The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.
Well, just as long as these poor, misunderstood legions of the oppressed are out of America’s “gulag” and the “fascistic” grip of the wicked Bushitler, that’s all that matters. After all, it’s a win-win situation: If the released don’t pop up in news stories about decapitated journalists or bombed American diplomats, it’s proof-positive that Chimpy’s the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler. If they do, it’s verification that he’s a bumbling oaf. So where’s the downside for those demanding release?
Fancy that, Guantanamo might actually have served a purpose in protecting Americans and others against terrorists intent on killing! Oh my goodness, who could have known? /sarc
Perhaps we should stop taking battlefield prisoners.
If a million evil men are let free along with one innocent person who was unjustly imprisoned, then justice has been served. Period.
So why have prisons at all? Surely, due to the law of averages, there are innocent people in prison around the world.
““The lesson here is, whoever receives former Guantánamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them,†the American official said.”
The lesson surely is that people like these should never be released. I think that rehab programs in Saudi and the Yemen probably consist of enrollment in a hardline Maddrassa school.
The best thing is to encourage Yemeni opposition and support security forces in Qatar and India. And have a strong intelligence network on the ground, one which was decimated by Clinton and ignored by Bush.
Jefferson, Bush was a lot more like Inspector Clouseau than Hitler.
Not sure why the headline or why it was even reported? This is not really “news” after all.
Bush was a lot more like Inspector Clouseau than Hitler.
Whatever you may think about Bush, the fact remains that there was not a repeat of 9/11, and a number of attempts were thwarted.
[i] Any Hitler or Nazi comments will be deleted by the elves. [/i]
[blockquote]The best thing is to encourage Yemeni opposition and support security forces in Qatar and India. And have a strong intelligence network on the ground, one which was decimated by Clinton and ignored by Bush. [/blockquote]
What an excellent idea! Let’s all write Hillary and tell her to crank up the Yemeni opposition dial to 11 as we throw open the doors at Gitmo. What could possibly go wrong?
You didn’t seem to think Bush was Clouseau yesterday, John, when Catholic Mom was pillorying his “fascist” tendencies of sending those poor jihadis to the “gulag” and supporting her nonsense even though you really should know better.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
[i] Comment deleted- Godwin’s Law. [/i]
[i]OK, ‘Elves’ let us see if your word means mean anything….[/i]
I find it interesting that no one has commented that the NEW YORK TIMES (!) is the one who says we should be worried because this “underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.”
When the MSM points out what we’ve been saying all along, I think the public and the president should llisten!
Folks, the Democrats are in charge and it’s their call. If they want to turn the terrorsts loose it’s their call. It’ll make John happy and that’s something.
I congratulate you in restraining yourself from the almost uniform insanity of the rest of your fellow leftists, John. I stand by my post in #1, given that the B==H meme is rife on the Left. Even for thos who think him Clouseau (who, as I remember, always got his man despite the bumbling), they don’t seem to be too upset by the B==H meme.
I know what you said in the other thread, but I also know you abandoned it when I pointed out your error. If you’ve not read the facts, perhaps you should go there and do so now to keep from falling into error again. Of course, you will not have an excuse then.
Frpm: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
+++
But perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s “I won†line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: “No.â€
Folks, here is where we are. What we think does not matter. It’s their country now and we are just along for the ride.
I’m not the sort of person who thinks that Bush is evil. I don’t even think he’s stupid. I think he was a poor president and a mediocre leader. I think he outsourced his leadership to people who didn’t have his (or the country’s) best interest at heart. All forgivable sins. He might have been a bit like Charles I – some good ideas, but in the end, nobody liked him because he just thought he was always right. And that didn’t help him with his cause, which could have been just on its own merits.
Of course, some of our great leaders made some pretty horrible mistakes, I think, but none of them should be demonized.
I think you missed my point, Jefferson, in the earlier thread. I objected to the idea that Guantanamo was the ONLY way terrorists, or men of evil, or whoever, could be brought to justice. There are other ways that are more transparent, use the rule of law, and convey a sense of dignity and reverence. Nuremberg was one of them.
Since I don’t think “terrorism” was invented by Arabs or on 9/11 and I DO think that the western legal system is resilient and reliable, I think that Guantanamo was excessive. I believe we could have gotten the information for the numerous things we prevented in any case, and that it actually hindered our standing among those arabs who would like to stamp out extremism in their own countries.
We are the stronger party in this war. So it behooves us to follow the law provided and not make up new laws that are convenient for us.
Unless I am mistaken, which I often am, this detainee was released in 2007, by the Bush administration.
Perhaps you are unaware that Nuremburg was judged to be a “fraud” and a “high grade lynching party” by the Chief Justice of the USSC. At least one other Justice was also unimpressed by the process. Not everyone was so anamored of the proceedings at the time, just as many (mostly uninformed) are not thrilled with Gitmo today.
The problem with your approach, John, is that it removes a discouragement for engaging in terrorism against the United States. Combatants used to get protection of law by virtue of obeying that law: Wearing a uniform, insignia, carrying weapons openly, not targeting civilians…and that’s just for starters. In turn, they were afforded protections of the GCs. Those not behaving in this manner were considered outside this law and thus subject to almost whatever sanction his enemies saw fit to impose. The reasons for this are obvious.
Now, thanks to utterly blinkered USSC decisions on cases brought by folks of your kidney, those who disobey the rules of war are afforded [i]more[/i] protections that those who do. They now have rights of trial, evidentiary rules, rights to appeal to civilian(!!) courts, habeas, etc. Never in history has the US been obliged to do this. Not once, nor should it. Prior to the USSC creating it, there was no “law” to point to.
The ultimate effect is to reward those who put civilian populations at risk by mixing with them, who deliberately target civilians and who infiltrate as spies or terrorists into our midst. Any nation contemplating hostile actions against us would be foolish to do anything but engage in terror. Your nostrums feign civility, John, but their effect is to proliferate barbarism.
[blockquote]Unless I am mistaken, which I often am, this detainee was released in 2007, by the Bush administration. [/blockquote]
Yep, he’s one of the at least 61 released detainees who have been shown to be engaging in terrorism after being released because they weren’t naughty enough to keep any longer.
I think it’s great the Dems have free run of the nut house. Let them pass their legislation all on their own.
Unless I miss my masses of average Americans, it could turn out like Clinton’s first term: two years to mess things up and the other party has a renewed shot at leadership.
John Wilkins, Post 18,
You are relying on unproved information if you believe that “We are the stronger party in this war”.
Osama Ben Laden believes that we do not have the strength of will to defeat Al Qaida, I hope he is wrong. President Bush understands the enemy and he has the strength of will to prevent attacks and defeat terrorists, I hope President Obama will recognize reality and do the same.
How many people do you consider expendable to terrorist attacks in order to rest comfortably in your belief that “we are the stronger party in this war”?
#23: I’m relying on the fact that we spend more on weapons and have the strongest military in the world. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world does… combined. Perhaps that spending hasn’t got us anywhere. But it seems that we have used them frequently. Sometimes just to prove a point.
I don’t live in a dream world where there aren’t every any attacks anywhere. i suspect that the real danger in the US comes from terrorists who already live here, those who are affiliated with radical white supremacist groups.
Personally, it does seem that – given the article, guantanamo actually DID NOT provide a disincentive. If it had, wouldn’t those returning think the battle wasn’t worth it? It probably just gave those terrorists more of a reason to believe that we are just as evil as they are. By torturing them, we kind of lose the moral upper hand – at least according to some. Of course, a torturer in one country would probably be a very good terrorist in another.
Some historical analysis might be in order. We supported Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda is also in a war with other, moderate, Arabs. But as long as we torture people, moderate Arabs end up being unable to critique Al Quaeda internally, because the terrorists then seem vindicated – “see how cruel the Americans are? That’s why we must fight them. They care little for Muslim lives.”
Bombing and torturing Muslims actually gives them an incentive for fighting back. It’s the oldest story in the world. One, even, our Lord warned us about.
suspect that the real danger in the US comes from terrorists who already live here, those who are affiliated with radical white supremacist groups.
The fact remains that, to date, the greatest damage and the greatest loss of life, can be attributed to terrorist from overseas. While I’m not out of sympathy with all of what you say, John, I don’t think we can afford to completely belittle this threat. The last administration focused on fear, and I agree with you completely about the wrongness of the torture and about the need for due process for those held at Guantanamo. But we’d be fools to think we’re not in danger.
[i] Fancy that, Guantanamo might actually have served a purpose in protecting Americans and others against terrorists intent on killing! [/i]
So do civilian and military [i]prisons[/i]. If we have evidence against the detainees, then bring them to trial (civilian or military). But don’t hold them forever without evidence. Don’t torture them either.
Nor should we ignore the role of torture, degrading treatment, and harsh, protracted incarceration in [i]radicalizing[/i] detainees. If released detainees embrace terrorism, that does not prove they were terrorists before their detention. In more than a few cases, it may reflect the radicalizing effect of their treatment. Don’t gush for Guantanamo.
[blockquote]i suspect that the real danger in the US comes from terrorists who already live here, those who are affiliated with radical white supremacist groups. [/blockquote]
This is, quite simply, delusional. Have you ever heard of ELF? ALF? Ever paid the slightest attention to their antics? You do live in a dream world, utterly divorced from reality.
[blockquote]Personally, it does seem that – given the article, guantanamo actually DID NOT provide a disincentive. If it had, wouldn’t those returning think the battle wasn’t worth it? It probably just gave those terrorists more of a reason to believe that we are just as evil as they are. By torturing them, we kind of lose the moral upper hand – at least according to some. Of course, a torturer in one country would probably be a very good terrorist in another. [/blockquote]
We “tortured” (actually, we poured water on) precisely three terrorists, John, one being Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and he is still in custody. If we released this fellow because he was perceived at being no threat, do you really think he was one of the other two?
More likey than your reality-free narrative is that Mr. Shihri is fittingly contemptuous of an infidel enemy that delivers his Koran with white gloves so as to not defile Holy Scripture, strives to season his culturally-correct meals properly, and helpfully points him to Mecca so he can pray to his false prophet five times per day. Why would anyone think anything but that the polytheist dogs holding you have internalized their own inferiority?
Then they let you, a jihadi bent on destroying them, free after taking a Jihadis Anonymous class in Saudi, the very fountainhead of Islamic lunacy. I can hear the guy laughing now.
[i] Whatever you may think about Bush, the fact remains that there was not a repeat of 9/11, and a number of attempts were thwarted [/i]
Whatever you may think of Bill Clinton, the fact remains that his administration thwarted all of al-Qaida’s attempts to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. By August 1998 he had federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies focused like a laser beam on al-Qaida. He didn’t need a 9/11 to wake up to the danger of terrorism.
[blockquote]So do civilian and military prisons. If we have evidence against the detainees, then bring them to trial (civilian or military). But don’t hold them forever without evidence. [/blockquote]
Uh, isn’t Gitmo a military prison? And what “evidence” do you need to detain enemy combatants in time of war? Do we apply the Fourth Amendment here? Mirandize them?
[blockquote] Whatever you may think of Bill Clinton, the fact remains that his administration thwarted all of al-Qaida’s attempts to commit acts of terrorism in the United States. By August 1998 he had federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies focused like a laser beam on al-Qaida. He didn’t need a 9/11 to wake up to the danger of terrorism. [/blockquote]
So with all that focused, coherent light on AQ, why didn’t he stop the 9-11 attacks? They were hatched in 1994, after all.
Jeffersonian, we could give them a trial and let the courts, military or civil, decide on a sentence, or release, as the case required. Which is, generally, the way things are done in a country under the rule of law. What has happened at Guantanamo, regardless of the nature of the people held there, is a blot on our national conscience. If they are guilty of anything, let it be shown in court and a sentence handed down. If they cannot be shown to be guilty, let them go.
Didn’t mean to gush, Irenaeus. Guess I’m feeling a little out of sorts because of this from the AP which means that my tax dollars are now directly funding abortions:
But that’s okay, we all know Obama didn’t really mean what he said on the campaign trail. I’m sure this doesn’t mean that he will sign FOCA if it makes it to his desk, right?
No, Sherrie, we do not try enemy combatants, we hold them until the war is over. Unless, that is, there is evidence they have committed war crimes…then they are tried under a military tribunal. All that has been in place for some time, but lawsuits by left-wing attorneys have kept them from moving forward as the ever-changing requirements are hashed out in courts.
Now, has Osama surrendered?
Irenaeus, does point out a serious error that Bush made, and that was in not getting a formal declaration of war. That would have cut through all the nonsence and we could have held them for the duration and it would have held the democrats feet to the fire. It is time for both parties to repudiate going to war on the sly.
As it is, we are confusing criminal justice etc. with war measures. As it is, we are in neither one or the other.
[blockquote]Irenaeus, does point out a serious error that Bush made, and that was in not getting a formal declaration of war. That would have cut through all the nonsence and we could have held them for the duration and it would have held the democrats feet to the fire. It is time for both parties to repudiate going to war on the sly. [/blockquote]
That’s what an Authorization for the Use of Force is, a declaration of war. There’s no difference (just ask Joe Biden).
Jeffersonian, is there definite evidence that these detainees are “combattants”?
Calm down Jefferson. I know about the ELF and the ALF, but I don’t have a count of how many people they’ve killed. They do destroy public property. We might have to distinguish between sorts of terrorism here. If economic terrorism is what you’re talking about, I think we might want to include a whole host of bankers.
I think a brief overview of White Supremacy in the country and the environmental movement would probably show that the White Supremacist movement was more violent against people, and resulted in more deaths. As usual, I will stand corrected, given whatever evidence you may show me.
I’m also aware that ELF tends to put human life in the context of all life, and there are a few fringe philosophers who think there should be a die-off. But there is little evidence that they have much heart for warfare with weapons, or an infatuation with them like White Supremacists do.
You paint an internal picture of the terrorist, but I’m not sure why I should believe you that this is how such a person thinks. It’s not a sophisticated view of how people, or why people, choose to use weapons to struggle against an enemy. And I will concede to you that the military treats these combatants fairly. But then why not just have them in the US anyway?
Jefferson does raise a point about al-Quaeda and Osama surrendering, but unfortunately this insinuates that it is a hierarchical organization where people take orders straight from the top. If only it were that easy. Al-Quaeda is more like a marketing too, a general philosophy, an extended meetup group where a bunch of malcontents can gather and give themselves a convenient and quickly organize a group of people. It is deliberately decentralized, which is why even killing Osama won’t have the desired effect we hope for.
Jefferson, Bill Clinton didn’t stop the 9/11 attacks because George Bush was president.
[i] Uh, isn’t Gitmo a military prison? [/i] —Jeffersonian [#29]
C’mon, Jeffersonian, you’re too smart for that. The point is that Guantanamo—as a place for lawless and perpetual incarceration—served no legitimate purpose. If we have evidence against the detainees (including evidence that they were unlawful combatants), then make them answer for it in a civilian or military court. Let’s avoid the legal travesties of the Bush Administration: e.g., the argument that anyone held on suspicion of being an unlawful combatant can be incarcerated forever without trial and indeed without any recourse to the courts.
I would presume so, Sherrie, since there’s little to be gained by plucking Mohammed Six-pack off the streets and giving him a multi-year Caribbean vacation. Then again, if there are those who are not, they should be released (as some 500 already have, though at least three score erroneously). But ultimately, the responsibility lies with those who violate the rules of war by not distinguishing themselves through the wearing of uniforms, etc. America should not be chastised for their infractions.
Branford [#32]: Very sorry to see that executive order.
Little to be gained, but mistakes are often made in situations such as the one that led to these arrests. A “Caribbean vacation” is hardly what these prisoners have experienced.
[blockquote]Jefferson, Bill Clinton didn’t stop the 9/11 attacks because George Bush was president. [/blockquote]
Thanks for that, John. I had no idea the only way to stop the plot was to trust up giant catcher’s mitts at the last moment, preventing the planes from striking their targets. Of course, for a guy who had laser-like focus on AQ and Osama for six years, you’d think he’d have done something while the plot was being hatched. Or maybe that law-enforcement model wasn’t working so well after all (just ask the guy who prosecuted the blind sheikh and his buddies).
As for ALF and ELF, I repeat my previous assessment.
[blockquote]C’mon, Jeffersonian, you’re too smart for that. The point is that Guantanamo—as a place for lawless and perpetual incarceration—served no legitimate purpose. If we have evidence against the detainees (including evidence that they were unlawful combatants), then make them answer for it in a civilian or military court. Let’s avoid the legal travesties of the Bush Administration: e.g., the argument that anyone held on suspicion of being an unlawful combatant can be incarcerated forever without trial and indeed without any recourse to the courts. [/blockquote]
From every evidence I’ve seen, the applicable portions of the GC related to detention of unlawful combatants was observed. When military tribunals, not unlike those praised by John Wilkins, were proposed, the Left went bananas and now we’re left with a process no one really knows anything about. Gitmo served its purpose of detaining these men outside the US so they, presumably, would not get the sort of process given to those Germans who infiltrated the US in WWII.
[blockquote]Little to be gained, but mistakes are often made in situations such as the one that led to these arrests. A “Caribbean vacation†is hardly what these prisoners have experienced. [/blockquote]
As I said, reasonable effort to rectify mistakes should be made, but the ultimate blame for such mistakes is squarely on those who provoke them by their refusal to distinguish themselves from the civilian population, not us.
(#30 Jeffersonian),
Maybe I’m not reading your post correctly. Didn’t the [b]first[/b]
WTC bombing occur in 1993 ? And weren’t there near simultaneous
bombings of US embassies in Africa ca. 1998 ? And the bombing of
the USS Cole ? Didn’t these all happen on Clinton’s watch ?
Yes, but I think I’s point was that these were not domestic in nature, though I’m not certain why we should be comforted in Americans getting killed abroad as opposed to here.
Folks, the deal is that elections have consequences.
Mr. Obama persuaded people representing more electoral votes to vote for him that Mr. McCain did. Mr. Obama won and he is our President. And he and a strong Democrat majority in both houses of Congress will have their way until the electorate decides otherwise.
I think we are in for a very bad patch – economically, in the war against terror, for our own physical safety, for our precious liberty – as a result of our corporate decision. But our decision stands. And we deserve the government we have.
And we will have it until we change it.
Jefferson, I take it you disagree with individuals like Richard Clarke, who were ignored generally by Condoleeza Rice. That’s fine, but I’m not convinced by your… evidence.
Look – I’m not blaming George Bush for 9/11. Terrorists were responsible. We could easily have blamed the FAA for not instituting the security rules about cockpit doors earlier. But I think blaming Clinton is just… partisan. The evidence is that he WAS hunting Bin-Laden, which might be ONE reason Bin Laden wasn’t effective in attacking the US late in the administration. My point is that blaming Clinton is pretty ridiculous. If you think Osama was easy to catch, I wonder why he hasn’t been. And what happened at Tora Bora.
You repeat your assessment about ELF. I know that in some circles, repeating an argument makes it true. It doesn’t help me understand HOW you think its true. How many people have the ELF lynched? How many innocent people did they kill? Evidence would help.
Still, this article is just fear-mongering. There’s no reason to think that we have any MORE reason to fear. Unless you want to.
[i] When military tribunals . . . the Left went bananas and now we’re left with a process no one really knows anything about [/i]
No one seriously disputes the legality of giving suspected unlawful combatants a military trial under the procedures applicable to prisoners of war and U.S. service personnel. The Bush Administration was never willing to do that. It resisted using such procedures even for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether such suspects were unlawful combatants or prisoners of war.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] Gitmo served its purpose of detaining these men outside the US so they, presumably, would not get the sort of process given to those Germans who infiltrated the US in WWII [/i]
Those German infiltrators got a brisk military trial and a speedy trip to the electric chair. They died 8 weeks after setting foot on shore.
Sherri2, #36,
If a soldier risks his life in battle, captures prisoners and detains them as enemy combattants I consider that very strong evidence that they are enemy combattants.
Would you rather that our soldiers take no prisoners?
[blockquote] He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.[/blockquote]
Lets face it, we in the United States would be safer if he had remained in Guantánamo Bay and so would other people the world over.
I don’t know what happens in a Saudi rehabilitation program but he may have been treated better if he had remained in Guantánamo Bay.
[blockquote]Look – I’m not blaming George Bush for 9/11. [/blockquote]
Nor am I blaming Clinton. I’m saying the law enforcement model touted by Irenaeus neither prevented nor detected the 9-11 plot in the six years it developed under that model. It didn’t detect Khobar Towers, Kenya, Tanzania, the USS Cole, etc. The only plot it did foil, to my knowledge, was the guy coming in from Canada, and that had nothing to do with any intel, but quick thinking of a Customs agent.
[blockquote]You repeat your assessment about ELF. I know that in some circles, repeating an argument makes it true. It doesn’t help me understand HOW you think its true. How many people have the ELF lynched? How many innocent people did they kill? Evidence would help. [/blockquote]
Lynching? LOL…what decade are we in, John? The last lynching I could find was back in the early ’60s.
No ELF hasn’t killed anyone, at least yet. They’ve just destroyed millions of dollars of private (not public) property and ruined years of research. ALF, however, has threatened the lives of animal researchers and appears ready to act on those threats.
[blockquote]No one seriously disputes the legality of giving suspected unlawful combatants a military trial under the procedures applicable to prisoners of war and U.S. service personnel. The Bush Administration was never willing to do that. It resisted using such procedures even for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether such suspects were unlawful combatants or prisoners of war.
Those German infiltrators got a brisk military trial and a speedy trip to the electric chair. They died 8 weeks after setting foot on shore. [/blockquote]
Indeed. So, we can kill them, but not jail them? What’s the statutory length of time we can hold them without trial?
Ok
Give the bastards a fair trial then hang them.
35, an authorization to use force is decidedly not a declaration of war. It a cheap substitute which may be repudiated by the next Congress. A Declaration binds the Nation morally and legally.
Jefferson, you might want to research your “terrorists.” ELF and the ALF have stated that they don’t harm living persons.
Property is another issue. As I said, one could equally accuse the likes of Madoff of doing the same. Highlighting ELF or ALF is a personal bias.
Heard of Timothy McVeigh? Its those sorts of people we have to worry about more, I suspect. I could be wrong, of course.
#50 – Betty see – the fellow lied, of course. He’d lie anywhere. Someone could be an altar boy, tortured, released and then decide to become a jihadist. How would we know?
John Wilkins, #55,
You said: “the fellow lied, of course. He’d lie anywhere”
You are so short on specifics that I have trouble following your train of thought. Are you saying that the enemy combatant who was released from Guantanomo lied? Are you saying that the soldiers who captured the enemy combatant lied? Or are you saying that the New York Times reporter who wrote this article lied?
It is my understanding that the Enemy Combatants interned in Guantanomo were captured, during combat, by U.S. soldiers who were risking their lives to defend us in Afghanistan. Do you really believe that most of those who were captured were simply unwary tourists?
Do you expect soldiers, who are under attack, to take time to document the capture of combatants who are shooting at them so that we arm chair critics can feel good about ourselves?
I certainly do not believe in torture but neither do I believe we will be safe if these enemy combatants are released to organize and attack the civilized world again.
[i]ELF and the ALF have stated that they don’t harm living persons. [/i]
The fellows lied, of course, They’d lie anywhere for good PR. Too bad the facts speak differently, especially when they and groups like them — P.E.T.A. — have classes on how to build bombs. ([url=http://www.sho.com/site/video/brightcove/series/title.do?bcpid=1305032885&bclid=1316298257]Penn and Teller[/url] exposed them a few seasons ago on “Bu11$hi7”. They really do have better expose documentaries than most MSM programs.)
And what’s this fascination with Timothy McVie? I’d much rather you replaced his name with that of William Ayers, since he’s more relevant in this era. oh, wait, that would offend your Obamanistic sensitivities, wouldn’t it? 😉
*Disclaimer: I do not agree with Penn and Teller’s documentaries on every subject. Sometimes they get it wrong (i.e., the Bible). But on Environmentalism and PETA, they are spot on.
Blast, that link above only gives you a one minute preview. Try this one:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY]Penn and Teller P.E.T.A.[/url]
Another caution: some suggestive language and profanity in that link.
Penn is not known for his ‘clean language’ skills. 🙁
If I were a soldier in the field I would have to look over this action and decide how I did things in the future. Maybe consulting superiors, or my comrades, maybe not. If I figured there was a good chance that any Alquida or Talaban type I captured was likely to be released to fight again against me, my buddies or hatch plots against my countrymen, there might just be a whole lot fewer POW’s in the future. It might just be that form now on they will all fight “To the death”, never surrendering. Just a change in tactics, I guess…Any PFC can figure this out. The Conventions apply to prisoners once they’re taken. It doesn’t dictate (does it) that they have to be taken in the first place.
Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it? They WERE captured on the battlefield and are NOW in custody. And thus have landed in legal limbo.
I don’t’ agree with closing Guantanamo nor with releasing those detained. But they’ve been there long enough to deserve legal action with a measurable result.
[blockquote]Jefferson, you might want to research your “terrorists.†ELF and the ALF have stated that they don’t harm living persons. [/blockquote]
That assertion appears to be [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/10/60minutes/main1036067.shtml]no longer operative[/url]:
[i]Ever since, the ELF, along with its sister group, the Animal Liberation Front, has been burning everything from SUV dealerships to research labs to housing developments.
In the last decade, these so-called “eco-terrorists” have been responsible for more than $100 million in damages. And their tactics are beginning to escalate.
[b]Some splinter groups have set off homemade bombs and threatened to kill people. As correspondent Ed Bradley first reported last November, things have gotten so bad, the FBI now considers them the country’s biggest domestic terrorist threat. [/b][/i]
Jefferson, the fact is that nobody has been killed by the ELF or ALF. Not a single person. A single person is worth more than $100 million…. No? You mention a… splinter group. I’m not new to the idea of violent individuals. When the IRA was negotiating the radical protestants, there were other radical groups trying to scuttle the negotiations.
And unlike Hamas, or White Supremacists, both organizations have stated the priority of human life over property. There is, of course, the utilitarian glitch that the Trauma Surgeon offers. When he kills someone, email me.
But given that bankers have destroyed more than $4 trillion dollars worth of wealth, I wonder if you would consider them terrorists. And there are a couple people who’ve died due to the loss of money.
No John, not yet. Yet they are building bombs and making explicit threats to researchers and others. They are destroying the life’s work of many people. The FBI considers them, rightly, to be the biggest domestic terror threat.
And I ignored your fatuous metaphor earlier as a likely fit of pique. It’s really quite foolish unless, of course, you are contending these bankers (and never, ever anyone in government) actually intended to destroy $4 trillion in wealth. Go rent a clue, buddy.
“Rent a Clue” – nice argument.
I see you’ve expanded “terrorism” to include property. You also expand your definition to include splinter groups. That’s changing the debate. You first mentioned the ELF and the ALF. In the near future, If the ELF and the ALF kill somebody, it will be because of negligence. I don’t think you understand their theology. Life is sacred. Property isn’t. We might not share their view, but we might as well present it accurately. But clearly you’re passionate about it. My point still stands: its white supremacists who have the guns, not the ELF or the ALF. You haven’t shown otherwise.