This is ridiculous, MM, and a GROSS mischaracterization of what I said. I am NOT a member of the "FREE THE TERRORISTS MOVEMENT", I am an advocate for us acting like the great nation we are.

I DON'T blindly trust the government to tell us who the terrorists are and lock them away. I wonder why we raised so much fuss about Soviet gulags when we're willing to do the same thing. This government lied to us at Waco, MM, they lied to us at Ruby Ridge, and we're supposed to just trust them here?

When will this war be won? When CAN this war be won? When noone turns a gun on another? Then we've given these people a life sentence without benefit of a trial. People who MAY HAVE done nothing more than defend their hometown against an invading army! If someone blows up a shopping mall, they are a terrorist. You'll get no argument from me here. But when they turn a gun on an enemy soldier walking through the streets of THEIR HOMETOWN, they are a patriot and any attempt to define them any differently is just spin.

I have not advocated for the freeing of a single Gitmo detainee, MM. I've advocated for their TRIAL, either in a military tribunal or in a civilian court, it makes no difference to me. Something that weeds out the possibility, however negligible, that one of them may be innocent.

If I remember correctly, MM, you are anti-death penalty because you don't want a single innocent to be executed. That is a good and noble position. Why, then, would we want a single innocent detained?

The way they treat our soldiers is irrelevant? Are we to become barbarians simply because the enemy does? Do we sacrifice everything we hold precious about human life because the enemy is evil? Or do we realize that we, the greatest nation in the world, where so many of us individuals (although, sadly, not the government) hold human life to be precious even in the womb, should treat even our enemies with dignity that respects their humanity? Pro-life to me means respecting ALL life even when we don't respect the actions of the individual.

Again wrong. The Gulags were for citizens. Gitmo is for non-citizens. Even Padilla was not sent there. We can prosecute Padilla and Walker because they are citizens. We cannot prosecute Omar Khadr because he is not.

Do we believe in human rights or human privileges, Dr. Guy? If they are human privileges, then they are granted them by citizenship. If human rights, then we are saying that non Americans are less than human.

We have a high standard for our nation, a standard we have a moral obligation to uphold even in international affairs. Sadly, your comments and the comments of others show that we no longer care about human rights. Which is why I call Gitmo our national shame.

Again you miss the point. We cannot try them in a court of law, due to man made laws (both national and international) since they are not citizens of this country. When Bush has tried to try them in Military courts, the courts have said no, regardless of the law passed. It is not a question of Human rights. It is a question of Man made laws that we, as a society and civilization, must adhere to in order to function.

But perhaps you were just being inflamatory in comparing them to the gulags (like comparing Bush to Hitler, or Conservatives to Nazis). I was merely pointing out that there is no real comparison, and making such a comparison is false.

No, YOU miss the point. You and MM have BOTH taken the tactic of deliberately ignoring my salient points to pick and choose what portions of the conversation you want to attack. I refuse to even continue this conversation until you address the many points you have deliberately ignored.

Not attack, debate. And I chose the part of the conversation that I wanted to debate with the parts I do not agree with. I have not attacked, debated, or discussed the other parts, because you cannot have a debate when you are both in agreement.

Fair enough. But those other points are my supporting points.

Why should these detainees be tried? because unlike a "traditional" war, there are no tangible goals that can be achieved to secure their eventual realease or continued detention. Because a "war on terror" cannot be won, then we cannot expect these people will ever see the light of day again. What will we say if ten years from now we're still holding these people and it can be conclusively determined that even one was innocent, and provably so at this point in time.

You hit on a sticking point with me: the courts. YES, there is culpability to go around, which is why you will not see me pointing the finger singly at Bush. While I would not consider military tribunals to be the best possible form of trial, I would personally be willing to concede them as preferable to our current position. And the courts are wrong in obstructing them. And Congress is wrong for not supporting the president in seeking military tribunals. I am willing to concede that. But the fact is, we need to stop holding these people in limbo.

Every point you make aabout their treatment of prisoners is valid. But we cannot let their barbaric, inhumane standards deter us from our mission, or encourage us to act as anything other than the greatest nation on earth.

First - winning. I think it can be. Not permanently like (just as "winning the first world war did not annihilate Germany) erradicating it from the face of the earth. But in the respect that it can be at least crippled to the point that it cannot - again in the near term - wage war on us.

Second, that is my whole problem. Call it a damned if you do and damned if you dont. We cannot try them - it is against International law. We cannot release them - that is suicidal. When we have tried to try them with military tribunals, and such, the courts have said no.

I agree the innocent should not be left there to rot (the guilty sure can). But how to figure out the guilt or innocence? I dont see that we as a nation are ignoring them (which would be a violation of Human Rights for the innocent), but trying to find how to determine guilt or innocence is being tied up in a disaster of court rulings that at this time has no out. We cannot violate laws on a whim, yet the laws - or more accurately the courts - are denying them their ability to prove their innocence. We as a nation are not, nor do I believe is the administration.

A lawyer wins if their client is not convicted. To that end, they will try anything - including delaying their day in court if that day will result in the clients conviction. That is what is happening, and if there are any innocents there - they are being caught up in a system that was designed and administered by man. Not god, so it is not perfect.

For myself, the Gitmo people should have never reached the courts, and flawed or not, those people should have been tried by the military. But those simple days are long gone now that lawyers dont even agree on the meaning of IS.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 For GODS sake they are being treated better here than they were at home, they are cleaner, better fed, healthier and SAFER, but don't let simple facts like that get in the way of "FREE THE TERRORISTS MOVEMENT" This is ridiculous, MM, and a GROSS mischaracterization of what I said. I am NOT a member of the "FREE THE TERRORISTS MOVEMENT", I am an advocate for us acting like the great nation we are.

I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU.

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 I wonder why we raised so much fuss about Soviet gulags when we're willing to do the same thing. This Again wrong. The Gulags were for citizens. Gitmo is for non-citizens. Even Padilla was not sent there. We can prosecute Padilla and Walker because they are citizens. We cannot prosecute Omar Khadr because he is not.

But don't you see how perfect that reply was docG, they want to compare America to the Soviet Union, compare the conditions of Gitmo, to a Gulag and what is most sad they believe it.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 Again you miss the point No, YOU miss the point. You and MM have BOTH taken the tactic of deliberately ignoring my salient points to pick and choose what portions of the conversation you want to attack. I refuse to even continue this conversation until you address the many points you have deliberately ignored.

So far I have refused nothing, I just woke up and am getting to these replies that were entered while I was NOT ONLINE. But feel free to leave Gid it still is a free country.

(shrug) Invitation accepted!

  

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007

DON'T blindly trust the government to tell us who the terrorists are and lock them away. I wonder why we raised so much fuss about Soviet gulags when we're willing to do the same thing. This government lied to us at Waco, MM, they lied to us at Ruby Ridge, and we're supposed to just trust them here? When will this war be won? When CAN this war be won? When noone turns a gun on another? Then we've given these people a life sentence without benefit of a trial. People who MAY HAVE done nothing more than defend their hometown against an invading army! If someone blows up a shopping mall, they are a terrorist. You'll get no argument from me here. But when they turn a gun on an enemy soldier walking through the streets of THEIR HOMETOWN, they are a patriot and any attempt to define them any differently is just spin.

I do not blindly trust the government either gid, But these prisoners do not fall under Geneva Conventions, or civilian Authority.

I am for the MIlitary tribunal. I will give you the same answer I gave loca, I fought in a war Gid crazy things happen, is it right that someone gets screwed for defending his home? NO! will it happen? YES? will it happen again? YES? Have people that we have released from Gitmo been found fighting against us again after release? YES! Did we think that those people we mistakenly picked up? Yes!  did we make another mistake releasing them? YES!

I have not advocated for the freeing of a single Gitmo detainee, MM. I've advocated for their TRIAL, either in a military tribunal or in a civilian court, it makes no difference to me. Something that weeds out the possibility, however negligible, that one of them may be innocent.

Again I was not refering to you GID.

If I remember correctly, MM, you are anti-death penalty because you don't want a single innocent to be executed. That is a good and noble position. Why, then, would we want a single innocent detained?

This is true, But I Understand the fog of war GID, and I do not want an innocent man held, but see above where I said we release what we thought were innocent men only to find them fighting us again in Afganistan or Iraq. Shit happens, Do I think it's fair? NO!

The way they treat our soldiers is irrelevant? Are we to become barbarians simply because the enemy does? Do we sacrifice everything we hold precious about human life because the enemy is evil? Or do we realize that we, the greatest nation in the world, where so many of us individuals (although, sadly, not the government) hold human life to be precious even in the womb, should treat even our enemies with dignity that respects their humanity? Pro-life to me means respecting ALL life even when we don't respect the actions of the individual.

No we should not become like them, but the truth is we are not even close to being like them, I used the example to compare treatment of how they are being treated in captivity and how we are being treated when captured. That is all.

I hope I answered all your questions.

 

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 You and MM have BOTH taken the tactic of deliberately ignoring my salient points to pick and choose what portions of the conversation you want to attack. Not attack, debate. And I chose the part of the conversation that I wanted to debate with the parts I do not agree with. I have not attacked, debated, or discussed the other parts, because you cannot have a debate when you are both in agreement.

as you can see GID I Ignore nothing, I choose everything, it is you that jumps the gun because I was not online and did not address your comments fast enough to suit you. This time you owe me an APOLIGY. I SHALL WAIT FOR IT.

MM,

I luv ya man, but I still don't like being ORDERED to apologize. I'm not a dog and don't like being treated like one. Could you please be a bit nicer in the asking?

HOWEVER, in this case, I must concede a valid point. Given the timing of this article, i did believe it to be in response to mine and mistakenly believed it to be selectively attacking my argument. I was wrong in making that assumption and I do apologize.

I will get back to leaving this thread, as I was invited to do.