IMO, the indefinite detention of terror suspects by our government is a disgrace.

The situation in that prison has been going downhill for months, and after three detainees committed suicide yesterday this is what the commander of Guantanamo had to say.

Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the commander of the detention camp at Guantánamo, told reporters in a news conference that the deaths were discovered early on Saturday when a guard noticed something out of the ordinary in a cell and found that a prisoner had hanged himself. Admiral Harris said guards and a medical team rushed in to try to save the inmate's life but were unsuccessful. Then, guards found two other detainees in nearby cells had hanged themselves as well; all were pronounced dead by a physician.

Military officials on Saturday suggested that the three suicides were a form of a coordinated protest.

"They are smart, they are creative, they are committed," Admiral Harris said. "They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

Asymmetrical warfare...three people hang themselves and he believes it was an "act of war". Where do we find people who think like this, and why do we put them in positions of authority?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/us/11gitmo.html?ex=1307678400&en=e52b7bf84db32be1&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

The place might be holding people who do not have a single thing to do with Al-Qaeda, but those US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan wanted to have their "brownie points" and arrested just anyone... I can only imagine the psychological pressure put on them by the US, their minds were not that of normal men, the US crashes the minds of any human to such a level, that death seem to be the only escape, just like they did in Viet Nam with the north Vietnamese captured, after they were "interrogated" with the help of chemicals injected, they were left alone with a conveniently forgotten pistol by a US guard, when the prisoners came back to some kind of consciousness they saw the gun and shot themselves, probably thinking they would not collaborate with the enemy. So if these prisoners are so closely guarded, even to the point of preventing suicide, how come they had the opportunity of doing so? They were not useful anymore, and they were not going to be released, so how can they get rid of them?, let them commit suicide!

Coordinated suicides?, I don't think so, but, keep lying, for it goes that if one keeps on lying, finally everyone else might start thinking that it is TRUE ...

Now lets hear what Stalin, oops sorry, Bush has to say!!!

Coordinated suicides?, I don't think so, but, keep lying, for it goes that if one keeps on lying, finally everyone else might start thinking that it is TRUE ...Given the high number of previously attempted suicides that have been reported, I have no reason to believe that these are not authentic. Consider also that detainees who go on hunger strikes are force-fed to keep them alive. The real problem at Guantanamo is holding prisoners indefinitely without trial. These suicides (as well as last month's riot) demonstrate how such a policy can lead to desperation and ultimate despair.

Seeing these suicides as an "...act of war..." is not difficult. Any action taken by the foes in a conflict is no less. Kamakazi pilots, homicide bombers, suicide missions ... these actions and many more have been part of every conflict in recorded history.

ES apparently has gone off the deep end...

It's unfortunate that you're simply to thick to see the point being made by the Admiral. Nobody's gone off the deep end but you, qp.

Seeing these suicides as an "...act of war..." is not difficult. Any action taken by the foes in a conflict is no less. Kamakazi pilots, homicide bombers, suicide missions ... these actions and many more have been part of every conflict in recorded history.Is causing embarrassment an 'act of war'? If so, that's news to me. And how is it that these detainees can commit an 'act of war' yet not be accorded a trial as required by the Geneva Convention and the United States Constitution? Is it because we are at war and they are not? Or are they at war and we are not?

I heard this news while driving in the car. When I heard an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us My immediate thought was - are these guys for real? What the hell is 'asymmetrical warfare' anyway? It's hard to buy that as a reason and even harder to accept that as a respectable 'idea' for a person in responsibility to put forward. He may as well have said 'Men from Mars told them to kill themselves through hypnotic suggestion' - that would be just as strange a reason to put forward.

I guess it's possible as in anything is possible. A more plausable hypothesis would be - they had nothing to live for after being locked up without charge for years, having their human rights stripped away and having seemingly no chance of any recourse or fair process. Unless they left sucide notes - it's all speculation. Better to jump to reasonable hypothesis than off the wall ideas.

The US holds these people in Gitmo as 'prisoners of war' - yet clearly the 'war on terror' is not a war of the kind where such rules of keeping prisioners of war apply. We are not at war with any nation, we have an issue with international criminals. It's a war that may never end. How would the end of this war be judged to ensure their release under 'prisoner of war' rules. They need to be tried & sent to jail if they are guilty, otherwise released. There was obvious reason enough to put them in Gitmo, so let that reason stand up & put them in jail through due process.

By the logic of Gitmo - we could put people convicted of drugs charges in Gitmo too as 'prisoners of war' - applying the Geneva convention to the 'war on drugs'. Apparently once you call something a 'war' you can pick anybody you want and hold them in a detention camp forever citing the Geneva convention as backup.

Why is it so hard to accept that they are at war with western society and will take whatever steps available to them to inflict harm upon their enemy?

Why is it so hard to accept that they are at war with western society and will take whatever steps available to them to inflict harm upon their enemy?

No!, it is USA that picked them as enemies, USA can't live without a war, it is needed to keep the "War Industry" running, when the Soviet Union was done, USA was without an enemy to wadge war to, so "Lets go back to ancient times and pick on the Moslems again".

Don't include the rest of countries in what is called the Western World in what USA does, don't you remember that Bush and his puppy dog (Tony Blair) went alone to this war ...

Who'll be the next enemy after the Moslems? ...

Africa? ('cause they are black and they are attacking us with AIDS, EBOLA, and something else that they create as a weapon).
.

Why is it so hard to accept that they are at war with western society and will take whatever steps available to them to inflict harm upon their enemy?

Because the people who are saying this, also told us there were WMD's in Iraq, and they knew where they were hidden.

I'm in agreement with es347fan. Acts of war need not be conventional and causing acute embarassment to the enemy can be sufficient motivation for taking one's life especially to someone from a culture that seems to place little value on human life.

Personally, I don't care if they keep them all at Gitmo until they either die of old age or commit mass suicide.

I'm in agreement with es347fan. Acts of war need not be conventional and causing acute embarassment to the enemy can be sufficient motivation for taking one's life especially to someone from a culture that seems to place little value on human life.

Next excuse will be, "they had thoughts of hatred and war toward us!"

Acts of war need not be conventional and causing acute embarassment to the enemy can be sufficient motivation for taking one's life especially to someone from a culture that seems to place little value on human life.For the US to be 'acutely embarrassed' it must be doing something of which it is ashamed.

Or, in the minds of those committing suicide the U.S. must be doing something of which it is ashamed. I don't think the U.S. owes anyone any apologies for Gitmo. There are those who disagree with me.

I'm in agreement with es347fan. Acts of war need not be conventional and causing acute embarassment to the enemy can be sufficient motivation for taking one's life especially to someone from a culture that seems to place little value on human life.

Personally, I don't care if they keep them all at Gitmo until they either die of old age or commit mass suicide.

I think you have fallen for all the propoganda hook line & sinker. It's actually INCREDIBLE that somebody would say someone from a culture that seems to place little value on human life - which culture is that? You would fit in nicely in the KKK.

So you don't care if they all rot in Gitmo even if some might be innocent? You have few principles if that is the case.

For all you "blame the victim assholes...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dead detainee 'was to be freed'
Governments and rights groups have deplored the deaths

One of the three men who committed suicide at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was due to be released - but did not know it, says a US lawyer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But they just hate freedom right?...

Interesting

So - if he was about to be freed, he obviously wasn't a terrorist & obviously the asymetrical warefare claim was pure bullshit. Of course, we already knew that was bullshit. They throw out this kind of stuff & people just suck it down.

It appears that many here have bought into the idea that 3 individuals suicided using the same technique and at the same time simply out of despair? That's bullshit.

No!, it is USA that picked them as enemies, USA can't live without a war, it is needed to keep the "War Industry" running, when the Soviet Union was done, USA was without an enemy to wadge war to, so "Lets go back to ancient times and pick on the Moslems again".

Don't include the rest of countries in what is called the Western World in what USA does, don't you remember that Bush and his puppy dog (Tony Blair) went alone to this war ...

Who'll be the next enemy after the Moslems? ...

Africa? ('cause they are black and they are attacking us with AIDS, EBOLA, and something else that they create as a weapon).
.

That's amusing. I missed the draft, when did we pick them?

Let's go back to ancient times, whose? theirs or ours. Neither one appears in the others history. :rolleyes:

Interesting

So - if he was about to be freed, he obviously wasn't a terrorist & obviously the asymetrical warefare claim was pure bullshit. Of course, we already knew that was bullshit. They throw out this kind of stuff & people just suck it down.

IF he was about to be freed then why the co-oridinated suicides?

These guys are bad actors. eos. who cares if they waste away in or do themselves.

I am sure they are bad actors, but sorry - I don't simply buy their guilt because Rumsfield says so. What I trust is a court & due process. I have faith in that. My confidence in anything Bush / Cheney / Rummy might say is not so high because they consistently have said things that were incorrect. The fact that these prisoners are denied a fair process simply makes me think they are innocent. There is NOTHING fair and decent about Gitmo. We are supposed to be fair & decent. Why is Gitmo in Cuba if it isn't a very shady situation?

When you add on top the fact that people released from Gitmo to other countries have simply been freed because zero evidence of any wrong doing was available. The UK is certainly not soft on terrorists - yet the UK citizens held at Gitmo, once released to the UK after much pressure from the British government were released immediately in the UK due to lack of evidence against them.

It's WRONG to say 'let these guys rot' when they have had no trial. What are we? some kind of banana republic? If they are guilty - then lets convict them and then they can rot in jail. Until then they are innocent until proven guilty & no person deserves to be held without trial or charge at a detention camp, especially not by the US.

The geneva convention 'prisioner of war' stuff is completely irrelevant to the war on terror - it simply does NOT apply. We are not at war with any nation.

It appears that many here have bought into the idea that 3 individuals suicided using the same technique and at the same time simply out of despair? That's bullshit.

So they say, that they commited suicide at the same time, or is it that we just know it now, and although they are dead, it could have happened at different times ......... Anyway they (US) controls any press release ...

Who can we believe .......... The wolves???

I am sure they are bad actors, but sorry - I don't simply buy their guilt because Rumsfield says so. What I trust is a court & due process. I have faith in that. My confidence in anything Bush / Cheney / Rummy might say is not so high because they consistently have said things that were incorrect. The fact that these prisoners are denied a fair process simply makes me think they are innocent. There is NOTHING fair and decent about Gitmo. We are supposed to be fair & decent. Why is Gitmo in Cuba if it isn't a very shady situation?

When you add on top the fact that people released from Gitmo to other countries have simply been freed because zero evidence of any wrong doing was available. The UK is certainly not soft on terrorists - yet the UK citizens held at Gitmo, once released to the UK after much pressure from the British government were released immediately in the UK due to lack of evidence against them.

It's WRONG to say 'let these guys rot' when they have had no trial. What are we? some kind of banana republic? If they are guilty - then lets convict them and then they can rot in jail. Until then they are innocent until proven guilty & no person deserves to be held without trial or charge at a detention camp, especially not by the US.

The geneva convention 'prisioner of war' stuff is completely irrelevant to the war on terror - it simply does NOT apply. We are not at war with any nation.

I believe the number is 4. there have been 4 people we've released from gitmo for anything ranging from political pressure to the beleif that they were harmless who, it has ultimately turned out, have gone right back to 'the battlefield' and killed someone else, again. I'm not convinced that the process of closing gitmo and letting these characters go is a 'good' idea.

I'm not sure anybody is saying close Gitmo & let them go

What is being said is they should have their day in court

And where is your proof of it has ultimately turned out, have gone right back to 'the battlefield' and killed someone else

I think you have simply made that part up.

I'm not sure anybody is saying close Gitmo & let them go

What is being said is they should have their day in court

And where is your proof of

I think you have simply made that part up.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/d20040406gua.pdf

this link will tell you what the 'detainees' are entitled to.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/18/7_ex_detainees_return_to_fighting?mode=PF

this link mentions 7 who've been released and returned to fighting.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040705-080713-4578r.htm

this one says five

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1023/guantanamo.html

and this one ten

Take your pick.

Or, in the minds of those committing suicide the U.S. must be doing something of which it is ashamed. I don't think the U.S. owes anyone any apologies for Gitmo. There are those who disagree with me.If the United States has nothing to be ashamed of, then the suicides cannot cause any embarrassment. How, then, can they be considered an 'act of war'?

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/d20040406gua.pdf

this link will tell you what the 'detainees' are entitled to.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/18/7_ex_detainees_return_to_fighting?mode=PF

this link mentions 7 who've been released and returned to fighting.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040705-080713-4578r.htm

this one says five

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1023/guantanamo.html

and this one ten

Take your pick.

That info is so vague, that it's pure heresay.

If they have returned to fighting then again it means the process is wrong, not correct. They should be in jail on specified and clear charges.

You simply cannot hold somebody because of what you think they might do. That might work in some crackpot dictatorship someplace, but this is the US we are talking about. The US is supposed to stand for human rights & decency. Clearly Gitmo is about stripping people of human rights - in fact Gitmo is a serious abuse of human rights. It makes us look like hypocrites. How can we lecture other countries on human rights when we are flagrant abusers of human rights? I'm sure all countries that abuse human rights feel they have a justified need to do so, but that doesn't make it right. Gitmo is plain wrong - it's that simple. Practically the whole world agrees.

I'm in agreement with es347fan. Acts of war need not be conventional and causing acute embarassment to the enemy can be sufficient motivation for taking one's life especially to someone from a culture that seems to place little value on human life.

Personally, I don't care if they keep them all at Gitmo until they either die of old age or commit mass suicide.

It's been a long time since I've seen such a blatantly hypocritical statement.

You deride their culture as having no respect for human life, and you finish by saying these people should be imprisoned without trial until they die or kill themselves. Amazing.

It appears that many here have bought into the idea that 3 individuals suicided using the same technique and at the same time simply out of despair? That's bullshit.

It was an attack on the US of course?

It was an attack on the US of course?

Yeah!!!, sure, I attack you, by shooting at myself .............

Now wonder the US is gettig their asses kicked. They think they are being attacked when who they are fighting dies...idiots.

A little article in today's news:


GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE (Reuters) - Guantanamo detainees were found with pills stuffed into the waistbands of their pants and in one case, inside a prosthetic leg, weeks before three prisoners hanged themselves, a doctor at the camp hospital said on Tuesday.
Guards found nooses in other prisoners' cells after the three deaths, said Rear Adm. Harry Harris, who oversees the detention operation. He said the stashed pills and nooses indicated other prisoners planned to take part in coordinated suicides, something some have acknowledged. "They continue to look for ways to make their point or fight their fight," Harris said.

Read on: http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-28T043543Z_01_N27278033_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-GUANTANAMO.xml

I'm not clear on what point you're trying to make here ES, but I think Rear Adm. Harris only has one oar in the water.

I think this report supports the opinions stated earlier regarding the simultaneous suicides & their being regarded as yet further acts of war.

I think this report supports the opinions stated earlier regarding the simultaneous suicides & their being regarded as yet further acts of war.

Sorry but you have to be high on drugs to conclude that suicides at Gitmo were acts of war. It's an insane conclusion & it's incredible that people actually accept that as an even remotely plausable excuse.

I wish I were high on something. It's unfortunate that these suicides aren't seen for what they are. If you can accept homicide bombers dying for their cause, why not these?

Suicide bombers blow themselves up to kill other people. Plus a suicide bomber has to be bred & hand held right up to the event.

How exactly did these guys think they would be hurting anybody by hanging themselves, how was it an act of war?

Think about it. The inmates know there's controversy surrounding Gitmo. They also hate the U.S. & its' allies. Therefore, anything they can do to bring discredit upon the U.S. is "fair game" to them. Through their other activities, they've demonstrated little if any regard for life, especially given the rewards promised in the after-life by the Koran.

Think about it. The inmates know there's controversy surrounding Gitmo. They also hate the U.S. & its' allies. Therefore, anything they can do to bring discredit upon the U.S. is "fair game" to them. Through their other activities, they've demonstrated little if any regard for life, especially given the rewards promised in the after-life by the Koran.

Man, you've fallen for some propoganda hook line & sinker. It amazes me how they can throw out garbage explanations for things & people just eat it up like it was their last meal. Things you can rely on....gravity, taxation & the gullible nature of the american public.

And exactly how would the inmates in Gitmo know anything about the outside world? They are locked up without charge, without trial, without recourse in a Gulag. I guess you could also conclude that Gitmo has shown the US to have little if any regard for human rights. Take a step back & think about it - these guys hanging themselves as an act of war is nothing but pure bullshit.

Think about it. The inmates know there's controversy surrounding Gitmo. They also hate the U.S. & its' allies. Therefore, anything they can do to bring discredit upon the U.S. is "fair game" to them. Through their other activities, they've demonstrated little if any regard for life, especially given the rewards promised in the after-life by the Koran.

I see your point exactly, Jihadist go to heaven when they commit suicide fighting the infidels, it is their choice of battle and it works whether they are blowing up a market place or turning the world against the "Great Satans" attempt at controlling terrorist.

Therefore, anything they can do to bring discredit upon the U.S. is "fair game" to them.We bring discredit upon ourselves by denying them due process. And we further discredit ourselves by leaving suicide as their only means of protest. These are acts of desperation and despair, not war.

I see your point exactly, Jihadist go to heaven when they commit suicide fighting the infidels, it is their choice of battle and it works whether they are blowing up a market place or turning the world against the "Great Satans" attempt at controlling terrorist.If we weren't holding them for years without charging them with crimes they wouldn't be able to turn anyone against us. It is our wrongdoing that gives them leverage with world opinion. Take that leverage away by putting them on trial and be done with it.

If we weren't holding them for years without charging them with crimes they wouldn't be able to turn anyone against us. It is our wrongdoing that gives them leverage with world opinion. Take that leverage away by putting them on trial and be done with it.

Exactly.

If we weren't holding them for years without charging them with crimes they wouldn't be able to turn anyone against us. It is our wrongdoing that gives them leverage with world opinion. Take that leverage away by putting them on trial and be done with it.

Our courts would take another 5 years and couldn't convict anybody. When they catch our guys it is off with their heads but we are expected to send the terrorist through a revolving door when they get caught with blood on their hands.

Our courts would take another 5 years and couldn't convict anybody. When they catch our guys it is off with their heads but we are expected to send the terrorist through a revolving door when they get caught with blood on their hands.

So your solution to an innefficient justice system is to do away with justice completely - interesting.

It doesn't matter if justice takes 5, 10 years or so on. Any form of justice is better than no justice at all.

What if a member of your family was stuck in a Gulag held without charge and no recourse? Gitmo certainly holds some criminals but its almost certain that some innocent people are stuck in there too. We know that for a fact because some people have been released. The ones that hung themselves were slated for release (even though they apparent were at war with the US :rolleyes:) The issue is not letting criminals go free, it's having justice for criminals. Anything less is a national disgrace.

So your solution to an innefficient justice system is to do away with justice completely - interesting.

It doesn't matter if justice takes 5, 10 years or so on. Any form of justice is better than no justice at all.

What if a member of your family was stuck in a Gulag held without charge and no recourse? Gitmo certainly holds some criminals but its almost certain that some innocent people are stuck in there too. We know that for a fact because some people have been released. The ones that hung themselves were slated for release (even though they apparent were at war with the US :rolleyes:) The issue is not letting criminals go free, it's having justice for criminals. Anything less is a national disgrace.

During ww2, we captured many troops and leaders but we weren't fool enough to return them to Japan and Germany so they can fight us again. These people are not petty criminals they are Jihadist and if released they will be trying to kill our troops again. Some people just want us to do stupid things so we will lose and then they will complain that Bush can't protect us.

During ww2 we were actually at war. We are not at war today. By your logic we could hold drug dealers in Gitmo too with no charge. Afterall - it's "the War on Drugs"

During ww2 we were actually at war. We are not at war today. By your logic we could hold drug dealers in Gitmo too with no charge. Afterall - it's "the War on Drugs"

9/11, 150,000 troops in Iraq and many more in Afghanistan. Islamics killing anybody they can just to keep civil order from arriving. If this is not war then there is no such thing as war.

Some people just want us to do stupid things so we will lose and then they will complain that Bush can't protect us.

You are crazy if you truly believe that. Maybe the truth is some people believe that the US is about decency & doing the right thing. Iraq is something we created - civil order in Iraq was not an issue before the US arrived. The issue for invading Iraq was about WMD not terrorism - or did you forget?

In reality the war on terror is an issue of bringing criminals to justice. It isn't a war. What is a Jihadist? Somebody who hates the US? - well there are a lot of those people. The US is manufacturing these at high speed since 9-11. In reality there are probably only a small number of actual real Jihadists who are a threat to the US, and given that no terrorism has occured in the US since 2001 - they don't seem to be very much of a threat. Maybe they are a threat if you live in Iraq but neither you nor I nor the 300 million people in the US live in Iraq. Iraq is about US influence & control in the middle east - ie uninterupted flows of cheap oil. I'm not specifically against that, but lets not pretend its about terrorism - that is just an apparently successful way to carry along the gullible American public.

given that no terrorism has occured in the US since 2001 - they don't seem to be very much of a threat.

The full force of the US government, FBI, CIA, State department, congress, president, boots on the ground have been working overtime and in some cases dying to keep these terrorist from killing us.

And you say that we are safe because terrorist are not a threat. Some people always see us as the bad guys no matter how moral we fight. Why don't you complain about terrorist that chop off heads and blow themselves up in shopping markets or Mosque? Maybe those are your kind of folks.

The full force of the US government, FBI, CIA, State department, congress, president, boots on the ground have been working overtime and in some cases dying to keep these terrorist from killing us.

And you say that we are safe because terrorist are not a threat. Some people always see us as the bad guys no matter how moral we fight. Why don't you complain about terrorist that chop off heads and blow themselves up in shopping markets or Mosque? Maybe those are your kind of folks.

I do complain about those people & if you read my past posts I have repeatedly been critical of those that attack the US and ignore the actions of these people.

The reality is though that Iraq was about WMD, not terrorism. The mess in Iraq is completely a mess created by the US. It was never a terrorist haven but it is now.

Post 9-11 the US had the worlds sympathy - the US pissed that away. More people hate the US now than at any time before. Is that a positive? Hell no, we are manufacturing our enemies. I wonder how much in taxes I have paid per new US hater that has been created.

No terrorists have ever blown themselves up in the US - we live in the US, it's security in the US that counts, not security in Baghdad. I don't pay taxes to keep the citizens of Baghdad safe. Let the citizens of Iraq pay for that.

The US stands for doing the right thing - Gitmo is not the right thing. It is the wrong thing. You talk about morality yet you willingly say we should throw away the key at Gitmo and let those people rot. Perhaps you need to revisit your morality compass.

We are not at war with any nation. The Geneva convention does not apply. The people in Gitmo are not prisioners of war, they are potentially criminals & criminals at least deserve justice.

We can spend all this money creating enemies that never existed - yet we can show the world people dying of thirst after Hurricane Katrina, like we a third world country.

The decline of this country is being fueled by propganda that is seemingly easily digested. You appear to have feasted on it.

Gitmo is not the right thing. It would be better all around if those interned there were tried in a world court, not the U.S. judicial system. They aren't criminals only against the U.S., but to citizens all over.

While they are at Gitmo, realize they are still at war and will take whatever steps they deem necessary to strike against their enemy.

While they are at Gitmo, realize they are still at war and will take whatever steps they deem necessary to strike against their enemy.

Where is your proof of that? Don't tell me it's Donald Rumsfield

I don't need proof, Drew. I was in the military for over 20 years, and specialized in behavioral science. Do a bit of research into the activities of prisoners from other armed conflicts. Allow yourself to get into the mind of a combatant. Look at the behaviors & cultural norms acceptable within their society & consider how it differs from what we in the West live.

I don't need proof, Drew. I was in the military for over 20 years, and specialized in behavioral science. Do a bit of research into the activities of prisoners from other armed conflicts. Allow yourself to get into the mind of a combatant. Look at the behaviors & cultural norms acceptable within their society & consider how it differs from what we in the West live.

Oh come on - pleeze :rolleyes:

Your experience in the military has absolutely no bearing on the people in Gitmo. The people in Gitmo are not combatants - they are people we picked up off the street in Kabul. You act like we are at war with some country. Replace 'enemy combatants' with 'criminals' and you might be more on track. Being a cop would have more relevance.

What armed conflict are we in? We are in Iraq - which had NOTHING to do with terrorism. That was about WMD and ONLY about WMD. There was never ever a tie in to 9-11 or terrorism.

The war on terror is like the world cup - the whole world knows whats going on except the US public. Talk about the successful use of propganda - it's incredible.

If the guys who hung themselves in Gitmo were enemy combatants who hung themselves as an act of war - how come they were slated to be released? Obviously the US had already determined they were no threat, yet they hung themselves as an act of war. It too stupid for words. Replace 'act of war' with 'act of desperation' and you'll no doubt be on the right track.

My experience provides me with an understanding of a prisoner mentality. Why is is so difficult to accept that I might be correct? Did they have any idea they were about to be released? Doubtful. We are, and have been in continual armed conflict in Afganistan.

My experience provides me with an understanding of a prisoner mentality. Why is is so difficult to accept that I might be correct? Did they have any idea they were about to be released? Doubtful. We are, and have been in continual armed conflict in Afganistan.

I'm not doubting you have experience - I'm just not buying that it has much relevance.

Of course those guys didn't know they were about to be released - you miss the point. People that are about to be released are apparently innocent. If they were innocent how come they hung themselves as an act of war? It's a total contradiction.

We have a handful of troops in Afganistan and Afghanistan is slowly turning into Iraq.

Just because the "powers that be" at Gitmo or D.C. decided they weren't deserving of further internment does not mean that those men who suicided saw things the same way. They were still at war with the Great Satan.

No argument on Afganistan being a quagmire ...

If they were at war with the great satan then why were they about to be released?

Given that we know nothing about these people - we cannot say for certain what their crime is. Hating the US is not a crime. There are reports of young kids at Gitmo - what kind of threat are they?

Due process, trials and imprisonment for the truly guilty is the only way to go for Gitmo. I bet 90% ultimately end up getting released. I wonder if they will get compensation for the abuse of their human rights? What right does the US have to snatch up people, some of them citizens of our allies and hold them in a gulag without trial or charge? Can you imagine the outrage if the UK held some US citizens without any charge indefinately in some off shore prision?

50 years from now just watch - the US will be making a public apology for Gitmo. Just like they have for the Japs they rounded up from across the US and put in camps in WWII

Is it news when any prisoner pulls the wool over the parole board's eyes? Only when that individual repeats his crimes does the public realize they've been snookered.
Again, rather than being tried in U.S. courts, they should be held on a world stage.

ES - you are dodging the issue as fast as you can.

Your logic about the wool being pulled over the parole boards etc - none of it is relevant. By your logic we should discard the judicial system entirely and just start holding people for secret reasons & just trust the reasons are valid.

I think trying them at the hague etc on a world stage is a good idea - that way nobody can accuse the US of whitewash - but we need to see that happen soon.

I think they will close Gitmo in the next 12 months - it's becoming just too much of an embarrasement to the US and making us look like the Kings of double standards.

I fail to see what I'm dodging - truly. Some group of folks decided these 3 could be released, for whatever reasons. We agree the 3 had no idea they were about to be released. As such, those 3 had no reason to discontinue their belief they were still at war - in one way or another - with us. Hence, their resulting behavior.

That makes zero sense - you are just stretching the bounds of reason so it fits with your mindset.

The logic is simple

(A) If they were about to be released ==> They were innocent, afterall they never had a trial, they were just held.

(B) They killed themselves.

(C) They killed themselves as an act of war

(C) Does not logically follow (B) given (A)

(D) They killed themselves becuase they were sick of being held on no charge knowing they were innocent

(D) strongly follows (B) given (A)

In the absence of fact on why they killed themselves - don't jump to the most illogical assumption. The right path is to assume the most logical assumption given known facts. It's logic 101 man.

If we are discussing someone raised in the West, with common values, perhaps.

Either way - if (A) is true - innocence, which the US apparently concluded it was, then you cannot call their deaths an act of war. You can call it an act of desperation, an act of trying to make a statement or simply an act of dispair, but not an act of war.

Try being held in a gulag on no charge and recourse to justice - see how that would make you feel. Maybe you would try to hang yourself too.

Well the Supreme court have ruled that they cannot continue running Gitmo like it is.

I guess that makes them activist judges eh? You know whenever judges ignore the hard core conservative wishes and instead interpret the law, then they are buffoon activists.

Actually the ruling doesn't address detaining prisoners at all, just that the US must prosecute up to international standards, not through military tribunal.

As such, those 3 had no reason to discontinue their belief they were still at war - in one way or another - with us. Hence, their resulting behavior.

How do you know these guys ever believed they were at war with us?

If they were slated for release, doesn't that mean that at least we didn't believe they were a threat?

That makes zero sense - you are just stretching the bounds of reason so it fits with your mindset.

The logic is simple

(A) If they were about to be released ==> They were innocent, afterall they never had a trial, they were just held.

(B) They killed themselves.

(C) They killed themselves as an act of war

(C) Does not logically follow (B) given (A)

(D) They killed themselves becuase they were sick of being held on no charge knowing they were innocent

(D) strongly follows (B) given (A)

In the absence of fact on why they killed themselves - don't jump to the most illogical assumption. The right path is to assume the most logical assumption given known facts. It's logic 101 man.

Your logic doesn't include the mind of a brainwashed fanatic.


The Guantanamo detainees have their religious leaders lead them in prayer, (a type of brainwashing) at least five times a day. The datainees are puddy in the hands of the imams. They can be ordered to fly planes into buildings or if the imams determine that they should commit suicide in prision to bring problems on the USA then they will have the datainees hang themselves.

The prayer before dawn is a time when the mind is half awake and least able to seperate obvious lies from truth. The rest of the day can re-enforce the message.




Muslims are obliged to perform ritual prayers, or salt, five times a day:

* Between dawn and sunrise (Fajr)
* After midday (Dhuhr)
* Midway between midday and sunset (Asr)
* Right after sunset (Maghrib)
* Approximately one hour after sunset (Isha'a)

A Muslim may offer extra optional prayer(s) at any other time.

On Fridays, congregational prayer (jumu'ah) is held at midday, deemed obligatory for men but optional for women. A Muslim may pray almost anywhere, such as in a place of work or a school. It is also a requirement for a Muslim to face Mecca during prayer.

It is not politicallly correct to talk about Islam but here is a Christian cult at work. Just think what they could do if they took in the recruits when they were babies.

[quote]
the religious cult will seek to establish themselves as the sole channel to God, and will warn you that the devil is very real, and he is out to deceive you by means of all the other religions. Their particular approach is slanted to prejudice you against other beliefs before you can investigate them. You learn to fear those who do not agree with you, and will run from them or avoid a confrontation with them. Because religious cults are seen as "extreme" in their methods and behavior, they are often maligned by others, and the recruiter capitalizes on this by claiming he is being persecuted for his faith. So from the start, the recruit develops "tunnel vision" when it comes to investigating all the facts. He is led to believe that the recruiter can be trusted to possess the truth, but the rest of the world cannot.

This can be referred to as "intellectual myopia." Many will have dropped out of the program once they recognize how they are being programmed by the recruiter, but a few will remain. They are enticed by what is offered, and cross the barrier of their own common sense to get more involved. They desire to live in the imaginary world of the cult. As Deborah Davis, a former member of the Children of God says,

When a cult recruit crosses the invisible barrier in his mind when he enters the world of the cult and its doctrine at some point during his flirtatious sampling of the culthe is tripping the switch of his voluntary suspension of disbelief. Brainwashing or mind control then occurs naturally, sometimes effortlessly. In many cases the new cult member will struggle hard to brainwash himself. He must do this in order to balance the guilt he feels. When doubts rush in like a flood, he tells himself, "I am following the truth. The rest of the world may be going to hell, but I am following the truth!"

Other brothers and sisters are there to encourage the new recruit. He either accepts their help and counsel, or he rejects it. If he rejects it, he doesn't stay around long. If he receives their help, he goes deeper into the cultic doctrine. He will sell flowers, chant, memorize . . . whatever it takes, to the utmost of his ability to prove to himself and others that he is right. The brainwashing that occurs in the cults is the finest, purest and most effective around. (The Children of God, Zondervan, 1984, p.172)

High pressure techniques almost always utilize a measure of deceit; often in the form of halftruths and redefinition of terms. Popular phrases such as "bornagain," "Christian," "heaven," and "saved" are redefined in new terms, giving outward acceptability to the group's beliefs. Select truthful phrases or even quotations from the Bible are taken out of context to bolster their belief structure. A new recruit is not told the full range of beliefs of the group for fear that he will bail out, so the more socially acceptable beliefs are taught to him first. This is not seen as deception by the recruiter, but merely as a gentle conditioning for what lies ahead. Deborah Davis comments on studies done by Richard Delgado in Stoner and Parke's All God's Children (p.248):

However, from the cult's perspective this deceit is merely part of the "training process" of a new convert. The mature cult member doesn't feel he is being the least bit deceptive. He is simply presenting truth in doses suitable for a "babe", or new member. The salvation of the new convert is at stake, and the disciple has a divine responsibility to assist the convert into the cult 100 percent. Delgado acknowledges the fact that the convert does "consent to each step" of the conversion processthat is, there is a voluntary choice. But the wrongdoing, as Delgado see it, is that the cults misrepresent themselves; they don't honestly display themselves for what they truly are. The Children of God, p. 177.

Jeez and you call them brainwashed fanatics. You are the most perfect example of a brainwashed fanatic I have seen in a while & that's not speculation like it is with the Gitmo inmates.

My logic was perfectly sound. It's cut & dry, it doesn't need to take into account the mind of the 'brainwashed fanatic' because (A) they were about to be released is a major logical point. Plus - neither you nor I have any clue to what extent they were 'brainwashed fanatics'. We can assume given (A) that it wasn't too much.

The problem is that logic does not fit with what you so desparately need to believe that you will jump to any straws you can think of.

(C) Does not logically follow (B) given (A) - you can't dispute that.

And as for your essay on how muslims pray 5 times a day - all muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day moron. I'm sure when you are holed up in a gulag with no knowledge of what your future is - you probably reconnect with religion pretty strongly - it would be all that you have left.

I have no clue if their act was a planned 'act of war' - but I can say that given the known facts - it's extremely unlikely. You on the other hand joyfully jump to any conclusion, however arcane it is, just so long as it fits nicely with what you want to believe. Sounds like brainwashing to me - maybe your brain needs to go to the dry cleaners instead.

Wanted: A System of Justice
If U.S. forces captured Osama Bin Laden tomorrow, how and where would he be tried?

Wednesday, June 21, 2006; Page A20

SEPT. 11 MASTERMINDS Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, along with numerous other infamous al-Qaeda figures, have been in American custody for years. So has Mohamed Qatani, who was allegedly to be the 20th hijacker. None has faced trial for his crimes. Nor have any of the hundreds of lesser foreign detainees captured in the war on terrorism. Nearly five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration's plans for bringing the enemy to justice are a shambles. This failure has been one of the most easily avoidable blunders in the war on terrorism.

In the next few days the Supreme Court is expected to pass judgment on the administration's effort to establish military commissions -- a long-dormant trial system the executive branch seeks to revive in order to try al-Qaeda terrorists. But even if the court lets the commissions stand, the administration should go back to the drawing board, to create a fairer system for trying alleged war criminals in which this country can have confidence.


Not every detainee can be put on trial. But those who plan, assist or participate in acts of terrorism can face charges under the laws of war. Where trials are possible, criminal convictions provide a more legitimate basis for long-term incarceration than any kind of detention without charge. Trials also provide public accountability for unspeakable crimes and plots -- that is, they provide a measure of justice.

The administration is correct that U.S. federal courts often will not be the right venue for such trials. Evidence collected in the rough and tumble of a shooting war doesn't always meet the rigorous standards that courts here rightly demand. The government may have good reason to withhold witnesses or classified information. Given that foreigners abroad do not have full constitutional rights, the administration's impulse to create an alternative trial mechanism with some flexibility was reasonable. Had it gone to Congress and sought authorization to use a variation of military courts-martial, with clear rules and a codification of the offenses such tribunals were to judge, it might today have a vibrant system of justice at Guantanamo Bay.

Instead, the administration sought to rewrite the rules from scratch and revive a system of trial not seen since the World War II era. The reason for this fateful error was largely ideological: The White House wished not merely to conduct trials but also to emphasize the president's power to do it on his own. Consequently, the executive branch alone has defined the offenses to be tried by commission and it alone has written the trial rules, which have shifted repeatedly. The legality of the system has been in doubt from its inception. And while the rules have improved over time, they still permit unfairness. The result: a system that inspires little confidence here or abroad and that in five years has yet to produce one trial.

Even if the Supreme Court erases the cloud of legal uncertainty in the coming days, it makes no sense to proceed in this fashion. Instead, Congress should write a law clarifying that courts-martial will try these cases and modifying the model if necessary. The military uses this system to try its own personnel every day. More than the commissions, courts-martial would guarantee due process to detainees: the right to challenge evidence, a full appeal to the federal courts. Trials by court-martial are accepted around the world as fair.

At the same time, the system could be modified to take into account the government's needs in a continuing war. These might give prosecutors more leeway to use hearsay evidence in some cases, or to protect intelligence secrets. There may be circumstances when the accused will need to be excluded from proceedings and have his interests represented by counsel cleared to handle sensitive information. But such departures from traditional trial rules should be narrowly drawn. They should be the product of a deliberative legislative process, not a fiat from the executive branch; written into law, not existing as rules the Pentagon can change whenever convenient.

The conflict with Islamic extremists will not be over soon. The nation needs now, and will continue to need, a means to try some of the most fateful criminals of all time according to fair rules that bear the stamp of democratic approval: legislative enactment. Only the administration's rigidly ideological approach to this problem prevents its timely resolution.

A TIME Investigation: The Supreme Court handed the prisoners at Gitmo a victory, but authorities there continue to use harsh methods to break one of their most common methods of protest — the hunger strike

The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, won a major victory this week when the Supreme Court struck down the Bush administration's planned military tribunals. But for many prisoners at the detention facility, the protests haven't stopped. Hunger strikes persist, in what Guantanamo commander Rear Adm. Harry Harris, Jr. has called "asymmetric warfare" — a means to attract attention to their increasingly controversial detention. As a result, the camp's administrators have sought to keep prisoners alive at all cost — because a prisoner's death (as the U.S. found out three weeks ago, when three Gitmo inmates committed suicide) can be a major embarrassment for the U.S. and add fuel to widespread demands for the facility to be shut down. ....

At Gitmo, however, the death of a prisoner could ignite riots in the Muslim world. In that context, the Pentagon believes that keeping detainees alive at all costs is very much in the nation's security interest.

It's equally in the prisoners' interests to have someone die. According to Col Mike Bumgarner, who oversees the detention camps on a day-to-day basis, several prisoners have told him of a"vision, or a dream — implicitly a message from God — that if three detainees die it will attract enough attention so that they will all get out of Guantanamo." It needn't be by starvation: according to newly declassified docouments, two prisoners, one of whom was al-Shehri, tried to commit suicide on May 18 by swallowing hoarded anti-anxiety medication. Those attempts triggered a search, which in turn led to the most serious rioting in the history of Camp Delta. And on May 29, yet another round of hunger strikes began. It started with 75 prisoners, rose to 89 a few days later, and then suddenly began to fade away. Recent communications by Gitmo inmates with their lawyers, and obtained by TIME, indicate that harsh force-feeding methods were used to end the hunger strikes. The military has offered no explanation for the drop-off in hunger strikers.
Bumgarner has said the prisoners' objective is to push the number of strikers above 100, as they did last fall. But additional medical personnel are ready to be shipped in to force-feed them if they do. "We used to over-react, and the detainees saw that we got worried if they were not eating," he says."Now we have a system. I tell them, 'Have at it. If you want to have 460 hunger strikers, we'll get 460 doctors in here to take care of you.' They will not succeed." Yet hunger strikers have already won a measure of success. In part because of their protests, and the attention focused on Guantanamo, the U.S. is facing growing criticism — from both allies and enemies — for the rules of detention at the camp. Now the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision effectively grants prisoners at least some of their longstanding demands, including more rights at trial. All the same, most of them are unlikely to be released soon. Indeed, authorities are currently constructing a new, state-of-the-art, $30 million prison at Guantanamo, where they plan to consolidate many of the camp's maximum-security inmates. Harris argues the camp will be needed for the forseeable future, and that refusing to eat is not a cry for help, but a ploy drawn from the al-Qaeda playbook calculated to attract media attention and force the U.S. government to back down."The will to resist of these detainees is high,' says Harris."They are waging their war, their jihad against America, and we just have to stop them."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1209530,00.html?cnn=yes

It's not a victory for the Gitmo inmates - its a victory for the US constitution. Bush is not a king. If he wants king like powers he needs to persude congress to grant them & then the judicial branch can determine how constitutional it is.

How much of a threat can 400 people be to the US? The kid that hung himself was 21 - he was 17 when he was picked up. I can only imagine the threat he was.

It's not a crime for them to hunger strike, its not a crime for them to hate America. If I was locked up without trial or recourse I might go on a hunger strike myself & probably America would not be my most favorite nation.

If the issue is stopping them from making the US look bad by hunger striking - then maybe a way to thwart their goal is to hold trials & resolve their status. It sounds radical I know. As it stands the US is abusing the human rights of these people. Nobody can say if they are guilty or not until they get their day in court.

They are deemed not prisioners of war, yet they are also deemed outside the justice system. So what are they? Why do we have the right to snatch up people and incarcerate them without any status, trial or recourse. This is pretty much exactly the same type of thing Saddam Hussain did minus the torture (although we apparently do that too)

There seems to be a logic in this that the ends justify the means. They do not. America's strength in the world is it's moral high ground, yet when we act no better than Hussain - where do we stand in the eyes of the world? Are 400 people held without trial really worth it? If they are guilty lets put them in jail. Gitmo is one of the best terrorist recruitment posters we have created so far.

There is a principle that we all expect - its called "innocent until proven guilty" Who has proven these people guilty? Lets prove it one way or another & for the guilty ones - lets make sure they never see the light of day again, and let the innocent ones go back to wherever they came from.

To defend Gitmo as valid is to be callous & heartless to the core. If you can justify Gitmo - you can pretty much justify anything. So long as Gitmo is in place - we have no morality to export and if we do - nobody will listen.

Lawyers: Military seized legal papers in suicide investigation at Guantanamo

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico Defense lawyers for some Guantanamo Bay prison detainees say it's a breach of attorney-client privilege.
The lawyers say authorities confiscated letters to detainees and other legal papers while investigating three apparent suicides at the lockup three weeks ago. U-S military officials won't discuss whether papers were seized or their reasons if documents were taken.
Attorneys say at least one detainee claimed it was because prison officials suspected the lawyers might have had advance knowledge of suicide attempts, or even encouraged them as a form of protest.
One lawyer calls that a "ludicrous" allegation.

http://www.cbs46.com/Global/story.asp?S=5103178

Its a shame that people are stupid enough to think their suicide is the crime here. The crime is their incarceration without trial and the abuse of their human rights. Even if they all planned suicide as a protest - the crime still lies with the US for holding them with no status. Gitmo is a disgrace and puts the US on the same level as Hussain when it comes to human rights.

refusing to eat is not a cry for help, but a ploy drawn from the al-Qaeda playbook calculated to attract media attention and force the U.S. government to back down."The will to resist of these detainees is high,' says Harris."They are waging their war, their jihad against America, and we just have to stop them."



It is all part of their Jihad so they can get back into Afghanisatn and face our troops again. Bush won't let that happen again if he can.

Some of these guys are the ones who staged a prison riot in Afghanisatn that resulted in a number of American deaths.

It is all part of their Jihad so they can get back into Afghanisatn and face our troops again. Bush won't let that happen again if he can.

Wow - the level of the fantasy world you live in astounds me.

Wow - the level of the fantasy world you live in astounds me.

Drew, you speak with authority on things of which you know nothing.

Freed Gitmo detainees back in rebel ranks, officials say


By Shaun Waterman
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

Several detainees released by the U.S. military from the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have rejoined their former comrades-in-arms and taken part in fresh attacks on American troops, according to Defense Department officials and a senior Republican lawmaker.
"We've already had instances where we know that people who have been released from our detention have gone back and have become combatants again," said Rep. Porter J. Goss, Florida Republican, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040706-125552-4477r.htm

Drew, you speak with authority on things of which you know nothing.A few points here, old-reb. First, mistakes will always be made in any system of justice. I'd rather have a system that occasionally allows the guilty to go free than one that imprisons without trial (and in perpetuity) the innocent. Second, you have no way of knowing whether these former detainees were radicalized by the experience of Guantanamo and subsequently became militants. Third, that article is over two years old. What's the latest on this shocking story?

Drew, you speak with authority on things of which you know nothing.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040706-125552-4477r.htm

Funny, and that dubious 2 year old article (which I've already read before) is all you can hang your hat on when it comes to justifying the abuse of human rights, going against everything that is right & selling out what America is all about?

Even if that article was truly relevant, then it still does not justify not holding trials and doing what is right, it simply proves that we released people that should be in Jail (after a fair trial) - so apparently we are inconpetant in addition to being abusers of human rights.

It is all part of their Jihad so they can get back into Afghanisatn and face our troops again.

No doubt you believe all of the prisoners at Gitmo are of one mind.


Bush won't let that happen again if he can.

Bush has made it clear that he will even ignore the oath he took as President to accomplish this goal.


Some of these guys are the ones who staged a prison riot in Afghanisatn that resulted in a number of American deaths.

Are you suggesting that all should be punished for the crimes of the "some"?

If we extended the same generous generalities to all the Gitmo inmates to ourselves then we could conclude that all US soldiers are rapists & killers. Of course that is not true and equally untrue is the likelyhood that all Gitmo inmates are guilty. The fact that lots of been released is proof enough of that.

This generality of assuming 100% guilt is therefore totally flawed - it is a very weak justification for doing the wrong thing, but it's all I ever hear people who post here say when they try to support Gitmo.

What's right is right & whats wrong is wrong. Gitmo is wrong, indefensible and it's as simple as that. Even Bush wants it closed. It's a total embarrasement to the US.

Funny, and that dubious 2 year old article (which I've already read before) is all you can hang your hat on when it comes to justifying the abuse of human rights, going against everything that is right & selling out what America is all about?

Even if that article was truly relevant, then it still does not justify not holding trials and doing what is right, it simply proves that we released people that should be in Jail (after a fair trial) - so apparently we are inconpetant in addition to being abusers of human rights.

Your avatar fits.

Your avatar fits.

I can take it by that response that you have lost the argument. Given that your logic is based on nothing but blind mindless patriotism - it was a foregone conclusion :thumbs:

There's nothing wrong with patriotism, but when it stops you from thinking straight - then maybe you have to keep you patriotism and logic separated - otherwise you just become one of a long history of people across the world who are and have been mindless followers.

Blind, mindless patriotism? You deduced this logically?

Yes, why else would somebody put all logic & common sense aside?

You will condemn all the Gitmo inmates with one general stroke of the brush saying essentially they should all rot without a trial & yet when US soldiers rape & murder a wife, husband & kids that it's innocence until proven guilty.....incredible.

If it's not mindless patriotism then it's pure stupidity - take your pick.

It's not an issue of supporting us vs them - of course we all deplore the potential scum bags in Gitmo, and we tend to sympathize with our troops no matter what they have done, but that aside - there is still right vs wrong & unless you are blind, right vs wrong in the instance of Gitmo is pretty darn clear.

I've said repeatedly that those interned at Gitmo need to be tried in a World Court. There's not a place in the U.S. justice system for them - their crimes fit a world stage, not that of one country.

Then why do you post stuff about how they were all trying to commit suicide to make us look bad & we need to clamp down on that.

We went through this - I choose to see the behaviors in a manner different from yours. I see them as combatants who will stop at nothing to bring harm to their enemy.

I also believe they should be tried on the world stage.

Yes - you did say they should be tried, you are right.

I've said repeatedly that those interned at Gitmo need to be tried in a World Court. There's not a place in the U.S. justice system for them - their crimes fit a world stage, not that of one country.

yes, they could try them like they did Milosovic.

A few points here, old-reb. First, mistakes will always be made in any system of justice. I'd rather have a system that occasionally allows the guilty to go free than one that imprisons without trial (and in perpetuity) the innocent. Second, you have no way of knowing whether these former detainees were radicalized by the experience of Guantanamo and subsequently became militants. Third, that article is over two years old. What's the latest on this shocking story?

We have learned not to release Jihadist that will return to battle and kill American soldiers.

You would see this differently if you had family in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I can take it by that response that you have lost the argument. Given that your logic is based on nothing but blind mindless patriotism - it was a foregone conclusion :thumbs:

There's nothing wrong with patriotism, but when it stops you from thinking straight - then maybe you have to keep you patriotism and logic separated - otherwise you just become one of a long history of people across the world who are and have been mindless followers.

What I am saying is that it is foolish for me to argue with someone who throws out facts and pretends that his own mind is perfect judgement. You want the US to do things that endanger the lives of American soldiers and the goals of battle against terrorist that want to destroy the USA. That is what a liberal is.

You would see this differently if you had family in Afghanistan or Iraq.You are 100% wrong about that.

What I am saying is that it is foolish for me to argue with someone who throws out facts and pretends that his own mind is perfect judgement.

You do the same.


You want the US to do things that endanger the lives of American soldiers and the goals of battle against terrorist that want to destroy the USA. That is what a liberal is.

Of course reb, "liberals" want to see the US fail. Why do reasonably intelligent people spout nonsense like this?

Of course reb, "liberals" want to see the US fail. Why do reasonably intelligent people spout nonsense like this?

Maybe because of liberal newspapers like the New York Times publishing secret information that can harm the American war against terror and cost American lives. Maybe because of the liberal get out of Iraq now even if we haven't yet achieved our goals rant. Maybe because liberals in their hatred of George Bush are willing to endure any consequences just so they can screw him.

When I say liberals I do not mean all liberals. There are those who are just as patriotic as anyone else. There is, however, a sub-set that would love to see the U.S. lose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and is indeed rooting for the terrorists.

Maybe because of liberal newspapers like the New York Times publishing secret information that can harm the American war against terror and cost American lives.

Tell me what was "secret" about the fact that we were tracking financial records.


Maybe because of the liberal get out of Iraq now even if we haven't yet achieved our goals rant.

Would it be ok if a conservative said it, or is the idea we should get out of Iraq automatically a "liberal" one? I do know conservatives who believe we should leave Iraq.


Maybe because liberals in their hatred of George Bush are willing to endure any consequences just so they can screw him.

Funny you should speak about blind hatred in a post rife with it.


When I say liberals I do not mean all liberals. There are those who are just as patriotic as anyone else.

How generous of you.


There is, however, a sub-set that would love to see the U.S. lose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and is indeed rooting for the terrorists.

Really? Please post one article or statement by a "liberal" writer extolling his love for the terrorists or voicing a desire that the US lose the war. If you can't manage it, I respectfully suggest that your "sub-set" is imaginary.

Maybe because of liberal newspapers like the New York Times publishing secret information that can harm the American war against terror and cost American lives. Maybe because of the liberal get out of Iraq now even if we haven't yet achieved our goals rant. Maybe because liberals in their hatred of George Bush are willing to endure any consequences just so they can screw him.

When I say liberals I do not mean all liberals. There are those who are just as patriotic as anyone else. There is, however, a sub-set that would love to see the U.S. lose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and is indeed rooting for the terrorists.

Thank you Frogger for posting the truth that is seldom seen on this board.

Thank you Frogger for posting the truth that is seldom seen on this board.

If you believe that, I'll pose the same challenge to you...

Please post one article or statement by a "liberal" writer extolling his love for the terrorists or voicing a desire that the US lose the war. If you can't manage it, I respectfully suggest that your "sub-set" is imaginary.