Death camp at Guantanamo?

steissd, For example, the aggressive attack on Iraq by the US and UK? It's called "preemptive attack." The justification for which we still are looking into - after thousands dead and billions spent. c.i.

If anyone suspected to have ties with terrorism should be arrested without the right to an attorney, the Bush administration itself should be taken to prison right away.

Isn't complaining about the way terrorists operate really just sour grapes? We spend so many billions (trillions?) of dollars on the military and a handful of dedicated people skirt right by it, just like that. So we rationalize any law or definition to get them and hold them any way we can, ethics be damned.

Well, this kind of warfare (terrorism) is the only effective tactic these days, so you bet it will happen more and more, out of necessity. I don't support it, but it's quite understandable.

So isn't it a bit like the British redcoats complaining about those horrible indecent people in Massachusetts -- who wouldn't stand like gentleman and fight properly! Marching from Lexington back to Boston, they were sniped to pieces in the woods. So unethical! So improper! So effective. Those evil terrorist U.S. revolutionaries.

If people around the world have to resort to terrorism to preserve their culture, survive, or make some progress for their cause, then how about the U.S. just publish a manual on how we wish them to do it legitimately? How should a terrorist fight the honorable fight to save their people?

Instead of complaining how victimized we are by terrorists, give them a better option. Instead of claiming they are evil because they are anti-American, why not see they're more pro-survival, and help them live independently and free of the U.S. without need for violence?

Sure I'm ignorant. I probably have it all wrong. We should label them "evil" and stop thinking any further. It takes far less work that way.

But I also see a lot of reasons for people around the world to resent the intrusion and manipulation of the United States into their lives. Entire cultures are being destroyed and reshaped into our image.

When people are that desperate, how should they fight?

And now, increasing evidence that the WH hyped the WMD threat in order to justify invading Iraq. Bearing in mind all the factors, would our acts be considered terrorist?

Codeborg - attempting to reshape the world in our image is an arrogance that is being perceived by more and more. One of the big questions is - what is our image? More and more it is looking white Pentecostal. In the meantime, a lot of the world is taking another look at the way our social structures are shaping up, and the way our economic system is looking. And it doesn't look all that desireable to many of them. In the derision of "Old Europe", we forget our origins and our borrowings. How ironic that we urge the Israelis to live side by side with the Palestinians, but we do not consider the importance of us living side by side with others who are not like us.

CodeBorg, I think that you make some great points. Our government has apparently forgotten it's beginnings, or has simply just chosen to disrespect them in the name of power and greed. They have become the reincarnation of the entity that this country was born to escape.

I will refrain from preaching too much, but I just want to add that all of this is more reason to become involved in overthrowing the Bush Regime in the next elections. I've met a lot of people who haven't really been politically active in the past (like myself) who are driven to do something this time. If we all get out and try, we can get rid of these communist jerks and get an administration in power that will respect our past, present, and future. Get active!

(Be agressive...be be agressive! )

LibertyD, These so-called "jerks" are the antithesis of communism. They are pure capitalist with no ethics nor sense of humanity; their primary goal is to make the rich richer, and the poor poorer. c.i.

Yes, you're right, c.i. A lot of their actions regarding civil liberties reminds me of communism, but when it comes to defining them properly, who knows? What was it on another thread similar to this one...autocratic? They're just bad bad bad!!!

So - the prisoners in Guantanamo shall be deemed to be without rights, because they are terrorists, by the US Government - which is also the entity deciding, without benefit of any "normal" (as promulgated by the US) national, or international processes their status as terrorists - as opposed to soldiers or freedom fighters etc.

Such circularity is positively Orwellian in its horror.

I do not think, CI, that anyone in Iraq (except Palestinian immigrants, personal cronies of the dictator and Baath party activists) misses Saddam and his regime. Even if no WMDs are found (for example, since they were smuggled to Syria or hidden very carefully), the removal of Hussein is justified.

Dlowan, the prisoners will get a fair trial, they will not be just shot (or set free) on the order of some Sgt.-Major. But the necessary precautions are being taken for the terrorists not to stay impune as a result of lawyers' pettifoggery and legal illiteracy of the combattant soldiers that captured them.

Why they were captured, transported and imprisoned in an opaque camp(f) by American soldiers, however, remains a mystery.

Let's not forget still no one knows who flew those planes into the WTC.

steissd - are you in possession of knowledge that we don't have regarding the prisoners at Guantanamo? What exactly is it you refer to about "lawyers' pettifoggery?" What necessary legal precautions are being taken? Since nobody is sure just who all the prisoners are, there are questions. And yet, they've been held, in cages, without any due processs at all, whether military or civil.

Isn't it your country that brought back some known Nazi criminals to Israel, for them to stand trial, hear the accusations of the accusers, offer up a defense? That is not happening here.

Nazi war criminal that was brought to Israel in 1961, I mean Adolf Eichmann, at the moment of his capture did not pose any security threat to anyone. He was prosecuted for his past felonies.
These guys are dangerous. They know much, and they have to share their knowledge with the U.S. military to deserve some indulgence. By the way, who told that they will not have a fair trial with a defense attorney. I have read that they will be restricted to the American attorney. This is done to prevent Muslim-lovers from Europe from turning a trial into politically correct circus.
About pettifoggery. Everyone knows well what do I mean. Al Capone was a murderer, extorter, alcohol smuggler and what not (and all the country knew this), and it became possible to hide him behind the bars only for tax evasion. If he was arrested on another charges, he would be released very fast, since his lawyers would disprove all the findings of the police; and part of them would be rejected by court since the very process of their obtaining exceeded the limitations of the permitted procedure.
I still consider that in case of general crime the existing norms should remain unchanged. Al Capone and the like were criminals, but they were not enemies of the nation. The new procedural rules should be applied to the active enemies, regardless of their nationality, that will leave them no chance to avoid punishment if they have really committed some hostile actions. Lenience to enemy is tantamount to lack of remorse to the loyal citizens of the nation. Some information is being leaked that in the camp in Guantanamo there is a large number of citizens of different countries, including the European ones, that volunteered to Al Qaeda. These are not illiterate Afghans that merely were loyal to their tribal chiefs. They consciously made their choice in favor of terror. This very fact shows that they are dangerous. They are similar to rabid dogs. And there is only one way to tackle a problem of rabid dog: to shoot it down.

steissd

Since you didn't answer mama's question, let me ask you again:

from where do you have all these informations about the 'prisoners' that obviously no-one else knows?

Here is an excerpt from the Amnesty International Report

What have the nationals of the "Islamic Republic" of Belgium forgotten in Afghanistan? And AI accuses several other European countries for abandoning their nationals captured by the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

steissd

There are a couple of citizens from the "Islamic Kingdom" of Great Britain and Northern Ireland plus several other "islamic Republics" as well there.

When I go to another country, I neither have forgotten there something nor to ask someone, where I go and why.

I think I'd stay away from mentions of Afghanistan right now.

And steissd - could you please explain your quote from Amnesty International? Are you saying two Blegian nationals remained detained there without charge, etc? Doesn't that bear out my case?

Steissd: I don't know of anything which establishes the prisoners' guilt, nor any response from you to others who have questioned that. Political correctness is not something the US can be accused of right now. And for that matter it's not "political correctness" which is at issue. It's legality and morality. Neither of which this administration seems to hold in high regard.

The thing is, I DO understand what Steissd means by legal pettifoggery etc - and I do understand - I think - why the US government is keen to remain out of reach of any laws here.

However - for these people to have been taken to where they are, without benefit of anything except US intelligence's sorting - whatever that may have meant in regard to fairness, accuracy etc - to have been held for as long as they have, in what appear to be appalling conditions, out of reach even of things like the Red Crescent, or International inspection teams, or contact with their families - well, these things do not resemble the system that the US prides itself upon and loudly criticises other countries for not possessing. Imagine if these were US nationals being held by another country in similar circumstances - US mercenaries, for instance - or CIA operatives.

I think it IS difficult to know what to do with alleged terrorists - look at the incredible problems with getting a trial for the alleged Lockerbie perpetrators.

I think it is important for the world to get together and frame an agreement for dealing with alleged terrorists who are captured, given that there are concerns which make speedy trial important, and in a world where it is often difficult even to work out who has jurisdiction in a terrorist attack.

I do not think that somebody thinking you are a terrorist should disqualify you from all legal rights - which is what seems to have occurred here.

Exactly, Dlowan.