Your point is well taken and is not without merit. But at the same time it shows the enemy that all bets are off and that we mean serious business now. We show the enemy that if they choose to plot against us, make attacks on us and our interests, and murder our people, then they run the risk of being killed by our military, or being incarcerated in a maximum security prison.

Tell me something Plaw, in wars of the past, when we captured enemy combatants, did we give them a trial? Or did we hold them in military prisons?


Don Cardi

Umm...

So much for resting your case?

Lunch money. Now.
Double-J

Gosh, I wasn't bothering to presume either their guilt nor innocence. That's the job of those who imprisoned them.

I'm just glad they're dead. Three less Al-Queda scumbags to coddle for the Red Cross and Amnesty Int'l.



Apple

Apples and Oranges Plaw. In the past, when I've said that a topic was degenerating, it was because the debates degenrated into name calling and personal attacks were made on others because of opinions, related to the topic, that were posted.

Not the case here. You accused this topic of degenerating because you did not agree with how some of us felt about the situtation at Gitmo and our feelings towards the people that occupy it. No one got personal with anyone or made personal attacks on anyone.

And why should I move on? After all you were the one who posted not once, but twice "I rest my case." :p


Don Cardi

It's also important to recognize that these people aren't being "punished" per se; rather, they are being detained to prevent them from carrying out or supporting another terrorist attack or terrorist activities against our nation.

In fact, the deeper I look into the issue, it doesn't appear that these detainees would see any significant upgrade even if they were made into POW's - the GC doesn't require POW's have rights to access to lawyers, or the ability to refute their incarceration, or to be released from detention before the end of hostilities.

So, I'm not seeing any reason to give these people fair trials, except obviously for good sportmanship and PR, I suppose.

And as far as the topic of POW's in history goes, compared to the despicable treatment of American soldiers by our enemies (Bataan Death March, Vietnamese/Chinese prison camps), any sort of military imprisonment of terrorists by the United States is like getting a reservation at the Waldorf.

If they were captured on the battlefield they were incarcerated until the war was over, and I have no problem with that.

Anyone we've captured as a result of militaryt actions in Afghanistan or Iraq absolutely should be detained.

I mean, what are we expected to do? Capture them and then turn them loose five minutes later so they can start shooting at our guys again?

But it's my understanding, and correct here me if I'm wrong, that we are detaining some (many?) people who were not captured on the battlefield, which pretty much eliminates the presumption of guilt, IMO.

very true, except how do we know that all of them are terrorists in the first place without giving them a trial?

How about to be certain that they are terrorists, and to make sure that they are deserving of being detained?

What I don't understand is "What's the problem with giving these guys a trial"?

If they're terrorists, then fine. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. But if they're not.....

OK....lemme see if I have this straight:

If you say that you think a thread is degenerating because of name-calling and personal insults, that's OK - those are valid reasons - but if I think a thread is degenerating because rather than address the issues and questions people choose to ignore them and make light of the situation, that's not OK because those are not valid reasons?

Name calling and personal insults are the things that can cause a thread to degenerate?

Anyway....

I rested my case when I was provided with yet more examples of the type of posts i was talking about.

I rested my case the second time when i was provided with even more examples of the same.

But since we seem to have gotten back on the track here and are discussing the issues, that's a different story.

Well has the war ended? No, it has not. Which brings me to....

And this may be the area that divides how you and I look upon this situation. I am going to assume, and correct me if I am wrong, that your meaning of 'the battlefield' is Iraq and Afghanastan. And if my assumption is correct then I ask you this ; What nation do these people represent, what nation are they fighting for and what flag do they fight under? For me, there is no specific battlefield. The battle field in this type of war is everywhere. When the enemy carrys out attacks on city streets, on finacial institutions, on public transportation and on government buildings, they've created a battlefield wherever they've attempted to or have attacked us. When they do not represent a nation, a governed people, or fight under a flag, the battlefield is where they choose to make it.

Therefore looking at it the way that I do, anyone who is caught plotting against, attacking or committing treason against the USA and her allies, be it on what you percieve as a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanastan, or what I perceive as a battlefield ( city streets, public place, etc.), should be incarcerated in a military prison, like Gitmo, and not be given a trial or representation.


I think, and I say this with all due respect Plaw, that many people, including yourself, have looked upon this war as a conventional war, similar to wars that we have fought in the past.

This war is not a conventional war. It is a different type of war. And IMO until people begin to see it that way and understand that it is a totally different war than those fought by us in the past, their opinons, views and ideas will never change.


Don Cardi

As I understand, the majority of prisoners sent to Gitmo that are related to the War on Terror have been either captured by coalition forces on the "battlefield" (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) or have been captured trying to enter the United States (as in the case of Jose Padilla).

Further, there have been detainees who have been released or extradited during the course of the War on Terror. We haven’t simply thrown away the key.

And again, there is neither any legal precedent, nor any legal statute (from the Geneva Convention to the US Constitution) that requires us to try these detainees (obvious exceptions such as Padilla, who is a US citizen) or requires we give these people a "trial" at all. They are enemy combatants being detained by our government for the purpose of securing our nation and extracting vital information in the war on terror. They are neither criminals, in the standard sense of the word, nor are they prisoners of war, by definition.

Further, you ask about the problem giving them a fair trial. Okay.

First of all, do you think they could receive a quote unquote, "fair" trial in the United States?

Secondly, say one of these detainees is set free via a loophole and then rejoins Al Qaeda and commits an act of terror against America? Who do we blame then? The system, for letting him out? Or those who demanded he "stand trial" and celebrated his "innocence?"

Kind of like retiring, and then un-retiring, eh? :p

I know we're all just a bunch of silly bullies, but I hope you can find it in your heart to put up with us!

Give me your lunch money.
Double-J

The "battlefield", the way I see it, is just that.

If we capture a guy during a military action, that's one thing.

But if we go to someone's home - wherever that home may be - and arrest them based on the suspicion that they may be a terrorist, that's something else.

Can a suspected terrorist even get a fair trial here?

Possibly not, especially the way people tend to presume them guilty beforehand.

But still, saying that they can't get a "fair" trial is no reason not to give them any trial.

Same problem as when any other seemingly or obviously guilty person is freed via a "loophole".

That's the price we pay for having the best system of jurispridence in the world.

Now...just curious here:

What exactly do you mean by "celebrated his 'innocence'"?

Personally, I hope that every single one of those detainees is guilty, because it's that many more terrorists that are off the streets and no longer posing a danger to this country.

But what is there to "celebrate" if there were trials and a few "not guilty" verdicts?

I'd be happy that they system is working, and I'd behoping that the verdicts were correct.

And if they eren't, as I say, that's the price we sometimes have to pay for having the system that we do

But I wasn't out celebrating when, for example, O.J Simpson was found not guilty (although there were those who, for what they felt wer good reasons, were celebrating), or John Gotti was, any of the several times he wasn't convicted.

And finally, BTW, I never said that everyone was a "bunch of silly bullies."

What I did say was that there was someone who I felt was like a schoolyard bully, and that in general the posts that some of the people made in this thread were silly, not the posters themselves.

So you only consider the battlefields, in this war on terror, to be in Afghanastan and Iraq?


Don Cardi

So basically, we have to wait until he's shooting our soldiers for him to be a terrorist, by that definition.

You make it sound like they are storming peoples houses and kidnapping them like its some sort of Kristallnacht, like we're rounding up random people and locking them away.

Clearly, for every terrorist we get, there are names and further information our government uses to determine enemies of the state. Just because they aren't firing at our soldiers doesn't mean they aren't aiding or participating in Al Qaeda activities - be it money laundering/wiring, subverting the networks of government agencies via computer, or other noncombatant but still subversive activities.

I have to agree with Don Cardi. The War on Terror brings the enemy onto our soil, intentionally permeating and assimilating our culture with the prupose of striking from within. The traditional battlefield, as in the days of Patton or Bradley, is no longer a relevant term, at least in this case.

But again, your statement is preconditioned on the idea that they have the right to a trial, which they don't.

That's a price, thanks to Gitmo, we won't have to pay. Though, judging by their efforts, people like Barbara Olshansky would love to see these animals free and practicing their malevolence.

You know as well as I do the millions of dollars being spent in an attempt to get these people freed, or at least brought to trial by American lawyers and agencies such as the ACLU and people like Olshansky.

Much like blacks in Los Angeles danced in the streets when OJ's verdict was read, or when Palestinians danced in the streets on 9/11, I have no doubt people like Cindy Sheehan or Ms. Olshansky would consider the enfranchisement and eventual freedom of these terrorists to be a celebrated achievement, yet another black on on the fascist US government.

Unfortunately, should that be allowed to happen, the consequences would be grave indeed for all American citizens.

How...diplomatic.

I didn't realize it was possible speak out of two totally separate orifices at the same time.

Give me your lunch money.
Double-J

If we go into someones home who lives and belongs in the usa because that person was suspected of or caught being involved with terrorists then I agree that they should be aressted under the laws of the land and given a trial. But if the person is here ilegally and does not belong here and is suspected or caught being involved with terrorists then they dont deserve a trial. They should be treated like an enemy of the country and brought to a place like Gitmo and be given a bed sheet.


ds

If a terorist is not captured on the battlefield then they shouldnt be held at Gitmo?


ds

Depends upon the speaker.



Apple

Apple and JJ. We're having a good debate here right now. Is there really such a need to start with that stuff?


Don Cardi

Well gosh, DC...the topic has already 'degenerated' so what is there to be lost?

But fine...you guys go ahead in circles with your 'good' debate.

Apple

It's now been claimed that these people killed themselves just to bring the cause to the attention of the media. Now, as if the situation of Guantanamo Bay has to be brought to anyones attention, it would seem your government are now trying to make it look like they were drove to suicide because of the poor conditions.

I feel the American government have gone the wrong way about bringing terrorists to justice, instead of locking them away for years with no voice other than the terrorists who want to attack innocent civilians, they should trial them and if they are a terrorist i'm sure they'll be enough evidence of it for them to be locked away anyway.

Well actually Apple, that's usually what happens in a debate. People going back and forth or around and around in circles until :

a compromise or solution is reached,

or

one party can convince the other that their way or belief is the correct one,

or

until all involved realize that there is no solution and agree to respectfully disagree.


Don Cardi

Double J you have been proving what you didnt realize for some time. You too Apple.

No doubt that is the intention. Certainly their goal has been to influence the international community to garner sympathy for these terrorists.

Of course, they don't have to bother, we have plenty of Americans lining up to try and set these people free. I don't know what else you could possibly want than citizens of a country trying to set free the very people who want to destroy it. If I was an Al Qaeda operative, I'd be laughing my ass off.

Like I said, trials would be a good PR move, and probably could be orchestrated with the justice department for publicity reasons.

But I think they are just fine where they are. Keeping them indefinitely not only establishes the idea that we're going to lock these motherfuckers up tight, but also that we aren't going to be intimidated by the international community who want these people to go free. They will remain on the island of Cuba, under US control, where we know they cannot do any further harm and where we can extract information from them whenever possible.

Dontomasso! What a pleasant surprise!

How unusual for you to just come into an argument, make a quick jab at two members, and contribute nothing meaningful.

Bravo.



Now give me your lunch money.
Double-J

KEY word here is 'respectfully'.

Apple

KEY word here is 'respectfully'.

Apple [/b][/quote]Bully! :p

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but....

If Dontomasso's comment is meaningless, doesn't that mean that the comment he is commenting on is meaningless as well?

If the original comment was not meaningless, then you can't very well say that his comment was, can you?

Not offering an opinion here on the meaningfulness of either comment, mind you.....Just asking.

But the way I see it, they either both are or they both aren't.

:rolleyes:

It's all meaningless, plawrence.

All meaningless.

Anyway, in honor and rememberance of the original point of topic...

BUH BYE, G'TMO DETAINEES.. ..ENJOY YOUR 72 VIRGINS !!

End of thread.

Apple

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but....

If Dontomasso's comment is meaningless, doesn't that mean that the comment he is commenting on is meaningless as well?

If the original comment was not meaningless, then you can't very well say that his comment was, can you?

Not offering an opinion here on the meaningfulness of either comment, mind you.....Just asking.

But the way I see it, they either both are or they both aren't. [/b][/quote]Most of all, it means that the statement I was originally commenting on was equally meaningless (if that is mathematically possible...).

Lest we get caught up in doublespeak, or, perhaps (gasp) not actually talk about thread topic?

And, according to the Ebonics Translator , all I have left to say is:

Now give me yo' lunch money. What 'chew trippin foo'?
Double-J

P.S. Gitmo detainees we love you enjoy your 72 raisins!!!

Maybe they will run out of virgins by the time they get there.

Double J please go and get a life. Living in your mom's basement past age 40 is not really cool at all, and your incredibly ass backward mentality toward people who are "different" from us is the reason the US is as hated as it is in the world. I am ashamed of you and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Ah, typical.

But I'll still have your lunch money.

And you'll still be wrong.

Best,
Double-J

One should not exaggerate about another's age. :p

Seriously, though, please make your arguments without resorting to any childish statements or name calling. Those who lower themselves should be ashamed of themselves.