A Must Listen

this looks like a completly neutral an unbiased site. :barf: - i'm not gonna pay 8$ to listen either.i'm sure if we'd a had them around in the 40's we would have had a movement to release the poor german soldiers captured shooting at our soldiers because we were holding them without due cause, and we would have had to execute the nurenburg judges for their crimes against the poor nazi party elite who were politically tried and murdered for just following orders. yet another example of why we should shoot all the lawyers. especially the leftie liberal ones... we've already seem what THEY do if they capture one of ours, we are models of sweetness in comparison.
 
We should remember that persons out of uniform blowing up civilians are kind of a new thing to us. We shoot spys. They aren't entitled to the same rights as a uniformed soldier. On the other hand, holding them indefinately goes against US social philosphies.

Remember that we've released at least one that I know of who has subsequently been recaptured shooting at us again.

It might be best to remove their right hands and airlift them to France. Just kidding. We don't want to lower ourselves, neither do they deserve the same rights as soldier.



munk
 
munk said:
On the other hand, holding them indefinately goes against US social philosphies.

Remember that we've released at least one that I know of who has subsequently been recaptured shooting at us again.

munk
Click to expand...

True. I don't think that anybody wants to have terrorists on the street. However at the same time taking people in a dirt poor country, paying them a bounty for turning in terrorists on just heresay evidence, keeping those people for years without any way to prove their innocence or guilt is just totally the most scarey thing I can think of. I don't want to think that could happen to ME in the future.

I thought it was really interesting the guys that they released that they interviewed.

Also not only from those former detainees but by soldiers that have been there you hear a lot of those people are just folks who were turned in for the money, or because of a family grudge. They said less than 5% were actually taken off the battlefield.

You mention the one released that went back to shooting at us. I think that is totally endemic of the Bush administrations handling of the war on terror. The whole thing is just so from the hip and they have basically tossed out any critics within their own group that disagreed with them that they don't have any control over the process. I mean if they REALLY had the goods on a lot of these people you KNOW they'd be shouting it from the housetops. But they use secrecy and national security as a smokescreen to hide their incompentance.
 
kronckew said:
i'm sure if we'd a had them around in the 40's we would have had a movement to release the poor german soldiers captured shooting at our soldiers because we were holding them without due cause, and we would have had to execute the nurenburg judges for their crimes against the poor nazi party elite who were politically tried and murdered for just following orders. yet another example of why we should shoot all the lawyers. especially the leftie liberal ones... we've already seem what THEY do if they capture one of ours, we are models of sweetness in comparison.
Click to expand...

Not even a valid comparison. Nazi war criminals had tons of witnesses against them they were given a more fair hearing then the detainees.

Also you mention German Soldiers shooting at our soldiers being captured. I don't think anyone would want to release somebody shooting at our soldiers. But the fact is a lot of these people there's zero evidence they were ever shooting. I have no problem imprisoning terrorists. But I don't want a system that lets the government indefinately detain people on secret information that nobody can see. I can see where it could go.
 
Hollow,
as a libertarian I share your concerns, but I keep in mind this is a new kind of war, and it's dirty. They are actually blowing up innocent Iraqi's just so Bush and the West will not win. No uniforms, using non military targets, going across national borders all over the world, using the internet and public opinion to further their agenda, and taking advantage of the legal quagmire to operate with impunity.

They are filth, and we are going to make mistakes dealing with them. The stakes are high- the survival of our civilization as we know it today.



munk
 
my mothers cousin was captured while on leave attending a wedding -they threw him in a POW camp anyway. he wasn't shooting at anyone at the moment of capture either. they (the US) were obviously intolerant and ethnically insensitive just because he was an SS leutnant. he was let loose later (he was waffen SS, not the regular SS) and escaped to the west on the U-Bahn before they finished the wall, stuffed in a piece of luggage.

one of my other relatives was a guest of the totenkopf's at belsen, he went in a boy & came out an old man. he never covered up the tattoo on his arm, but he never talked about it either, except once - he said in those circumstances you do anything to survive, and he did.

those at guantanamo are in a resort by comparison. if we let them use our own compassion and civilization against us, we will lose the war, the barbarians always learn their victims weaknesses and use them against those who are trying to apply the same rules they live by to them. i'm not saying we need to saw peoples heads off or torture peace workers trying to help our people, but if we are not tough, we have lost.
 
Looks to me, kronckew, by the example of what happened to your relative, that these abuses have been going on since Man walked and made war in the first place.

I don't have to look at today's New York Times to know they are running away whole heartedly with the 'Civil War' angle of the Iraq liberation. There is meaning in word choice. Just as they rejoiced when WMD were not found in Iraq, so too now when operatives of Syria and Iran and Al Queda blow up the Shiite's holiest golden dome, they are happy. By calling it "revolution" the terrorists gain ground, gather steam, and the NYT's is happy, because this means Bush was wrong, and their guy or girl will take the White House next time.

Remember considering whether or not Al Jazeer should be bombed? I think the NYT's would have been almost as valid a military target.

(These statements are exageration for effect and are not to be taken literally.)


munk
 
If we can't give people a trial, then we do not have a democracy. Democracy is not just voting.

Frankly, if someone is worth arresting and putting in prison, that person should get a trial. If guilty, then punish the person. If innocent, then not.....

But if we do not give an accused person a trial, then it is a joke to pretend that we are a democracy. Anyone can accuse anyone, and there is no right of defense.

The constitution becomes a farce if we decide to just ignore whatever we wish to ignore. There is no way to justify not using courts.

If we are not a nation of laws and courts - then we will risk becoming worse than our enemies. That is a bad road to travel down.
Why not just go back to a monarchy?
 
Kronkrewmy mothers cousin was captured while on leave attending a wedding -they threw him in a POW camp anyway. he wasn't shooting at anyone at the moment of capture either. they (the US) were obviously intolerant and ethnically insensitive just because he was an SS leutnant. he was let loose later (he was waffen SS, not the regular SS) and escaped to the west on the U-Bahn before they finished the wall, stuffed in a piece of luggage.
Click to expand...

But he was actually an enemy soldier right? He wasn't a civilian turned in for a fee.

You guys are casting it as one choice or the other. Either be brutal and cruel or the enemy will win. I believe that is a false choice and that the current situation bears this out.

True the US has not had any terror attack, but worldwide I believe attacks are up, and the rate of casualties in Iraq civilian and military seem to be holding steady or even increasing compared to 3 years ago. Can you believe it's been 3 years? Also we are coming close to giving Iran what they couldn't get in an 8 year war. Control of So Iraq. The numbers of terrorists worldwide are up thanks to using Iraq as a training/recruiting ground, Hamas won the election in Palestine, and candidates sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood won quite a few seats in Egypt. You can call it a success but I say your'e trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!
 
"Civilization" is a very thin layer over primitive hunter-gatherers.

War is inherently barbaric, which is why it sould be avoided.

The "law of war," to the extent that it is followed from time to time, presume uniformed national armies -- who also follow the "law of war." The "law" doesn't fit terrorists very well. Hence the term, "enemy combatants" rather than "prisoners of war."

(And the evidence that the "Greatest Generation" was pretty casual about following the "law of war" is abundant. For example, talk to a 101st vet about taking prisoners after Malmady.)

(Oh, and some of the "war criminals" convicted after WW II were so obviously innocent of war crimes that we quietly released them after a couple of years." e.g. Von Manstein, who systematically sabotage the political SS in the USSR.)

The traditional solution for civilians who take up arms aginst occupying forces after the regular army gives up is to shoot them whenever they are caught. That is what we did in Germany after the German Army surrendered. Apparently somewhere, or sometime, the expectation seems to have been changed. Now housing them in conditions superior to those of our troops in the field is "criminal."

If our government discloses what you learn from detainees, then the New York Times at al., self-proclaimed final arbiter of what is good and correct, might know why they are being held. Of course, the terrorists NOt in custody then know what we have found out -- not prudent.

I presume that some of the detainees are not "enemy combatants." In war, of whatever flavor, there is always "collateral damage." Such "damage" is typically measured in dead. One can only hope that the benefits of success in fighting folks who are the essence of barbarity somehow outweigh the evil of imprisoning these folks.

It would be better if humanity, as a whole, had advanced beyond systematic violence.
 
It's a tough question. I don't have any good answers.

In earlier conflicts, armed people found wandering around in war zones who weren't in uniform were normally just shot without any fanfare. There was no trial -- guilt was implied by the circumstances.

I'm not recommending this as the best course of action but it seemed to work in the past. In any event, being held without trial seems considerably less harsh.
 
Thomas One can only hope that the benefits of success in fighting folks who are the essence of barbarity somehow outweigh the evil of imprisoning these folks. It would be better if humanity said:
That gets at what I believe. Is the WAY we are fighting folks who are the essence of barbarity will never give us the benefits of success. I don't believe it's possible cast out evil with evil.

You mention the media bringing this to light....

A lot of the really bad stuff that has come out. Some of the cruelty, Abu Gharib, a lot of that was originally brought out by witnesses who felt morally outraged. Soldiers, people within the administration.

I often wondered if Jesus predicted digital cameras and the internet when he said:

Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. /3/ Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops.
Click to expand...
 
Dave Rishar said:
It's a tough question. I don't have any good answers.

In earlier conflicts, armed people found wandering around in war zones who weren't in uniform were normally just shot without any fanfare. There was no trial -- guilt was implied by the circumstances.

I'm not recommending this as the best course of action but it seemed to work in the past. In any event, being held without trial seems considerably less harsh.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but I believe we have the ability in most cases to make that distinction when the person is not actually on the battlefield. If we are fighting in Afghanistan and somebody in Pakistan turns their neighbor in for $500 and says he's a bad guy with no other proof I don't consider that a person that is wandering in a war zone.
 
In the past, we always tried to take the high ground. There is no doubt that agents in our security forces would always do what was necessary.
The CIA agents always threw the rules out if there were a ticking time bomb.

The difference is that we are now claiming to fight for democracy, yet proclaim that torture is OK, we don't need trials, etc.

The point is that torture is not OK. It should not be "legalized" and it is against our current laws.

If a CIA agent does something to save us from a ticking bomb, then he should get our blessings.

But we can not tell the world that we are fighting for democracy, and then follow the methods of tyrants.

That is not good policy and makes no sense. You can't win the hearts and minds of the bulk of the people in the world by "talking democracy" and then openly talking about our doing evil being OK. This sort of mixed message makes no sense. Thus, we are fighting for democracy for someone else, but ignore democratic ideals for Americans.
I'd like my democracy at home.
 
munk said:
I don't have to look at today's New York Times to know they are running away whole heartedly with the 'Civil War' angle of the Iraq liberation. There is meaning in word choice. Just as they rejoiced when WMD were not found in Iraq, so too now when operatives of Syria and Iran and Al Queda blow up the Shiite's holiest golden dome, they are happy. By calling it "revolution" the terrorists gain ground, gather steam, and the NYT's is happy, because this means Bush was wrong, and their guy or girl will take the White House next time.
munk
Click to expand...

Munk, with all due respect, you may be a libertatian but you are using what has become the standard Republican ploy for defending or diverting attention from failures of leadership or intelligence within the party in power. This is the argument advanced ad nauseaum by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. The arguement, in effect, goes as follows: "Bush's failures are irrelevant because certain 'liberals' or 'liberal' institutions are glad they occurred. This character flaw in 'liberals', i.e. taking delight in human suffering if it advances their political agenda, is more eggregious than the associated failure in Republican leadership. We should therefore ignor Bush's failures and bash liberals instead for being self serving cretans." I have the following problems with this arguement.

1. There is an unsubstantiated and unverifiable assumption that certain liberals, and, by association, all "liberals", are "happy" when Bush fails, no matter how much pain and suffering that failure may have caused to our soldiers or to innocent civilians. I speak for myself and, I am sure, for many other liberals when I say that we are outraged at Bush's failures, the arrogance that lies behind those failures and the human suffering they have caused.

2. Regardless of the state of mind of opponents of the Bush administration (happy, outraged, indifferent, etc.), Bush himself is responsible for the failures of his administration, and those failures, as well as any relevant successes, should be the focus of any informed discussion on the merits of his government.

3. The implication that one party only has a corner on moral thought and behavior, while all opposition is evil and deserving only of contempt, is extremely dangerous to our two (sometimes three) party system of democratic government. Look around you at past and present totalitation regimes, and you will see that they are the products of slow or abrupt transitions to one party rule (by definition). It is the fact that we have at least two viable political parties vying for political power that protects us from the abuses that would otherwise be inevitable.

I think we need to focus on the issues if we are going to discuss politics and leave the character assassinations, whether explicit or implied, to talk show hosts.
 
arty said:
If we can't give people a trial, then we do not have a democracy. Democracy is not just voting.

Frankly, if someone is worth arresting and putting in prison, that person should get a trial. If guilty, then punish the person. If innocent, then not.....

But if we do not give an accused person a trial, then it is a joke to pretend that we are a democracy. Anyone can accuse anyone, and there is no right of defense.

The constitution becomes a farce if we decide to just ignore whatever we wish to ignore. There is no way to justify not using courts.

If we are not a nation of laws and courts - then we will risk becoming worse than our enemies. That is a bad road to travel down.
Why not just go back to a monarchy?
Click to expand...

these people were NOT 'arrested', they are NOT in prison, they were not some petty criminal who got caught lifting a snickers bar in the corner candy store, they were not 'accused' - they were enemy troops in civvies picked up in a combat zone while engaged in attempting to shoot our children and destroy our country. the way of war is we no longer dispatch captured prisoners in the hope that the other side will not dispatch ours, so we keep them incarcerated and secure until the end of the conflict. in this one, the other side not only dispatches their prisoners, our sons and daughters, but tortures them horribly first, not with the unpleasantries our troops sometimes use to control people, or even the reprehensable treatment at the abu-ghirab, but with physical maiming and destruction, and sawing off heads with steak knives.

democracy IS just the voting. the majority rules. we do not have a democracy, we have a republic where we democratically elect and pay representatives to make the descisions for us that we are too lazy, too ill informed, or just plain do not care to make ourselves. then we sit around and second guess them and vilify them in hindsight and tell everyone how much better it would be if we ran things, or someone else did, but then go elect someone just as bad next time.

we are a country of laws and courts, but this has led us into a system where the tort is king, not the electorate. we have all kinds of laws, all kinds of courts, but very little justice. i'd rather have the rule of justice rather than the rule of law.

liberals believe in interpreting the constitution to their own ends, so don't bring that up, if we go by the letter of the constitution, we wouldn't have all these stupid knee jerk anti gun and anti weapon laws that only cause more gun crime. i don't really think we should call y'all liberals, as they believe in legislating and banning anything and everything they disagree with and believe they have the right to force everyone to agree with them or else. not very liberal to me. hard to pin such a lable on such a diverse bunch.

anyway, Guantanamo is a prisoner of war camp, not a remand centre for the legal system,, they've had their hearings, some who were thought to have been wrongly detained have been released, some have not. tough, that's war for you. the last thing i want to see is judges deciding to let them all go and then some of them continuing on to kill your child, or mine.
they already do too much of that with the murderers, rapists and paedophiles of our own to have us let them do the same thing with our avowed enemies.

you just don't go releasing POW's while the war is on, if you do they might come back & shoot you. as some have done. that's not just so i don't think we should do it just because some people are afraid of what someone might think.....

i still think we should round up all the lawyers and shoot them, life would be less legal, but more just.

and there's nothing wrong with an enlightened monarchy either, just another way of picking leaders, at least they don't waste time choosing new ones every few years, just to find out the new ones are just as bad, if not worse than the old ones. the american revolution was against the laws of the democratically elected parliament, not the king. we offered a crown to washington after we won, but he turned it down. mebbe we'd have been better off if he hadn't.

over here in the UK, (i am a US citizen living here by the way) the labour party (socialists) are currently in charge and doing their best to eliminate the vestiges of power held by the house of lords not because they are all reactionary right wing conservatives,but becuse they are independant of party politics and can vote their own conscience rather than slaved to the party line. they were hereditary, so the labour govt. tried appointing new ones from their party to stuff the ballots, they found the new peers no longer were dependant on the backing of the party machine & could vote their beliefs, rather than those of the party leader.

try to remember, that in spite of what we want or think things should be, it's a cold cruel world out there, life isn't, was never, and never will be 'fair', the lion will always eat the lamb & not lie down with it. i'd rather be the lion than the lamb. if you want to be a lamb, that's your right but don't attempt to force me to be one.
 
Bwray-
I don't accept that what you call Bush's failures, are failures. This thing is upon us and was going to happen- it did happen on 9-11 and is continueing. Some things aren't fixable, in the traditional sense. They must be bourn and lived through.

You'd do better to think of my view regarding the NYT's as not from Rush Limbaugh, (who I've not heard in nearly 8 years) but from the standpoint of recognizing they represent a certain amount of the status quo. That I had to address their not very secret political goal does not bestow upon me the opposite political view- ie Republicans. (or that those responsible for decisions that did not go very well aren't still responsible for them, which of course they are)


munk
 
I was commenting on more than Gitmo prison. Our government's present policy involves arresting people in the U.S. and not charging them and not bringing them to trial. People get picked up and accused of being foreign agents. They get locked up, but many don't even get access to lawyers.
Some of these people have been foreign persons living and working in the U.S. One case involved a guy from Nepal who as taking some photos to send home. He was working in the U.S. to send money home to his family.
He was arrested and hidden away in a Brooklyn federal jail. He was only brought to trial because the FBI agent who handled his case went out of his way to try to help the guy. The "accused" did nothing but take some travel pictures of a train station. People saw him and thought that he was a terrorist.
As I recall the case - it was described on the radio by the FBI agent who handled the arrest - the poor slob was locked up for months with no chance of seeing a lawyer.

As I recall,an American citizen was arrested at O'Hare and charged with being a spy and terrorist. More than two years later, he was released - but never had a trial....He did have access to lawyers.

I think that we should have trials for these guys. From accounts by reporters at GITMO - many of those who were arrested were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't quite get the lamb and lion thing. I don't see what it has to do with treating people according to national and international law.

By the way, when we went to war - in the last Persian Gulf War - the general idea was that when prisoners were interrogated, lawyers were present. That didn't make the former President and former head of the CIA a whimp!
The idea was to follow the international rules of war - so that America would be respected and when we kicked butt - people around the world would know that we were right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top