11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

[WildBerry]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

I think holding people indefinitely on secret evidence constitutes a situation in which any mistrust of the government on the issue can be considered "rightful".

I don't agree with the argument, but I can't remember what you countered it with. I mean the one that notes that almost any of these people not only lack U.S. citizenship and are thus not necessarily object to the legislation, but they have also been (supposedly) picked up at the combat zone as irregular combatants. What do you sayl to this "well duh they don't have any rights" -retort?

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

This isn't like someone had a picture taken of them by a red light camera and now they are screaming that the government is out to get them.

To my mind, the essence is just that. But WB phrased the question more properly.

I think holding people indefinitely on secret evidence constitutes a situation in which any mistrust of the government on the issue can be considered "rightful".

So when a judge seals a divorce case and forbids media coverage, you're in the courtroom screaming [email protected][email protected]@ONE!! Right?

I agree that Crawford is incompetent. A state like the US should be more discrete and professional when torturing people.

If Bush was as slime-coated as presumed, he should have indeed extradited a substantial number of the detainees. I certainly would have. But of course we'd then be accused of sending them to their deaths (which would certainly have been the case).

It's a bit hard to believe that you don't notice the bitter taste which your kind of cynism leaves.

Who's more cynical - the person who accepts the unpleasant reality (me), or the person who assumes paranoid fantasy as factual reason?

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

So when a judge seals a divorce case and forbids media coverage, you're in the courtroom screaming [email protected][email protected]@ONE!! Right?

A divorce case is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

And even if it weren't, that would imply that there is an actual trial conducted by an impartial judge, a jury to hear testimony, and a verdict with a specified sentence attached.

I'm not against locking up criminals; I just want to make sure the correct process is followed. That's what a healthy mistrust of the government is all about, really.

I don't agree with the argument, but I can't remember what you countered it with. I mean the one that notes that almost any of these people not only lack U.S. citizenship and are thus not necessarily object to the legislation, but they have also been (supposedly) picked up at the combat zone as irregular combatants. What do you sayl to this "well duh they don't have any rights" -retort?

I don't personally believe that rights are a matter of nationality. Privileges, certainly, but not rights.

And I believe US citizens have been held in Gitmo, yes? That should be a huge red flag.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

A divorce case is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

There have been sealed criminal trials, haven't there? Your point is moot.

And even if it weren't, that would imply that there is an actual trial conducted by an impartial judge, a jury to hear testimony, and a verdict with a specified sentence attached.

All of which were covered with the tribunal plan. Only the hand-wringing B00sh hatred I referred to earlier prevented that completely viable plan from being acted upon, and the subsequent postponement of trials is due to those particular farcical accusations.

I'm not against locking up criminals; I just want to make sure the correct process is followed. That's what a healthy mistrust of the government is all about, really.

And when the correct and traditional process is subsequently manufactured into an EEEEBIL GOVUNMINT [email protected] of Brobdingnagian proportions? What then?

And I believe US citizens have been held in Gitmo, yes? That should be a huge red flag.

Only until the legal issues were resolved. I think there were two (Hamdi and Rasuul?). Not so huge, sorry.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

And I believe US citizens have been held in Gitmo, yes? That should be a huge red flag.

I was about to mention that the few guys are too few in number not to matter, then realised how dumb that sounds (heh, when I started posting this JMervyn hadn't yet just said it).

I concede that the question I asked point lost, I just would've enjoyed seeing you tear the whole thing apart in stead of one-sentence coup-de-grace. But I guess it wasn't that healthy and hale to begin with.

There have been sealed criminal trials, haven't there? Your point is moot.

I have rarely ones where the charges are not publicised, but I might know the courts of your country well enough. I still suspect Saro has a point, even if it isn't as strong as he might've thought it be.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

I was about to mention that the few guys are too few in number not to matter, then realised how dumb that sounds (heh, when I started posting this JMervyn hadn't yet just said it).

Probably why I didn't say it. :crazyeyes:

I have rarely ones where the charges are not publicised, but I might know the courts of your country well enough. I still suspect Saro has a point, even if it isn't as strong as he might've thought it be.

I'm not trying to pretend there aren't counter-points; I'm just saying that being so mindlessly dismissive of the legitimacy of the Executive's position is asinine. They didn't sit in secrecy, rubbing their hands together and trying to dream up nefarious plots; the Left seems remarkably willing to believe in things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which may account for their equation of "neocon" with "J00").

 

[krischan]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

If Bush was as slime-coated as presumed, he should have indeed extradited a substantial number of the detainees. I certainly would have. But of course we'd then be accused of sending them to their deaths (which would certainly have been the case).

If you don't have remorse about torturing terrorists or don't care about the reaction of the rest of the world with respect to that, why should you be hesistant with killing them ? I think that torture is just as despicable.

Who's more cynical - the person who accepts the unpleasant reality (me), or the person who assumes paranoid fantasy as factual reason?

Which unpleasant reality ? That torture is needed to fight terrorism ? Or that torture is a good thing ?

You can justify torture without using cynism to belittle your statement and independently from the cynism of terrorists. Why don't you simply say that torture is OK ? That seems to be the essence of your words.

 

[Rashiminos]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

If Bush was as slime-coated as presumed, he should have indeed extradited a substantial number of the detainees. I certainly would have. But of course we'd then be accused of sending them to their deaths (which would certainly have been the case).

What was that about extraordinary rendition?

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

There have been sealed criminal trials, haven't there? Your point is moot.

I went on to answer the question of criminal trials. I was just pointing out that your attempt to pick a common place civil matter in an attempt to trivialize my argument pertaining to criminal matters was noted (and not appreciated).

All of which were covered with the tribunal plan. Only the hand-wringing B00sh hatred I referred to earlier prevented that completely viable plan from being acted upon, and the subsequent postponement of trials is due to those particular farcical accusations.

Can I get a source? I'd like to read up.

Also, in your opinion, were these tribunals planned from the get-go, or only grudgingly after people had a problem with the way things were being done?

And when the correct and traditional process is subsequently manufactured into an EEEEBIL GOVUNMINT [email protected] of Brobdingnagian proportions? What then?

I'd say change the process if it's corrupt (although I'm generally happy with the way it's done now). I'm sure the process has flaws, but I'd prefer to change it rather than ignore it in favor of the whims of whatever jerk the populace can dredge up to be president these days.

Only until the legal issues were resolved. I think there were two (Hamdi and Rasuul?). Not so huge, sorry.

Legal issues such as . . . whether or not they could get away with it?

Huge issue, sorry.

The number of people effected doesn't matter to me as much as the policy. In the spirit of certain recent events: If a cop goes off and shoots an unarmed black man, the cop is in the wrong, but it isn't necessarily an indictment of the entire police department. If the department's policy is to shoot unarmed black men, it doesn't really matter to me that they only ended up shooting two. The implications of the policy reach far broader than merely the number of times it was put into use.

 

[BlueDogAnchorite]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Re-terrorise? Hey I thought you actually had to initially terrorise to be capable of that.. silly me.

What's this about evil government plots.. I thought Bush changed the law so they could pretty much do what the hell they wanted. Even if there's not any direct evidence (and I always thought there was craploads, guess I absorb totally different media) It always seemed clear to me that on several psychological levels, giving a group of guards too much power,pointing at prsioners and saying they're all terrorists would not elicit any pretty poetry from the captives.

Giving The US' behaviour in recent years, I was surprised that anyone could find it so hard to believe that the reports of torture were rubbish.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

If you don't have remorse about torturing terrorists or don't care about the reaction of the rest of the world with respect to that, why should you be hesistant with killing them ? I think that torture is just as despicable.

Your presumption is that the treatment of Gitmo detainees unquestionably constitutes torture. I think that's worse than a silly presumption - there are plenty of college hazings that are worse, as I alluded to earlier. The proposition that we must fluff pillows for savages who aren't even covered by Geneva & Hague, versus sending them off to be meted justice by their own governments, seems a pretty straightforward proposition to me. But again, Progressive Leftists want to have their cake & eat it; we can't turn these vermin over to the justice they richly deserve, and must instead give them greater protection than they would ever have received otherwise.

Which unpleasant reality ? That torture is needed to fight terrorism ? Or that torture is a good thing ?

The unpleasant reality that cynical anti-American types are willing to label "discomfort" as "torture" for political purposes, particularly when their own host countries have and do treat prisoners far more maliciously than the kid-glove treatment by Americans at Gitmo.

Why don't you simply say that torture is OK ? That seems to be the essence of your words.

I'd quote Ill's signature block at you about seeing what you want to see, but it's obviously a waste of time.

What was that about extraordinary rendition?

Well, it's a Clinton policy. One of the few things B.J. did that I approved of. What of it?

I was just pointing out that your attempt to pick a common place civil matter in an attempt to trivialize my argument pertaining to criminal matters was noted (and not appreciated).

Not sorry to have offended, considering that I believe the bulk of the argument vis-a-vis Gitmo is trivial and politically motivated. That's not to say I'm a blind advocate; the scandal of Abu Graib besmirched America's image in the world (with the caring assistance of the NYT).

Can I get a source? I'd like to read up.

Sure - Dick Morris' new book (Fleeced) has a section devoted to it.

Also, in your opinion, were these tribunals planned from the get-go, or only grudgingly after people had a problem with the way things were being done?

That's a toughie, to a degree - and again, the Morris book discussed the "made it up as they went along" concerns. I believe they were vaguely planned from the get-go. Dealing with prisoners has always been badly planned, and given the degree of incompetence that the Rumsfeld DoD displayed, I suppose it's not surprising. But I'd be hard-pressed to find a source for that impression.

I'd say change the process if it's corrupt (although I'm generally happy with the way it's done now). I'm sure the process has flaws, but I'd prefer to change it rather than ignore it in favor of the whims of whatever jerk the populace can dredge up to be president these days.

Well, the process as it stood was what Bush intended to use. Obviously, Liberal-Progressives weren't at all willing to accept the concept. And are you deriding THE ONE's plan to immediately shutter Gitmo and foist the prisoners off on the military prison system?

Legal issues such as . . . whether or not they could get away with it?

Sheesh, you're sounding like the other Euros here. Legal issues such as whether a citizen of the U.S. can be labeled as an enemy combatant, even when they're fighting in a foreign country outside of recognized international allegiance.

The entire problem goes back to the spectacularly idiotic belief that war can be handled as if it were a criminal issue (as with my old outrage at the intelligence vs. evidence canard). Criminal justice is about picking up the pieces accurately and burying the bodies, hoping that by catching and punishing the criminal that the society can dissuade its own members from committing such crimes. IMO anyone who believes such a model can be applied to warfare and international terrorism is a fool - or worse, a seditionist interested in the downfall of the state.

The implications of the policy reach far broader than merely the number of times it was put into use.

Which is part of the reason it would have been better if the decisions had not been made in haste, but they had hundreds of terrorists to process. The ones still in Gitmo are the core of the cancer; most of the small fry have been dealt with (like Osama's driver getting 'time served').

 

[krischan]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

So those who don't follow your reasoning are anti-American ? People in Guantanamo Bay are questioned with less severe measures than fluff pillows ? "Progressive leftists" (whatever that might be) are vermin who should be brought to justice ? Do you know how your words sound like ? They can be assigned to people who were worse than e.g. McCarthy.

Your point of view and your way of arguing is beyond of what I would call reasonable. You cannot be serious with that. It seems you are out of arguments, so all you can do if questioning the integrity of those who disagree with you. Calling people anti-American who disagree with you doesn't negate their arguments or make them less plausible. It's the same with calling people leftists, commies and so on.

Waterboarding is torture. I'm not an idiot, so don't try to explain or find excuses why it isn't, like (LOL!) calling it "discomfort".

Calling people anti-American because they disagree with the current politics of the US government or with you actually means denying them the right to have their own opinion. I think that's more anti-American, but I'm not from the US, so that might be the reason why I must be wrong.

It's just a trick to neither consider them as civilians nor as POWs and to keep them on non-US ground. The term enemy combatant hasn't existed before and it seems it has been invented just for that purpose. Most of the world thinks the US are doing it to have a justification for denying them human rights and I have to agree that it looks a lot like that.

I'm not sure if you really believe what you are saying here or if there's a hidden camera somewhere and my irony sensors need adjustment...

 

[WildBerry]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

So those who don't follow your reasoning are anti-American ? People in Guantanamo Bay are questioned with less severe measures than fluff pillows ? "Progressive leftists" (whatever that might be) are vermin who should be brought to justice ? Do you know how your words sound like ? They can be assigned to people who were worse than e.g. McCarthy.

But but but McCarthy was an All-American Hero!

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

So those who don't follow your reasoning are anti-American ? People in Guantanamo Bay are questioned with less severe measures than fluff pillows ? "Progressive leftists" (whatever that might be) are vermin who should be brought to justice ? Do you know how your words sound like ? They can be assigned to people who were worse than e.g. McCarthy.

If you want an answer, and aren't just trying to black-ball me, then don't splice my claims to your own ends. And incidentally, Tail-Gunner Joe was right, as proved by the Venona cables.

You cannot be serious with that.

I've stated previously that I'm here for my own amusement. And if by "don't agree with you", you mean, "want you, your family, and your civilization [email protected]!!" then I'm quite comfortable with my reasoning. That is, after all, what the splicing you've done results in.

Waterboarding is torture. I'm not an idiot, so don't try to explain or find excuses why it isn't, like (LOL!) calling it "discomfort".

Even though waterboarding isn't torture, the point is that the claims being discussed as a new issue were invalid. The single case being trumpeted as n00z is not only being falsely represented but is being deliberately misconstrued. The case the Judge claims to be torture involved sleep deprivation and cold temperatures. In her own words, she equates coercion to torture when making her decision.

The term enemy combatant hasn't existed before and it seems it has been invented just for that purpose. Most of the world thinks the US are doing it to have a justification for denying them human rights and I have to agree that it looks a lot like that.

Oh, so the Geneva & Hague conventions, as well as standing law dating back to 1942, simply doesn't exist because BUSH LIED CHILDREN [email protected][email protected]!!#[email protected]#

Yeah, sure. And you wonder why I throw the term "Anti-American" around lightly?

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

as well as standing law dating back to 1942

Good link. Some objections/clarifications:

A. The vague defintion of "war". Are the detainees tied to the region in which they were captured? I.e. when the Afghanistan "war" is declared over, the persons detained from that region will be released? Or is would they be released when we are no longer at "war" with terrorism in general? How long will either of these "wars" continue? The article is perhaps correct that the word "indefinitely" is technically an incorrect term for their period of detainment, but if the "war" can be dragged out indefinitely, then practically the detainment can be as well.

B. Country of origin and circumstance of capture. If someone flying in from North Korea tries to ignite his shoe-bomb on-board the plane over, he could not be sent to Gitmo by this rationale, correct? (I'd have to get a list of people detained in Gitmo, where they were detained, and why, but I'm reasonably sure some people from this category have been detained, even though it doesn't seem to fit the arguments presented. I could be mistaken, of course.)

C. US Citizens. The article in question mentions them briefly at the end but does nothing to explain the factors involved with detaining them as an "unlawful combatant".

 

[WildBerry]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

the Left seems remarkably willing to believe in things like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which may account for their equation of "neocon" with "J00").

You realise it was the Right that came up with that ****, yes? I'm surprised of your pride to parade around with it.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Good link. Some objections/clarifications:

Wasn't it, though? :smug: All your points are part of the problem; the Administration felt that it was more important to make the call than to get it "just right", which is what that Morris book reviews. It is always easy to pillory someone making decisions with the benefit of hindsight, as we can see.

You realise it was the Right that came up with that ****, yes? I'm surprised of your pride to parade around with it.

Which part, the Protocols? Or the claim of neocons' religious affiliation? Either way, remember that while I'm an equal-opportunity scorner, and only identify with the Right after a long and heated debate about whether the NSDAP were really socialist and whether Libertarians are more ultra-right than Conservatives.

But I've heard that particular gem from both right & left. You should see some of the ghastly rhetoric coming from HuffPo.

 

[Johnny]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

There are US citizens on gitmo?

 

[krischan]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

If you want an answer, and aren't just trying to black-ball me, then don't splice my claims to your own ends. And incidentally, Tail-Gunner Joe was right, as proved by the Venona cables.

I've stated previously that I'm here for my own amusement. And if by "don't agree with you", you mean, "want you, your family, and your civilization [email protected]!!" then I'm quite comfortable with my reasoning. That is, after all, what the splicing you've done results in.

So you didn't say that ? Perhaps you can clarify your words instead of just accusing me of black-balling you or splicing terms without an explanation.

Even though waterboarding isn't torture, the point is that the claims being discussed as a new issue were invalid. The single case being trumpeted as n00z is not only being falsely represented but is being deliberately misconstrued. The case the Judge claims to be torture involved sleep deprivation and cold temperatures. In her own words, she equates coercion to torture when making her decision.

OK, I'm not going to debate whether it's torture or notand so are you.

Oh, so the Geneva & Hague conventions, as well as standing law dating back to 1942, simply doesn't exist because BUSH LIED CHILDREN [email protected][email protected]!!#[email protected]#

It seems I was wrong with what I said about the term "enemy combatant", but that doesn't mean that they have no human rights.

Yeah, sure. And you wonder why I throw the term "Anti-American" around lightly?

To be honest, I don't wonder about it. I have a few assumptions, but I prefer not to discuss them. When I'm wrong, I have no problem to admit it, but it seems I cannot expect that from you.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Which part, the Protocols?

Yeah, as you know it was made up by Russian royalist anti-semitist aristocracy, and almost immediately used against the Bolsheviks due to prevalence of Jews in their ranks. By today's standards or then, they writers of the pamphlet sure were a part of the right.

Or the claim of neocons' religious affiliation? Either way, remember that while I'm an equal-opportunity scorner, and only identify with the Right after a long and heated debate about whether the NSDAP were really socialist and whether Libertarians are more ultra-right than Conservatives.

I'm not implying it's the right you deem yourself aligned with, just saying it is the right. As you should learn to differentiate between the hues of red.

But I've heard that particular gem from both right & left. You should see some of the ghastly rhetoric coming from HuffPo.

It's true that the the Russians, for example, used it in the 60s. How that is possible when they full well knew how the pamphlet was used against them is beyond me, I guess it talks a lot of the state of doublethink they were in. I agree with you - even if the numbnut who came up with it was a right-winger, the burden the Left bears about keeping that crap alive on their field is insurmountable.