The Nubby Nitty Gritty
JoeUser Forums
From a reply in a thread @ HotAir on the just-released Finance Committee Healthcare Reform Bill:
'Mistakes' are inevitable. No system or process will be perfect. Erring on the side of our safety & security isn't the worst thing I can think of in this context.
Apparently protective custody is now a violation of basic human rights.
The people held in CUBA are illegal combatants. That means that they were caught on the battlefield attacking uniformed troops. People civilian and military witnessed this and signed affidavits that is the only way they can be moved out of the theater of operations and into Gitmo. So they were not detained without cause, it was all done in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. As I pointed out before if a person makes a false claim causing the detention of a civilian they are subject to prison or the death penalty. So no! the people held in Gitmo have not had their rights violated. The Conventions state that you can’t try these people in civilian courts, and that they should not be tried until the end of hostilities except in rare occasions.
That was never established. All that was established was they were not currently a threat. They indeed were in the wrong place at the wrong time (Afghanistan) which meant they were not being altruistic. Once it was determined they would not be a further threat (not no threat), then the trouble of finding someplace to send them was undertaken. it was not just giving them a plane ticket as no one would have them, so what do you do? Hold them until a place is found. Which was done.
Again being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In other words, they were not sitting in a library playing parchesi. As you also noted, once it was determined they were ok, they were released.
Afghanistan is not some sort of "police action". it is a war. And you do not know who to trust (as evidenced by the Jourdanian double agent). And as I have said, and we all know, nothing human is perfect. The fact that mistakes are corrected as soon as possible when possible is a testament to the "humanity" of the US action, not the inhumanity.
I dont think anyone has ever said that "no mistakes (or mistaken indentities) have been made". Only that they are corrected. But they also dont want to release those that intend to do us harm. So in war, unlike under normal law (in the US and Germany, surprisingly not in France), they are presumed guilty until proven (or at least indicated) innocent.
Very simple, while they weren't in Afghanistan learning how to fight the US, they were there learning how to fight the Chinese. Had they been returned to China (their home of origin) they would be executed (imagine that). The bleating hearts here demanded that not be returned to China...China wants them. So the US becomes a hypocrite because we protect terrorists as long as they are not terrorizing us. How do we expect help when we refuse to do the same? ...And just because China does what would be expected in the form of punishment for non-uniformed terrorist. People might sympathize with their cause, that's natural. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Why didn't the US give those uigures a greencard? Or help them - I thought you supported the fight against oppression. And China is oppressive and ruthless at that. Where was it written that you had to release them to China? So the US didn't want to burden diplomatic relations and those guys who were fighting against the evil guys in their homecountry had to suffer for it. How ironic is that? They became the punchline in a really bad joke.
I believe we did. Help them, that is. They're still alive.
Under the policy, that was their home nation. You cannot "deport" someone to a new country, because then they are just illegal aliens in that country.
I mostly associate positive things with the US and also the american military. I assume that everything is done to be humane, and I don't think I said otherwise. Guantanamo wasn't created by the military, it had been a political decision by the american government. As such, the criticism is of a policy and the moral justification of that, not of the US military.
Ok, firstly, nobody has been detained without reason. There was a reason these persons were detained in the first place. Perhaps for some, such as the ones mentioned, it was just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but these things can and do happen during war. Nobody is detained for no reason. That is an absurd statement.
Secondly, the idea that somehow these people detained upon the battlefield while dressed in civilian clothing and suspecting of being terrorists have any rights at all beyond those defined by the Geneva Convention is totally absurd. According to the Geneva Convention they could have been summarily executed as spies yet the evil Americans chose to arrest them instead. Geez, we're such evil people.
Some of you folks really need to be introduced to reality. As one who has experienced a warfare situation or two I can spot an ignorant fool when I see one (or their statements) with reagrd to such situations. Frankly terrorists have no rights at all according to the Geneva Convention so any complaints about the rights of these people being violated are quite abusrd.
All I can say is I wasn't oppressed when I've been to China, of course I didn't voice my opinion. I do believe they are an intolerant nation, but when it comes to terrorists I agree with their policy completely, if guilty they should be executed. I believe the US went far out of the way to protect these men that were seeking to learn the skills to harm others, possibly innocents. Let me put in in a context that might make better sense to you: Would you provide an escape for a pedophile that was planning to molest a neighbors kids, whom you don't like, just because he had no plan to molest your kids and your neighbor might hurt him if he got his hands on him? Even if that same pedophile was hanging out with another group of pedophiles that WERE planning on molesting your kids?
Why on earth would the US ever give someone interested in learning terrorist skills a green card? I noticed Germany didn't show any interest in taking them, are you so heartless over there? Actually, I don't blame you, so why do you expect us to do something so foolish that your country (and many others) wouldn't do? I really love the international out cry about Gitmo, yet no one (except the Chinese) want to take these poor, mistreated souls into their homes. Gitmo could be empty tomorrow. It's so easy to be self-righteous when it's just words.
Gitmo is a military base, it has been since the Spanish American War. The gates were closed when Castro came to power. It is a beautiful place, I've been there. You could say everyone stationed there is imprisoned to a degree. It has been used as a detention camp for illegal aliens (Haitian) held until they could be deported. It has also been used as a refuge camp (for those very same Haitians, as many as 10,000). Of course keeping war detainees there was/is political. It keeps things that shouldn't be complicated, simple. Too many liberal minded folks here are overly concerned about giving our external enemies the same rights as US citizens (ACLU). Imagine if the over 250,000 German and Italian POW's were captured and held in the US today. The US would have not been able to prosecute the war, due to the cost of providing a quarter of a million trials, complete with security, lawyers, appeals and on and on.
You must not have been reading the news about all the liberals protecting that pedophile rapist who raped a 13 year old and then fled the country some decades ago.
Because about 50% of americans are so open minded their brains have fallen out. It is utterly retarded but apperantly acceptable to the left to be a terrorist.
Just like no democrat senator want's them in his state prisons 
Germany didn't want to have to mop up a problem that the US created in the first place, but the social democrats and the greens were all for taking them in. Merkel and her cleavage weren't too inclined though - security threat. There is hypocrisy all around, and I know that yapping about lofty moral principles seems completely out of synch with reality when jihadist terrorists use civil and human rights to try and outmanouver those silly westerners with their bleeding hearts. Germany didn't have a major terrorist attack since the red army faction were hunted down or disappeared, so public oppinion has the luxury of thinking about all of this in abstract terms. The german troops in Afghanistan are hardly on the radar and now 5000 US troops will be moved to northern Afghanistan to do what the germans don't do.. take an active role. There are so many things weird, like training the police in Afghanistan according to western standards. I can't seem to reconcile the image in my head - afghani police securing evidence and interviewing witnesses in a country that seems to be basically lawless, hit by terror attacks and the war against the taleban going on as well.
Agreed...Didn't Al Quiaida declare war (Jihad) on the west in the 1990's? We just ignored it. The rules assume the declarer has a physical nation...I believe it is time to amend the rules.
It is doubtful that fundamentalism can be defeated by military means. Their ideology is hammered into these people from the day they were born, they don't really know any alternatives. I saw this really moving documentary from a young israeli filmmaker who interviewed woman in a prison that had attempted suicide bombs, recruited people for it etc. Some of these woman had children, and they were able to have them with them in prison till the kids turn 2. It is pretty breathtaking to hear a 18month old boy babble "allah is great". That child doesn't stand a chance - all he learns is what hamas teaches, he's a potential terrorist in the future.
Amending the rules and capturing or kiling every terrorist isn't possible - you have to stop them to teach their children to be terrorists. I have no idea how to accomplish that, but unless the "de jiadification" of those fundamentalist muslims is somehow achieved, I doubt that a victory in this war is possible. Killing cell leaders (and their families) with drones around the world like in Somalia a few months ago is like cutting off a head from Hydra - 2 new ones will appear in its place.
They are still hiding among civilians. having a nation isn't a problem, hiding among civilians endangering them and putting enemy troops in a position where they must suspect (and potentially kill) a civilian is the problem.
Violence, lots and lots of it. Particularly against their religious institutes. For an effective example look at soviet russia and its effective stomping out of all religion (I am not advocating stomping out religion, especially not all religion, I am saying that the only way this will end is with islam dominating the world, or the stomping out of islam)
Of course, all us infidels could convert to islam, that will also work. This war was started by mohammed himself and is a fundamental part of islam. The only "muslim extremists" are those who advocate peace... because they are going against everything the religion stands for. The rest are muslim mainstreamists.
Amending the rules IS possible and I'm speaking of the ones we do catch. Right now it's a win-win for the terrorist...carry out his mission successfully or get captured and live probably in better conditions that he is used to at hotel Gitmo...on the taxpayers dime.
He obviously meant amend the geneva convention to give MORE RIGHTS to "freedom fighters" (terrorists who hide in civilian populaces) so they are not sent to gitmo which he considers an evil abomination and one big human rights violation. Apparently the US not extraditing some of those people to their home country where they would be executed is a gross violation of human rights to him, he wants the US to furnish them (terrorists who target other countries which happened to be training with al-qaeda/taliban/etc when the USA caught them) with green cards and set them free here in the USA as american citizens (he actually said so).
I wasn't refering to the GC when I said that it is impossible, it is more a general statement. Military action is not the sole solution, and more violence would only be counterproductive. Interestingly enough "winning hearts and minds" and the new strategy in Afghanistan to stay in the villages to ensure stability and a positive image of the west are a part of what I called "de-jehadification". If you ammend the rules, nothing much in the overall situation would change. You would kill or capture more, probably have more collateral victims as well, but the problem would still be the same. You can only really change something if the young generation is taught different values.
And so what that they wanted to learn military measures and paid the Taleban to train them in order to fight against the Chinese - you yourself just advocated the use of violence against islamists. So it is only OK if the US military does it to fight fundamentalists (using drones, special forces etc - and there are always innocent victims like family members that are considered acceptable losses), but not OK when others want to do the same to fight off a dictatorial regime and gain their independance or at least autonomy? It isn't like opressed minorities in China have many options. You're a tad hypocritical.
you are wrong, they were arrested WITH evidence. Which when examined showed they were terrorists intending to attack china, not the USA.
Yes, yes it IS only ok when you do it to fundamentalist murderers. What you are doing is called moral equivalency... you surmise violence is bad no matter what, and that there is no difference whatsoever between murdering people because your religion says so, and killing murderers. Killing a murderer is not the same and is perfectly fine.
Terrorists are not freedom fighters, never been, never will be... Freedom is not gained by suicide bombing of civilian targets.
No, I am just a moral person with at least a shred of human decency and the most rare super power of them all, common sense.
And being caught training in a taleban training camp is "no shred of evidence" to you? It is actually very damning evidence. It is utterly amazing to me that the USA went to such length to investigate exactly what each person was doing in the taliban training camp to conclude that certain individuals were there planning to attack other countries and not us.
I'd have tortured every shred of info out of each and every one; followed by a summary execution.
PS. waterboarding isn't torture, I meant REAL torture.
No, it isn't. If you are a USA citizen, go try smuggling heroin through argentina and see how much either the USA, argentina, or any of the so called human rights groups cares about your human rights as you are tortured in their prisons for years. Although the punishment is overly severe, I am not terribly concerned with those people...
The people I am most concerned about right now are the pro democracy protesters being abused in Iran. and others who actually deserve my sympathy... terrorists who bomb china? not so much.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Liberalism at its core is coercion and force. For all the moral preening the Left does about how much they care and how heartless we conservatives are the truth is quite the opposite. There is nothing kind about using the force of government to compel ostensibly free citizens to surrender significant portions of their labor and property (income) to the state to serve the purposes not of the nation but of the State, i.e. the government.
Liberalism makes half the population servants to the other half of the population through various social programs that cannot be opted out of even though our lives are diminished by the confiscation of our earnings.
Liberalism root and branch is anathema to the American tradition of individualism as well as poisonous to liberty for how can liberty exist when the state seeks to control the lives of individuals rather than the individual himself?
Liberals are always trying to claim the moral high ground but how can this be a valid claim when their entire agenda can only be enacted by force?
Conservatism is the truly compassionate ideology because it seeks to free, and keep free, the individual from the state.
I do not now and will never work for the state and will die fighting against it if I must.
DerKrieger on October 19, 2009
Talk about cutting to the chase. I don't know who DerKrieger is, but I'd vote for him.