oe, your credibility is near zero.
Insulting other posters doesn't increase your credibility either, okie.
Some of your innocent people have in fact been released, only to be caught trying to kill again.
I have it on good authority that some petty thieves who have been arrested have been released, only to be caught trying to rob a bank.
Does that mean that if somebody has been locked up for whatever reason, he shouldn't be allowed to get out ever again? Should he remain locked up for the rest of his life, preferably without trial, because there's a chance that he might actually commit a crime?
You don't make any sense here, I'm afraid.
If you think war allows for normal rights given to citizens of the United States, then you live in a dream world, not reality.
I have never said that.
I have said that there were several possibilities regarding how detainees could have been treated.
If you think that the inmates of Guantanamo were actually "caught on the battlefield" (as you've stated earlier) and captured during the course of a war, fighting US soldiers, then the obvious choice would have been to treat them as POWs.
You have even stated as much earlier - that they should be treated as POWs rather than as civilians - but then went on to state that they couldn't be treated as POWs, because this was a "new type of warfare".
It simply is not possible.
Why is it not possible?
You've said now a couple of times that they cannot be treated like POWs, that they cannot be treated like domestic terrorists, and that they cannot be treated like the Nazi elites in the Nuremberg trials.
You've not come up with a reason why these methods worked in all those other cases, but couldn't possibly work for the Guantanamo detainees.
I would love it if no innocent person died as a result of the people you choose to defend, the terrorists, but it isn't possible.
Now read this very carefully, okie, because you seem to have missed this the last couple of times:
I'm not defending any terrorists.
Matter of fact is: you have no idea whether the detainees in Guantanamo actually are terrorists. Just take the time to look up the case of Murat Kurnaz, okay? He's a Turkish citizen who was living in Germany, and who was picked up by Pakistani security forces, and handed over to US forces, for head money.
He wasn't a terrorist. He didn't try to kill anybody. He spent four years
I'm not defending terrorists, I'm defending the rights of innocent people who got swept up in this administration's "War On Terror" and left in a state of lawlessness created by the Bush administration.
I doubt there are many, if any, innocents in Gitmo.
That's your right. You can doubt there are many, but it's a fact that there were some who have been swept up, transferred to Gitmo, and who have been locked up for years without a trial.
Are some or maybe even many of the Gitmo detainees terrorists? Possibly. We don't know that. You don't know that.
But that possibility shouldn't allow for the existance of an internment camp that exists outside of international and domestic law, and that has already failed when innocent people got locked up for months without any recourse.
It is a verifiable fact that innocent people have died in the criminal justice system as well. That is reality. Man is not perfect.
Sure. And it is a very good reason to improve the system.
But you are not looking for improvements, you are just taking the fact that innocent people die as a given fact, shrug it off and declare, "hey, don't blame me, man is not perfect, sometimes innocent people die".
And then you go off on rants how everything possible should be done to protect innocent people from dying in a terrorist attack.
Again, Bush did the best he could, given what was dealt.
If that was the best he could do, you don't have a reason to complain.
Bush made a decision - to hold the detainees in a state of lawlessness outside of US territory, and to disregard the Geneva Conventions. If that was the best he could have possibly done, so be it.
Now you have to deal with the consequences of those very best decisions.