Harping On Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is Highly Misguided

Brandon9000 wrote:

I agree that we have to prevent wrongs from being committed on our side, and I have consistently said so. That is, indeed, part of what makes us the good guys.

What I assert in my post, however, is that to be in the middle of a fight to the death with a lethal enemy and harp exclusively on the comparatively minor sins of your own side is perverse.

To use an analogy I made recently, if an American colonist in 1776 were to seem to have no interest in the Revolutionary War other than to condemn every real and imagined mistreatment of British prisoners, that would be perverse. That is not at all to say that the British prisoners shouldn't have received fair treatment, but to see only that and never show an interest in the other issue of winning independence from Britain would have been bizarre and unpatriotic.

So you believe that those who are speaking up about issues at Gitmo don't care about abuses to hostages elsewhere and don't care whether we win the WoT or make progress in Iraq? I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't care about the WoT. One key point for me is that Gitmo is not creating progress in the WoT, it is causing us to take hits. Gitmo is a very real liability in the "hearts and minds" part of the war.

Just to be clear, beheading hostages is as evil as possible. Anyone who finds that is being done in their name needs to speak up loudly and clearly that they do not condone it.

What is happening in Cuba is being done in my name. I expect my government to treat those in its custody humanely. No luxury suites, but no peeing on them through ventilation ducts either. I really don't care if no government in the history of mankind as met that standard, I expect the US to do so. I expect my government to allow those imprisioned to question their detention at a hearing and to see the evidence against them. I expect this to be done in a reasonable amount of time and those who we cannot build a reasonable case against to go free. I understand that we may occasionally let a bad guy get away. Better that than holding innocent people without a hearing, without recourse, without contact. I know, you don't think any of them are innocent. Show me the evidence, and I'll be with you. Ask me to take your word and I think something is wrong. I expect my government to be completely happy with judicial review of any action they take. To hide prisoners at Gitmo for the express purpose of evading the US courts is wrong. Close done the detention facility and bring the prisoners to the US. Charge them and try them and imprison those you can make a case against. Send them back to their home countries to be tried there. Creating a legal hole where you can abuse them doesn't meet my expectations for my government.

Despite the actions of the Germans and Japanese in WWII, we treated their POW's with respect. Please remember that the Japanese were performing live medical experiments on our POW's. Those humane actions are remembered today by those still surviving. The abuses at Gitmo (however mild you think they are) will also be remembered for the next 60 years. Gitmo is not helping us win the WoT. If we want to make progress in this war, we need to scrap Gitmo, even if it means President Bush as to take a blow to his esteem. (Actually, I think he gains points, but I doubt the WH leadership sees it that way.)

0 Replies

pinchehoto wrote:

I'm not sure that giving Gitmo detainees POW status is within the capabilities of our current policies. Many of them are/were in the US legally. Some are US citizens. Most of them have not actually taken up arms against the US. Nor can we try them as criminals since the majority of the detainees are only guilty of having the wrong friends and ideas.

So, we don't give them any status or charge them with any crime because they cannot be charged with anything but 'thoughtcrime'?

It is part of doing business as a free country that this is not illegal and not punishible by law. To intepret the law in a special way to keep citizens and visitors detained because of what they might do is unconstitutional and unAmerican. And to do it the name of freedom is doublethink at its worst.

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

pinchehoto wrote:
I'm not sure that giving Gitmo detainees POW status is within the capabilities of our current policies. Many of them are/were in the US legally. Some are US citizens. Most of them have not actually taken up arms against the US. Nor can we try them as criminals since the majority of the detainees are only guilty of having the wrong friends and ideas.

So, we don't give them any status or charge them with any crime because they cannot be charged with anything but 'thoughtcrime'?

It is part of doing business as a free country that this is not illegal and not punishible by law. To intepret the law in a special way to keep citizens and visitors detained because of what they might do is unconstitutional and unAmerican. And to do it the name of freedom is doublethink at its worst.

TF

Point of Clarification: He said nothing about "thought crimes"; he said they've not "taken up arms."

0 Replies

err ... I stand corrected. Reading his post in context, that is exactly what he said. I'll back away now and let him defend his point.....

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I agree that we have to prevent wrongs from being committed on our side, and I have consistently said so. That is, indeed, part of what makes us the good guys.

What I assert in my post, however, is that to be in the middle of a fight to the death with a lethal enemy and harp exclusively on the comparatively minor sins of your own side is perverse.

To use an analogy I made recently, if an American colonist in 1776 were to seem to have no interest in the Revolutionary War other than to condemn every real and imagined mistreatment of British prisoners, that would be perverse. That is not at all to say that the British prisoners shouldn't have received fair treatment, but to see only that and never show an interest in the other issue of winning independence from Britain would have been bizarre and unpatriotic.

So you believe that those who are speaking up about issues at Gitmo don't care about abuses to hostages elsewhere and don't care whether we win the WoT or make progress in Iraq? I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't care about the WoT.

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that you're correct. Then why is it that many of these A2K members post a continuing flood of criticisms of anything and everything connected with America, trumpet with apparent glee any momentary setback, yet make not one post showing any kind of support for anything connected with us or this effort?

engineer wrote:

One key point for me is that Gitmo is not creating progress in the WoT, it is causing us to take hits. Gitmo is a very real liability in the "hearts and minds" part of the war.

Or maybe it's people like you bringing everyone's attention to it that has that effect. It would certainly be possible for us to quietly clean up our act. Having week after week of front page coverage about Abu Ghraib in the "NY Times," but barely a mention when an American hostage is beheaded is probably a big part of what's responsible for causing us to "take hits." They present the American abuses in prisoner interrogation as though they were terribly unusual, whereas the same thing has probably happened in every single war since the dawn of time. Fix the abuses and punish those responsible, but don't assist the enemy in using it for propaganda.

engineer wrote:

Just to be clear, beheading hostages is as evil as possible. Anyone who finds that is being done in their name needs to speak up loudly and clearly that they do not condone it.

What is happening in Cuba is being done in my name. I expect my government to treat those in its custody humanely. No luxury suites, but no peeing on them through ventilation ducts either. I really don't care if no government in the history of mankind as met that standard, I expect the US to do so. I expect my government to allow those imprisioned to question their detention at a hearing and to see the evidence against them. I expect this to be done in a reasonable amount of time and those who we cannot build a reasonable case against to go free.

Me too, but what would you say about some American living through the Revolutionary War who showed not the tiniest interest in the war except to criticize American abuse of British prisoners? I would find such a thing very odd, even though I believe that the British prisoners ought to have been treated humanely.

engineer wrote:

I understand that we may occasionally let a bad guy get away. Better that than holding innocent people without a hearing, without recourse, without contact.

What if such a person assists a chain of events which eventually leads to the release by Al Qaeda of a bioweapon in New York City? I suspect that you will never give a direct answer to this question.

engineer wrote:

I know, you don't think any of them are innocent.

It would probably facilitate this discussion if you skimmed my posts before answering them. I said that the innocent ones should be released.

engineer wrote:

Show me the evidence, and I'll be with you. Ask me to take your word and I think something is wrong. I expect my government to be completely happy with judicial review of any action they take. To hide prisoners at Gitmo for the express purpose of evading the US courts is wrong...

They ought never to appear in any civil court, only military tribunals. This is military not civil justice. Imagine the chaos and harm to our effort in WW2 if every German and Japanese prisoner of war were able to appear in an American court as though he were suspected of committing a domestic crime. In fact, as far as I know, none of them was granted that right.

0 Replies

Brandon:

You f-ing conservative freak!!! (wanted to get my quota in).

Wink

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

pinchehoto wrote:
I'm not sure that giving Gitmo detainees POW status is within the capabilities of our current policies. Many of them are/were in the US legally. Some are US citizens. Most of them have not actually taken up arms against the US. Nor can we try them as criminals since the majority of the detainees are only guilty of having the wrong friends and ideas.

So, we don't give them any status or charge them with any crime because they cannot be charged with anything but 'thoughtcrime'?

It is part of doing business as a free country that this is not illegal and not punishible by law. To intepret the law in a special way to keep citizens and visitors detained because of what they might do is unconstitutional and unAmerican. And to do it the name of freedom is doublethink at its worst.

TF

Justice or Protection?

Ok, Mr. President, let them go. And after you have let go the people that our best intelligence agencies have deemed the most statistically likely to conduct the next attack, you better have a good explaination if they ever do conduct an attack. You are responsible for the lives of you countrymen as well as their liberty.

Damn it sucks to be the leader.

The detainees are not charged with thoughtcrime. They are not charged with anything. This is a military action, not a civil one. Military strategists do not care who *did* attack us as much as they care about who is *going* to attack us. The detainees fit the profile of being the enemy because they are unknown Arabs that hung around the known bad guys, or they have done or said similar things as the known bad guys. They may or may not be bad guys, but we detained them because they have a statistcally higher chance of being the enemy than the rest of the population based upon their observed behavior and associations. The German-Americans and Japanese-Americans were detained in WWII the same way, only we are far more selective this time than we were then. It saved lives back then and I am sure it is saving lives now.

It sucks that we are forced to deal with the dilema of preventing a certain group from killing thousands of people with no *legal* way to do so. If we call them POWs, we have to *prove* that they are the enemy. If we call them criminals, we have to *prove* that they have commited a crime. When the life and death of thousands are at stake, can we *always* shoulder the burden of proof? In this case, I say no.

Is it ethically wrong to keep them detained? Sure it is. But our hand is forced. Had Muslim extremists not become violent, we would not have had to detain anyone. The other option would be to let them free and possible suffer more attacks. Both the detaining of the innocent and the non-prevention of mass murder are evil. The question is- Which is more evil?

If you can come up with a better way to prevent attacks than to incarcerate the people most likely to conduct the attacks, I'm all ears.

0 Replies

pinchehoto wrote:

Justice or Protection?

Ok, Mr. President, let them go. And after you have let go the people that our best intelligence agencies have deemed the most statistically likely to conduct the next attack, you better have a good explaination if they ever do conduct an attack. You are responsible for the lives of you countrymen as well as their liberty.

Damn it sucks to be the leader.

The detainees are not charged with thoughtcrime. They are not charged with anything. This is a military action, not a civil one. Military strategists do not care who *did* attack us as much as they care about who is *going* to attack us.

First point:

Good point. Seems to be damned if you do and damned if you don't. Best point I, personally, have seen thus far.

However, if this was a military action on American citizens Martial Law would have to be enacted and habeus corpus would need to be suspended.

This has not been done - as a president if you are not upholding the constitution, you are not doing your job, you are liable for prosecution, and are against everything this thing we call America stands for. We cannot definitely break the law, do immoral things, and suspend the constitution in order to prevent what might happen.

TF

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Brandon - from outside the US it looks pretty crook. When sufficient Americans wake up to the fact that it's pretty crook and also counter-productive they'll toss out the Republicans.

From where I'm sitting this is a case of pure treason which the entire demokkkrat party is complicit in. If it were within my power to do it, I'd outlaw and ban the dem party and round up their leadership echelon and put them in cages in the national zoo on Connecticut Avenue in D.C. for people to look at, and weld the bars shut.

0 Replies

Gungasnake:

Try to forward the discussion if you could. I think we were doing a pretty good job of having a decent discussion.

TF

Edit: Bendedict Arnold was a WHIG party supporter it wasn't until much later when Andrew Jackson was president that the democrat party took hold in America.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Brandon:

You f-ing conservative freak!!! (wanted to get my quota in).

TF

Yes, normally you have to stand in line to express such a sentiment.

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Gungasnake:

Edit: Bendedict Arnold was a WHIG party supporter it wasn't until much later when Andrew Jackson was president that the democrat party took hold in America.

Benedict Arnold was the model for it.

0 Replies

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.06.17.DurbinWarfare-X.gif

0 Replies

To be a terrorist - you have to be tried and convicted.

We only have detainee's right now being treated as terrorists.

TF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

To be a terrorist - you have to be tried and convicted.

We only have detainee's right now being treated as terrorists.

TF

Don't be ridiculous ... if I head out right now and rob the McDonald's down the street, I'm a robber. And I'll be a robber whether or not I'm tried and convicted.

We have detainee's right now that might be terrorists who are being treated as terrorists.

0 Replies

Lol - however, you will not be imprisoned until you have either pleaded guilty, or been tried.

That is a truly ridiculous post, Tico, logically and a few other ways.

Just as a starter you assume the conclusion you are arguing for in your premise.

Whether these people have committed any crime is exactly what is moot.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Lol - however, you will not be imprisoned until you have either pleaded guilty, or been tried.

That is a truly ridiculous post, Tico, logically and a few other ways.

Just as a starter you assume the conclusion you are arguing for in your premise.

Whether these people have committed any crime is exactly what is moot.

As I understand it, most of them are military prisoners captured on the battlefield, like the Axis soldiers we held in WW2.

0 Replies

Hmm - interesting, that.

So - we invaded Afghanistan - they fought.

So?

Australia, for instance, had no laws outlawing our citizens imprisoned in Guantanamo for exactly that.

But, anyhow, how does being caught on a battlefield prove they were terrorists?

I have no doubt some were - I also have no doubt some weren't.

Generally, this is why we have legal processes, to determine such things.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Hmm - interesting, that.

So - we invaded Afghanistan - they fought.

So?

Australia, for instance, had no laws outlawing our citizens imprisoned in Guantanamo for exactly that.

But, anyhow, how does being caught on a battlefield prove they were terrorists?

I have no doubt some were - I also have no doubt some weren't.

Generally, this is why we have legal processes, to determine such things.

It doesn't prove they were terrorists, and, no, generally a legal process doesn't determine the fate of military prisoners. At least, not a civil legal process. I don't recally hearing about too many of our WW2 German, Japanese, and Italian prisoners in court with lawyers back then. We just held them period. What you're saying is nonsense.

0 Replies

Lol - I shal leave aside that argument - what I was actually arguing was Tico's assumption that all detainees are terrorists.

0 Replies

Harping On Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is Highly Misguided

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know