what double standards?
"he" Everybody should be granted to live the life "he" wants to live? I didn't know we were all "he" '

But you propose? Who is the you doing the proposing? Further, what are we proposing? These double standards. Give examples, data, something.


d

[Peaches-n-Cream]

From what I know, one of the reasons these men have not been classified as POWs is because if they were, they could not be tried in a criminal court in the United States. I believe that they ought to be tried for the murders of over 3,000 people, for conspiracy, and for anything else that they allegedly did.
Actually, these prisoners have many rights including the right to practice their faith. They are criminals and are willing to die and take everyone with them for their cause. Based on what I have heard, I don't think that they are being tortured. I think that the military has to protect itself and the USA from the threat that the prisoners pose and that involves putting shackles on prisoners.

[matthewg]

Originally posted by damasa


First, I agree with James on many levels, too many to name, anyway.

About this quote. What is the main point? You say that americans are trying to push their way of life onto other people? That's what it seems like. I didn't realize that us helping to topple the Taliban and reform the gov't of afghanistan was a push off of our lifestlye. Further, the same things that we do to try to help, such as humanitarian aid missions, peace keeping missions, etc. How does that help america to push off their way of life?
Double standards, what double standards?
"he" Everybody should be granted to live the life "he" wants to live? I didn't know we were all "he" '

But you propose? Who is the you doing the proposing? Further, what are we proposing? These double standards. Give examples, data, something.


d


Dear damasa,
ok, ok, please let me clarify - my post was referring to the following, Killarney Rose wrote:

Killarny Rose wrote:"I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it. " and
"We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't."

1) My main point was and still is, that I think that arrogance such as "I am powerful so I can do as I please" and the politics resulting from such arrogance increases terrorism!

2) There is no question that what has happend in Afganistan lately isn't for the benefit of the Afghan people.

3) However, that is beside my point!

4) I correct for the politically correct: everyone should be granted to live the life ONE wants. - thank you!

5)with "you" I specifically addressed KillarneyRose - and I interpreted her statement in a way that reads: "because we are a strong nation you (the rest of the world) better do as we please" - maybe that is a bit harsh but that's how I understood it.

6) double standards - and that not only applies to America but the whole western world including the Europeans:
just one example: the Taliban, bad guys, violating human rights - we strike them down. The Chinese - they are violating basic human rights - we trade with them and accept every shit they do because they are powerful.

7) of course that last sentence in my last post ("We cannot lower ourselves down to the level of these disgusting terrorists by applying double standards!") was meant to address the general topic of this thread, namely the conditions in camp x-ray and whether the inmates there are POW's or not. It had no connection to KillarneyRose's post.


In this matter I would like to add that the Geneva Convention states that "when in doubt about the status of POW or not, an international tribunal shopuld decide in that matter". There is nothing to agree or disagree about that - the USA signed the document, period!
Of course the reason why this is not happening is that the authorities want to question the el Quaida fighters which they were not allowed to do if they had POW status. However, and here we come back to the double standard: I cannot violate a convention (by not allowing an international tribune to decide whether the guys are POW's or not) just because it is against my interest.
That is a matter of principle and not of wanting and wishing.

And it has nothing to do with my personal opinion that it would of course be desirable to learn as much as we can from those prisoners and that, indeed, they don't deserve better conditions.

All that matters is if we stick to rules that we set up ourselves and if we apply them to everybody regardless of personal distress or emotions.

I hope that was clarifying enough

[KillarneyRose]

Killarny Rose wrote:"I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it. " and
"We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't."

1) My main point was and still is, that I think that arrogance such as "I am powerful so I can do as I please" and the politics resulting from such arrogance increases terrorism!

Allow me to clarify...when I say that we can do whatever the hell we please, I am speaking from a defensive posture. We as a nation have the right to defend ourself. Sometimes defense can take a proactive posture such as placing troops in the country harboring the group that swears to destroy us so that we can destroy them first. Perhaps it takes the form of interrogating detainees.

When I say that I like the way my life is, perhaps I should say that I liked my life the way it was before September 11th, when I didn't worry about American planes being hijacked and flown into occupied buildings. There is nothing wrong with a desire for security. And I feel lucky to be citizen of a country where we are not held hostage to the whims of the world's megalomaniac of the week. We can and should defend ourselves by whatever means necessary.

5)with "you" I specifically addressed KillarneyRose - and I interpreted her statement in a way that reads: "because we are a strong nation you (the rest of the world) better do as we please" - maybe that is a bit harsh but that's how I understood it.

NO -- Because we are a strong nation, you (the rest of the world) had better realize that if you bite us, we can bite back 100 times as hard.


6) double standards - and that not only applies to America but the whole western world including the Europeans:
just one example: the Taliban, bad guys, violating human rights - we strike them down. The Chinese - they are violating basic human rights - we trade with them and accept every shit they do because they are powerful.

Whether I agree with our trade policies involving China is irrelevant to this post. As far as the Taliban, however, it was not destroyed because it violated human rights per se. It was destroyed because it was harboring the terrorist we believe to be responsible for the events of September 11. If they had turned the individual in question over to the United States, the government would still be intact, human rights violations or no.


Sorry if I wasn't clear enough on my last post!

[damasa]

Originally posted by matthewg



Dear damasa,
ok, ok, please let me clarify - my post was referring to the following, Killarney Rose wrote:

Killarny Rose wrote:"I like the way my life is, want it to continue the way it is and I make no apologies for it. " and
"We are the strongest nation on earth and therefore we can do whatever the hell we please. That's it in a nutshell and I don't give a rat's behind who agrees with me and who doesn't."

1) My main point was and still is, that I think that arrogance such as "I am powerful so I can do as I please" and the politics resulting from such arrogance increases terrorism!

2) There is no question that what has happend in Afganistan lately isn't for the benefit of the Afghan people.

3) However, that is beside my point!

4) I correct for the politically correct: everyone should be granted to live the life ONE wants. - thank you!

5)with "you" I specifically addressed KillarneyRose - and I interpreted her statement in a way that reads: "because we are a strong nation you (the rest of the world) better do as we please" - maybe that is a bit harsh but that's how I understood it.

6) double standards - and that not only applies to America but the whole western world including the Europeans:
just one example: the Taliban, bad guys, violating human rights - we strike them down. The Chinese - they are violating basic human rights - we trade with them and accept every shit they do because they are powerful.

7) of course that last sentence in my last post ("We cannot lower ourselves down to the level of these disgusting terrorists by applying double standards!") was meant to address the general topic of this thread, namely the conditions in camp x-ray and whether the inmates there are POW's or not. It had no connection to KillarneyRose's post.


In this matter I would like to add that the Geneva Convention states that "when in doubt about the status of POW or not, an international tribunal shopuld decide in that matter". There is nothing to agree or disagree about that - the USA signed the document, period!
Of course the reason why this is not happening is that the authorities want to question the el Quaida fighters which they were not allowed to do if they had POW status. However, and here we come back to the double standard: I cannot violate a convention (by not allowing an international tribune to decide whether the guys are POW's or not) just because it is against my interest.
That is a matter of principle and not of wanting and wishing.

And it has nothing to do with my personal opinion that it would of course be desirable to learn as much as we can from those prisoners and that, indeed, they don't deserve better conditions.

All that matters is if we stick to rules that we set up ourselves and if we apply them to everybody regardless of personal distress or emotions.

I hope that was clarifying enough

Oh, it was very clarifying.

BUT, we have to look at the general public and the opinions and interests that many of the people of this country are having/sharing/expressing. People want answers, people want resluts, and of course people want revenge/blood or whatever.

When people are at a point like that, they can tend to forget about treaties, conventions, documents, agreements and anything else surriounding the rights' or prisoners, possible prisoners, war criminals, etc.

BUT, I will say, I'm damn glad that Bush is in office now. I didn't vote for the feller, but I think he's doing on hell of a job.

d

[matthewg]

Kilarny I agree with all of your points - I think it should be obvious that I am not against self-defense and so on. I was just trying to play the advocatus diaboli, the lawyer of the devil and make people think of the other side.

Thanks for the clarification

Language can be a problem if one doesn't talk but just writes.
It is also kind of hard to address two people in one post....

I think, we both have made our points and all in all, I think we pretty much agree on things.

Peace!

[matthewg]

Originally posted by damasa


Oh, it was very clarifying.

BUT, we have to look at the general public and the opinions and interests that many of the people of this country are having/sharing/expressing. People want answers, people want resluts, and of course people want revenge/blood or whatever.

When people are at a point like that, they can tend to forget about treaties, conventions, documents, agreements and anything else surriounding the rights' or prisoners, possible prisoners, war criminals, etc.

BUT, I will say, I'm damn glad that Bush is in office now. I didn't vote for the feller, but I think he's doing on hell of a job.

d

Of course emotions are very well understandable - I mean, it was an unprecedented attack of unprecedented cruelty.

I just hope that people don't get carried away to the point that they forget their civilization.

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by lovelyivy84


You have a point. But the financial aspect is not the only thing to be considered is what I am saying. Wars, whether ours or other people's, in the past have generally been good for business (sharp deviation from that trend with Vietnam) but that is just one aspect of the affect of getting involved in a foreign military action on this country.

One HUGE aspect of it is loss of life. I have family in different branches of the armed forces and am TERRIFIED for their safety should they be sent to train these groups and "accidents" happen.

Then of course there is the aspect of the way it would affect our role in international politics. The USA is a big convenient target. Other countries hate us, and some of them with damn good reason, for our past policies. Going into any other country as big brother just gives further justification for those anti-American sentiments and goads individuals and organizations to perpetrate more terrorist acts. I am not saying there is not reason to be big brother- America can be of great aid to any number of small countries, but it is a precarious and slippery slope.

Where do we stop? First we train them. Then when there might be a military action, we lend "minimal" support. Then when there are casualties we lend medical aid. Then when the country needs to be rebuilt we send advisors. It goes on and on, we spend billions and who knows what the repercussions will be? History tells us they won't be pretty.

I doubt we will ever get involved with the Indonesian problems because their military are very capable. They are among the best in jungle and urban warfare. What we need to do is what we've been doing, selling arms and training the officers to be more profesionals. I'm not asking US troops to be sent to the jungle of JAva. Leahey amendment is very specific, it forbid our arms industry from selling weapons to the Indonesians troops until those that are involved in the East Timor massacre are brought to justice. Fat chance that will ever happen, so by exposing their military to profesionalism in our armed forces, their armed forces might be able to profesionalized themselve from within. It started back in 1997 or 1998, but quickly died out because they stopped being trained by US military (which, by the way, they pay for themselves. the training is funded by them) So we loose our influence, and they are reverting back to their old self.