AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

super max.

So, then, Fox's argument is that they should not be transferred to prisons on U.S. soil because they could be more securely incarcerated? That is the type of thinking we have come to expect from the Church Lady . . .

Yep.

He says even as he ignores the argument I made to defend my statement. But liberals are so honest about things like that don't you think?

Full post:



I don't see any rational argument in that post why "there is a danger to US citizens posed by bringing Guantanamo inmates to the US".

Yes, you're right, I'm not able to understand your awesome, well-articulated argument. Since this is out of the way, maybe you can explain again, in simply words, how merely transferring the Gitmo inmates to the US would pose a danger to the American public.

You ignored the posts subsequent to that one, and you know it. Playing dumb doesn't become you OE.

You didn't make an argument to defend your statement, you just made a statement--to wit, that moving the detainees from Cuba to the lower 48 would pose a danger to American citizens. You offered absolutely no argument to support that statement. That's why everyone keeps asking your for your argument. Ex cathedra statements from you do not constitute an argument.

I submit that I did offer an argument to support that statement. I can't help it if you didn't read it.

Your subsequent posts mostly consisted of your claims that the Guantanamo inmates would automatically gain access to the civil justice system merely be being transferred to the US, and that this would constitute a danger to the American public.

I'm willing to consider this point of view if you're able to back up those claims.

This was the post that started the whole conversation off, at least as far as my involvement goes. And this is an idiotic and ridiculous post, full of fear mongering and light on facts about what the actual threats are.

I really do love, however, the fact that you and other right-wingers use the incarceration itself of those who have proven totally innocent as a reason that we cannot release them. We can't let people out of gitmo who we know were there for no good reason, because they might be angry at us for locking them up and choose to actually engage in terrorism. It's an extremely bad circular argument and one that relies on fear mongering.

Just to clear it up, you:

- have not shown in any way how storing terror detainees in American prisons puts any citizen at risk;
- have not shown how access to civilian courts will automatically be granted to those we store here in America;
- have not shown in any way how the fears you articulated are supported by actual facts;
- have not, in any way, provided a strong case to support your position.

You ask, why should we close Guantanamo? It is ridiculous to me that anyone who has been paying attention to politics and the world situation over the last 8 years could even ask such a question. Guantanamo wasn't created so we could store terrorists somewhere safely away from citizens of the US; it was created to be an extra-legal prison. This is a black mark on our society and something which has been shown to be extremely pernicious to the American way of life and our respect around the world. It is a place where torture and abuse took place. Why shouldn't we close this prison? It's existence has not profited America in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn

I don't care if you consider it or not OE. I will refer you to my more detailed argument--the one Cyclop at least noted but declared to not be an argument--the piece that McG posted along those same lines today, and the arguments made in both President Obama's speech--he thinks like you do on this issue--and former Vice President Cheney's speech today--he thinks like I do on this issue. The numerous court cases and rulings posted on this thread and elsewhere back up a lot of it and I do not want to take the time to go back to hunt all those up or do a lot more research. If you wish to put me in a position of error, you are certainly free to offer your rebuttal with anything you wish to post.

Do not confuse these terrorists or enemy combatents with normal prisoners of war which could be safely housed here and have been in the past. You and I have had previous discussions about that as my folks worked for the Army at the POW base and the subsidiary farm camp near Roswell NM during WWII. All German soldiers held there I might add except I think there was one group of Italians. Except for some of Rommel's troops that required tighter security, many of the German soldiers became almost members of the community--worked on the farms for wages, helped around the churches, played soccer, and were not viewed as any kind of danger to the locals.

I don't think the terrorists housed at GITMO would be the same kind of people.

I see that on page 462, you made some snide and idiotic remarks about taking the prisoners into one's home, which is not what anyone were proposing. Then, on that page and on page 463, you demanded that others make a case for why the prisoners should be transferred to "the USA" rahter than being held at "GITMO" [sic]. All that you had stated at that point was that it was "a bad idea," until near the end of page 463, when you wrote:



So, at that point, all you have done is assert that there is a danger to our citizens--you offered no argument as to why this would be so. Old Europe brought this up at the top of page 464, when he wrote:



Your response was to demand that OE make a case that they are not a danger. Basically, rather than offer an argument that they would be a danger, you demanded that he provide an argument that they would not be a danger. Immediately after that post, Cyclo accused you (justifiably to my mind) of intellectual cowardice. You responded that you had "already made [your] case some time back." But that was a lie, you have never made your case that these prisoners would be a danger to American citizens. Nevertheless, OE pointed out that he had listed a series of very dangerous people who have been and continue to be incarcerated in the continental United States who have done no harm to citizens while incarcerated. You then attempted a diversionary argument about access to civil courts, but you offered no support for that argument, either--that's the shotgun approach, scatter a bunch of objections and then demand that your interlocutors answer all the silliness you've proposed. On page 465, you continue to offer no reasons why they would be a danger to American citizens. You did, though, add more assertion to your unsupported claim by stating "And even if they are in prison in the USA, they have infinitely more freedom to make mischief too." Of course, you offered no more evidence for that claim than you did for the claim that incarcerating them in the continental United States endangers American citizens. Thereafter on page 465, all you did was whine about "liberals" and their "MO," and make snide remarks about peoples' characters.

Therefore, i did not read an argument from you to support your statement, because you haven't offered one. Five pages (inclusive of pages 462 and 466), and you have never once offered an argument to support a claim that the prisoners in Cuba would endanger American citizens if brought to the continental United States. Just to be certain i was being fair, i went back to page 462 and read forward to this page. Nope, not once have you offered an argument in support of your case that the prisoners in Cuba would be a danger to American citizens if imprisoned here. All you did was add the claim about them having infinitely more freedom to make mischief. So, in fact, that's two claims you've made without offering an argument in support.

If you're claiming that you've made the argument in some distant past post, then link it for us so we can see it and respond to it.

Gentlemen, I think that this has been taken about as far as it possibly can be; the opposition has refused each and every attempt on our part to engage in a productive conversation on the matter and has reacted with typical hostility to questioning of her main thesis, refusing to directly engage.

What more can we be asked to do?

At this point it is clear that Fox has retreated from the field on this point and has dropped all the points we've raised; there's not much more profit in going around the merry-go-round again... and again....

Cycloptichorn

If they are not a danger, then why would they need to be put into a maximum security prison here?

If they are not a danger, then why is the Senate so adament that the American people not be put at risk by them?

If they are not a danger, why don't you offer to sponsor a couple at your place? So far Canada has said they don't want any of them.

I suppose I think they are a danger because so many of them are associated with plotting/planning 9/11 and other terrorist operations. I suppose I consider that dangerous.

Once more from several pages back:
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-464#post-3656393

You suppose, but you don't know? If they are a danger and if they are put in maximum security prisons, how would that not effectively neutralize that danger? Why the Senate is "adament" [sic] is not relevant to an assertion that they would be a danger to American citizens. What reason to you have to assume that maximum security prisons would not neutralize the threat? You made the claim, no one here is obliged to disprove your claim, you are obliged to at least offer an argument in support of it.

All you've done is offer stupid remarks about keeping them at one's home. What earthly reason would anyone have to assume that if they were transferred to the continental United States they would be lodged in the private homes of citizens? What kind of idiocy are you trying to peddle?

You continue to offer no support for your claim.

Put them in your neighborhood.

Why not? What makes you so afraid of having these guys in YOUR neighborhood? They aren't super-spies, I mean ****. There's no difference between them and any other criminals, in terms of danger to you; probably less, even.

Cycloptichorn

I believe they are dangerous because people who are in a position to know and who have the credentials and experience to know have told me they are dangerous. The people making those statements have been confirmed by people on all sides of the political spectrum. When somebody advises me the dog will bite, I generally believe them and don't choose to test the truth of the statement myself. I have met face to face very few truly dangerous people in my lifetime, but I know they're out there. Don't you?

Then put them in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD if you are that comfortable with having them on US Soil.

Oh, I forgot, you Californians can't even afford to build a prison. Arnold has to sell Alcatraz because you voted not to increase your taxes. SHAME ON YOU!!!!

Not Alcatraz. It hasn't been a prison for a long time. He's wanting to sell San Quentin though.

But yeah, when even Feinstein and Boxer, both HUGE critics of GITMO when the Bush administration was running it , refused to fund closing it, you KNOW there are some really bad eggs being held in that prison.