What country is this, Iran?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/7695946.htm

Yes, this is pretty sad for a democracy like the USA.

I don't see why outside groups need to know about these arrests. I do think the people arrested should have access to the courts and the ability to show that they shouldn't be held.

Maybe they aren't telling who was arrested because of fear. Face it if some yahoo see's one of these arrested folks on the street he/she might take the law into their own hands. Maybe some info is better left alone. Just a thought

Originally posted by BorgHunter
What country is this, Iran?


Maybe not as bad as Iran, but it sure aint the land of the free either.

Maybe i read the article wrong here. But are they talking about holding illegal immigrants here? With possible terrorist ties? Do you people want more american's to die such as happened 9/11? Why are you crying about our government detaining these people. Maybe i missed the whole point. :confused:

Originally posted by HaVoK
Maybe i read the article wrong here. But are they talking about holding illegal immigrants here? With possible terrorist ties?

No, you read the article correctly, the article was reffering to people who were allegedly illegal immigrants or who were allegedly tied to terrorism. But since the government refuses to release any information about them, and the article goes on to say that the "majority" have since been released or deported, it is impossible to say how many WERE here illegally and how many were simply arrested without cause.


Do you people want more american's to die such as happened 9/11?

I really don't think this question deserves an answer but I'll answer it anyway. NO, I don't want more americans to die. I also don't think it's neccessary to ignore the Constitution in order to prevent more americans from being killed.


Why are you crying about our government detaining these people. Maybe i missed the whole point. :confused:

Ignoring the "crying" insult, there are several reasons why the government's behavior concerns me:

A: "these people" are Human beings

B: I believe what it says in the Constitution; All men are created equal . It doesn't say All americans are created equal.

C: When the government starts ignoring the Constitution, and begins denying people their rights as guaranteed therein, the most dangerous attitude to have is "it's ok because it will never happen to me"

Originally posted by Vilepagan
C: When the government starts ignoring the Constitution, and begins denying people their rights as guaranteed therein, the most dangerous attitude to have is "it's ok because it will never happen to me"

I think that's the part people don't really appreciate. You just have to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and you're screwed. I have an uncle from Iran - who's to say he won't get caught up in this? (unlikely, but you never know).

I think it is a bit worrying how 9-11 has turned into an attack civil liberties exercise.

Whats with all those "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" in Cuba? Held for 2 years with no trial - that's plain wrong. They should make a case or let them go.

The worst thing of all was the young kid caught up with the Taliban who got like 10 years in prison - sheesh - its a free country, if he wants to go fight for the Taliban then so be it - good riddance, but a crime? no way.

Originally posted by DrewM
I think it is a bit worrying how 9-11 has turned into an attack civil liberties exercise.

Whats with all those "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" in Cuba? Held for 2 years with no trial - that's plain wrong. They should make a case or let them go.

The worst thing of all was the young kid caught up with the Taliban who got like 10 years in prison - sheesh - its a free country, if he wants to go fight for the Taliban then so be it - good riddance, but a crime? no way. I agree with you that these people being held in Cuba should be charged or released. Two years should be enough time to get a case together.

And BTW, wouldnt fighting for the taliban be considered an act of treason for an american? Treason is a crime. Or am i wrong thinking the kid you are referring to was an american?

This why General Wesley Clark is so opposed to the so called "Patriot Act" which gave the government the ability to arrest anyone they "believed" to be a threat to national security without any trail or access to lawyers for as long as the government sees fit. General Clark was the former Supreme Commander of NATO which means he can defend us without taking away our freedoms. And it also means he knows how to work with our allies.

www.clark04.com

Originally posted by arcanian
General Clark was the former Supreme Commander of NATO which means he can defend us without taking away our freedoms.

Explain how being the head of NATO teaches you how to defend without taking away freedoms.

Wes Clark or any other General has no better idea how to fight terrorists than Bush does. It is not like a war were we know where the enemy is and can go attack them. This is a new fight with new rules that wether you like them or not it is the only way we have to identify and capture the remaining terror cells that are in your country and mine.

This is true, terrorist attack how ever they see fit, and they want to win.

Originally posted by DrewM
I think it is a bit worrying how 9-11 has turned into an attack civil liberties exercise.

Whats with all those "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" in Cuba? Held for 2 years with no trial - that's plain wrong. They should make a case or let them go.

The worst thing of all was the young kid caught up with the Taliban who got like 10 years in prison - sheesh - its a free country, if he wants to go fight for the Taliban then so be it - good riddance, but a crime? no way.

so any US citizen should be able to take up arms against he United States Government without reprecussions drew? This guy fought alonside our enemys against us! he conspired with our enemys agaisnt us! you think he should just get a slap on the wrist and sent off to college somewhere in Marin county? I dont think so, he is luck y he got off without gettingthe firing squad.

Originally posted by Travh20
so any US citizen should be able to take up arms against he United States Government without reprecussions drew? This guy fought alonside our enemys against us! he conspired with our enemys agaisnt us! you think he should just get a slap on the wrist and sent off to college somewhere in Marin county? I dont think so, he is luck y he got off without gettingthe firing squad.

I don't think that an american citizen who takes up arms against his country should go unpunished.

It would be difficult to punish him, and for that matter all of the Taliban and suspected Al-Quaida prisoners we have, because of our President. Shortly after 9/11 Bush "declared" that these people weren't "criminals" they were "enemy combatants". This means we can't execute them or put them in prison for life because they are POW's. It also makes it easier for Al-Quaida operatives to gain support in foreign countries because aiding them would not be "criminal" activity. They can tell potential supporters that they are "soldiers" fighting in a war and even the President of the U.S. thinks so. In short it enobles them. It also removes many options for dealing with them. If a foreign country is suspected of harboring Al-Quaida operatives they can merely declare their neutrality in the war and deny our law enforcement organizations access on the grounds that these people are not criminals, they're soldiers. Our only option at that point would be to use military force to go in and get them.

If Bush had declared these people to be international criminals we could prosecute the ones we have in custody, and sentence the guilty ones to life in a maximum security federal prison, instead of holding them indefinitely in cuba.

There are significant differences between an "enemy combatant" and a "POW". One would be that a POW is/was a member of a countrys' military force that is engaged in a declared war with another nation. The Taliban, while in control of much of Afganistan did not have a military force, and was not the recognized government of that country. The US declared war on terrorism, - not on the soverign nation of Afganistan, but the criminal group known as the Taliban and its' associates. That's one way that the prison at Gitmo is able to exist, as far as I understand the Geneva Convention rules regarding POW's.

from the purely legal point of view, I think you're wrong, Vilepagan. For example, if anyone is arrested in Europe for terrorism acts and it appears he is related to 9-11, he can be prosecuted in the USA via the usual procedure. But I agree with you on the symbolic point of view - with all his speeches about the war against terrorism, Bush has managed to put Al Queda on a equal level with the USA, as the champion of a civilization clash - which is exactly what Ben Laden wanted.
The best way to manipulate people is fear, fear from a mighty enemy who will destroy your camp if he wins the "war". Bush needs Ben Laden and "terrorists" as his best enemy, as well as Ben Laden needs Bush.

since i happen to be reading 1984 at the moment, that's all a bit scary. i'm terrified to think what this country will be like if bush gets elected a second term. since he wont' have to worry about reelection, he can grab as much power as he possibly can with out having to worry much about his popularity. so i'm guessing we can look foward to a glorious future under the patriot act. well, war is peace and freedom IS slavery isn't it?

It seems that there is always at least one member of this forum reading "1984" !

Originally posted by astrapol2
It seems that there is always at least one member of this forum reading "1984" !
When it stops maybe I just start re-reading it just to keep the streak going. :D