Ticomaya wrote:old europe wrote:Right.
So, that leaves 92 percent without Al Qaida connections. Maybe Gitmo should finally be shut down, after all...
Do you think Gitmo is reserved for just al Qaeda? I trust they were fighting on the battlefield in Afghanistan, or are otherwise connected to terrorism, and aren't being held for no valid reason. But I'm all for military tribunals reviewing their detention.
I don't know what qualifications you have to meet in order to be imprisoned in Gitmo. Do you? Has anybody told us?
Of course, along with the 8 percent number of Al Qaida detainees, we have heard that 45 percent have commited hostile acts against the United States. Makes you wonder about the other 55 percent, doesn't it?
old europe wrote:Of course, along with the 8 percent number of Al Qaida detainees, we have heard that 45 percent have commited hostile acts against the United States. Makes you wonder about the other 55 percent, doesn't it?
Yes, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.
... exactly why Americans are viewed as indifferent towards human rights violations commited in their names.
old europe wrote:... exactly why Americans are viewed as indifferent towards human rights violations commited in their names.
What human rights violations?
Detaining somebody for an indeterminate amount of time without a trial is not a violation of human rights?
The things that have happened in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib - not violations of human rights?
Cycloptichorn
old europe wrote:Detaining somebody for an indeterminate amount of time without a trial is not a violation of human rights?
As I said, I'm in favor of military tribunals to review the basis for detention.
Right then. So you agree that that's a violation of human rights.
See? That was easy.
Cycloptichorn wrote:The things that have happened in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib - not violations of human rights?
Cycloptichorn
What "things" at Gitmo? As far as Abu Ghraib, the events that took place were violations of human rights, and the violators have been charged with the crimes they committed, and are currently serving time in prison. Have you heard me excusing that behavior?
old europe wrote:Right then. So you agree that that's a violation of human rights.
See? That was easy.
And I'm not indifferent to it ... see?
old europe wrote:Ticomaya wrote:And I'm not indifferent to it ... see?
Ticomaya wrote:Yes, but I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Pay attention, OE: You exclaimed your understanding that only 45 percent commited hostile acts against the United States, and you wondered about the others. It was in response to that statement that I informed you I wasn't losing any sleep about the reasons for their detention, hostile acts or otherwise. Are you suggesting if the basis for the detention was an allegation that a full
100% committed hostile acts against the US, you would be any less incensed? You don't care the reason, you just don't want them held there, right? However, none of that alters my belief that the US ought to conduct military tribunals to review the status of their detention.
All this just goes to prove that Lefties, leftwing Democrats, and Bush-haters will not accept ANY explanation by ANYBODY related to ANYTHING that does not support their prejudicial negative views regarding all aspect of this administration and generally the entire GOP as well. There is news all over the place lately from Saddam's inner circle and from Saddam himself that WMDs or WMD programs did exist, were hidden from the UN inspectors, and more was to come. Does that make a dent in the leftwing opinion that "Bush lied us into war?" Nope
You have a number of witnesses at the ranch, the Corpus Christi PD, and other witnesses from the hospital all saying alcohol was not a factor in the hunting accident. Is that satisfactory to the leftwing negative nabobs? Nope.
You have trials completed, convictions obtained, sentences issued re Abu Ghraib. Does that convince leftwingers that the U.S.A. does not tolerate human rights violations? Nope. And further they're convinced we're imprisoning (and probably torturing) hundreds of innocent victims at GITMO.
And they wonder why Dick Cheney delayed a press conference.
Tico/others, what can or should be done about the five Uighurs (Chinese muslims) I read about this week? They've been held at Gitmo for years now and everybody, including the US government, agrees that they are not enemy combatants. A couple of them were traveling when they were swept up and confined and I think the others were sold to US forces as terrorists, but that has since been proven false.
The US won't send them home because they will probably face torture or even death. The US can't find another country that will accept them. There are Uighurs in the US who have offered to take them in until a place in another country can be found but the US gov't won't consider that as an option.
And, if I remember right, they have been prevented from seeing lawyers because everybody agrees they're not enemy combatants, and those are the only prisoners at Gitmo who are allowed lawyers. If they could be brought to the continental US they could hire lawyers. But they can't get here, in part at least, because they don't have lawyers or other representation.
So, even though everybody agrees that these five men are INNOCENT, they are incarcerated at Gitmo indefinitely.
I will grant you, this is just five people. But who else there could be in the same position? I can't say we just ought to let everybody go, but as a person raised to believe that the US is a fair and just country, why can't we find a way to unlock these innocent men?
Ticomaya wrote:You don't care the reason, you just don't want them held there, right?
Nope, you're mistaken. I do care about the reason. And I do see a profound difference between somebody being detained because he is an Al Qaida member captured in Afghanistan and somebody who is being detained because he was, well, captured in Afghanistan.
And you're right, I don't want them held there. That does not mean I want to see all of them set free. That's what trials are for - determine if somebody is innocent and should be free or if somebody has committed a crime and should be imprisoned.
Foxfyre wrote:All this just goes to prove that Lefties, leftwing Democrats, and Bush-haters will not accept ANY explanation by ANYBODY related to ANYTHING that does not support their prejudicial negative views regarding all aspect of this administration and generally the entire GOP as well.
Where did this come from?
If somebody doesn't want people (possibly innocent, maybe not, we don't know...) being held for years without a trial, that proves ... what?
Follow the leader, Foxy.
Bush supporters' aftermath thread II
Tico, please excuse me, but I've been meaning to thank you for those direct links you posted for me. That was very considerate of you.
FF:
Quote:You have trials completed, convictions obtained, sentences issued re Abu Ghraib. Does that convince leftwingers that the U.S.A. does not tolerate human rights violations? Nope. And further they're convinced we're imprisoning (and probably torturing) hundreds of innocent victims at GITMO.
Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way is that it's pretty pitiful that you can be handed a PFC and a Staff Sergeant to throw to the stockade, and never again wonder or care that the corrupt practices of abuse and torture originated way higher. I think you have to be pretty gullible or willingly blind to take the handful of scapegoated lower enlisted they threw to the wolves as proof we "don't tolerate" abuses.
Wy wrote:.... why can't we find a way to unlock these innocent men?
That sounds like a good question, Wy.
