Recent atrocities in Iran has gotten people asking if the US should intervene, after the reports of two of the twentysomething kidnapped South Koreans have been murdered by the cowards.

This isn't the first time this century that the US has been asked to go in defense of human suffering worldwide.

With all of the rhetoric surrounding our involvement in other world theaters, as well as UN involvement worldwide, why would we want to extend ourselves any more than any other countries peoples want their own governments to step in?

Aren't you talking about the recent atrocities in Afghanistan? Why did you write Iran? You seemed sort of vague about why you put Iran in there. Please explain further and I'll try to comment better on your post.
Exactly what are you talking about? Be very "specific" about the "recent" atrocities you just talked about above, and provide up-to-date news links. Thanks.

Sorry. I meant Afg. My haste, my bad. I realised my error but the post was up. Did you not clue into the S Koreans murdered?

Yes I did CaptainRich, and that is one hell of a mistake. This mistake sort of scares me... so I'm going to get a little side-tracked here and not comment on the actual situation at hand.
I guess it's easy to make that mistake because Iran has been paralleled to Afghanistan in the sense that they are both labeled Terrorist As*holes. I have seen these mistakes time and time again on the news, when Bush said "Saddam, no I mean Binladin". Anyway, that was not Bush-bashing for you (I'm a Republican).
It's just interesting that two countries like Iran and Afghanistan, who are so damn different, have been easily mixed up. Captain, please don't take offense to what I just wrote (it is an honest mistake on your part, I realize this, but it is a "particular" mistake that is being produced over and over again... as if we are learning or being taught to make these types of errors).

So you meant Afghan, but I'll still post my thoughts on Iran.


Waiting for the UN's usual rhetoric measures will resolve nothing. They'll make note of the situation and say they are investigating. Well Ok they'll probably go the minor sanction route. On the other hand, the U.S. is keeping tally and I fully expect Iran and Syria (and a few others) are on the radar to pay a thousand fold in the next decade or so. No! I don't think we will get directly involved in Iran yet and we're already involved in Afghanistan. I guess we will have to see what direction the US is headed after the 2008 elections and to understand exactly the world's current affairs and what might be necessary. But as for as I'm concerned, no calendar is needed for dying and both Mahmoud Ahmadnejah and Bashar al-Assad are begging to see Jim Morrison.





Bobby

Yes I did CaptainRich, and that is one hell of a mistake. This mistake sort of scares me...so I'm going to get a little side-tracked here and not comment on the actual situation at hand.
I guess it's easy to make that mistake because Iran has been paralleled to Afghanistan in the sense that they are both labeled Terrorist As*holes. I have seen these mistakes time and time again on the news, when Bush said "Saddam, no I mean Binladin". Anyway, that was not Bush-bashing for you (I'm a Republican).
It's just interesting that two countries like Iran and Afghanistan, who are so damn different, have been easily mixed up. Captain, please don't take offense to what I just wrote (it is an honest mistake on your part, I realize this, but it is a "particular" mistake that is being produced over and over again...as if we are learning or being taught to make these types of errors).

These two countries have displayed some distinct similarities, here of late. Radicals in that "global region" have rallied around the bridge collapsing in Minnasota.

I've clarified my error. Had I left out the particular country where this happened, would you be more willing to discuss the issue?

In case you don't remember the US has already invaded Afghanistan.

The Coalitions resources are stretched enough trying to clean the mess up in Iraq. Iran would be on the radar but I think it would take something pretty drastic to happen for an invasion in the near future.

Who knows though with this president..

We didn't "invaded" Afghanistan. We pursued al qaida and taliban forces that lead us into Afghanistan. Our goal wasn't to take the country or regime change. When we finished what we started, we mostly left them to pick up where we left off. The problem is that they didn't pick up, and that's why they're doing thing there again.

The terrorist/murderers are largely a non-uniformed multinational army (why do most of them hide there faces?) and allow themselves no border. They go were ever they want and anyone who confronts them is killed. Kind of like wild wild west, a hundred fold

We're told the are cells in the US. Why are they allowed to sustain ops here?? If you know acancer is building and that it will kill you, why not cut it out?

Capt. Our intentions certainly was to force regime change in Afghanistan after the taliban refused to cooperate with us in taking down AQ. We supported the Northern Alliance during the war and we were more than helpful in helping Karzai consolidate his position as leader of the country. No we did not take over the country but let's say the Talkban had been democratically elected after the war... do you really think we would've accepted the outcome ?

The rest of your statements in this posting I agree with . I am all for humanitarian interventions but there must be other compelling American national interest in the decision to intervene.

As for Iran I think both criteria are met . Iran has waged an almost one sided war against the US since 1979 . I say almost because we did respond militarily late in the 1980s and waged a pretty significant under-reported naval war against them in the Persian Gulf.

We know they actively support our enemies in Iraq and we now know they have taken direct military actions that have resulted in American casualties. As far as I'm concerned a state of war already exists between us and them . There are significant human rights outrages happening there now as the hanging parties they are conducting on political prisoners show. The people of Iran I know would more than welcome our intervention . To me it's a no brainer . To succeed in the ME Iran will eventually have to be dealt with .

Keep in mind that there are more similarities between Iranian leadership and Afghanistan/Taliban than many people realize. Anyone here remember the fact that Iran recently took a bunch of British sailors hostage, and tried to do the same to some Aussie sailors? I don't see much of a difference between using kidnapped Brit sailors as political leverage and using South Korean nationals as political leverage. Do you?

Back to the original issue:

We have already intervened in Afghanistan. We have about 30,000 - 50,000 troops there. They are fighting the Taliban and winning. We already ended the Taliban regime's control of Afghanistan. I'm curious as to what other action people think we should be taking. I might argue that we should be fighting HARDER and being more ruthless than we currently are with our hands partially tied by the ROE. But other than that, what action should we be taking in Afghanistan?

Elliot

Back to the original issue:

We have already intervened in Afghanistan. We have about 30,000 - 50,000 troops there. They are fighting the Taliban and winning. We already ended the Taliban regime's control of Afghanistan. I'm curious as to what other action people think we should be taking. I might argue that we should be fighting HARDER and being more ruthless than we currently are with our hands partially tied by the ROE. But other than that, what action should we be taking in Afghanistan?

Elliot

Just a thought as many are talking about the humanitarian aspect of this situation...
Many of the so called taliban militants that are being killed are not just taliban forces,
What about the mostly under reported cases of women and children that are being killed in Afghanistan?
Fighting the taliban, all right I believe that, but winning?
I wonder then if US is winning why does every bomb scare or every suicide bombing is the taliban's or maybe AL Qaeda's doing?

Being more ruthless than now would be to wipe out the whole nation of Afghanistan...

Just my opinion and I am not up to fighting for my thoughts!

If any force that is contrary to global peace and regional security, hides it's militants and murders amongst the innocent civilian population, well then we should bow our heads and back out.

NOT! That makes everything more difficult for the troops on the ground. We'll have to work hard to go around that ruse. I'm not going to apologize for collateral damages, but when the people in that region don't do everything within their own villages to help us flush out the bad guys, that's tantamount to aiding and abetting! A classic example of "If you're not with us, you're against us." And we can't afford that kind of capitualance. And they can't either, long term.

I know someone will say they're frightened and being threatened. But hiding your head in the sand isn't going to help.

I agree w/ ETW that perhaps we need to step things up there.

Firmbeliever wrote
I wonder then if US is winning why does every bomb scare or every suicide bombing is the taliban's or maybe AL Qaeda's doing?

We've seen reports that both factions want more credit for this kind of activity, and they're sprinkled around so many areas over there globe, how do we know it isn't a look-a-like that simply thinks they're right and wants to be on their side (until the vest say boom!) I'll probably never understand suicide murderers! Are they just to cowardly to stand and fight like men do? I wonder if covert ops has tried to sneak some vest to them that, as soon as the vest is fastened, the thing goes off...

I really do not think I am in a position to say what is really happening on the ground level of all the countries involved in such fights.
Troops fighting so called militants or militants fighting their so called enemies.

I only know that unless I was in the heart of the war , I could never really say if what each one is doing is justified or not.
All I know is that killing for killings sake is not allowed in Islam. Strapping oneself with bombs and going into another country where no war against Islam is being fought and to blow oneself up is not also allowed in Islam.

But if one was to look into the casualties of different wars, some ae physical injuries,while others are mental injuries, and my guess is that among the many suicide bombers there must be something which triggers people to go into the midst of inoocent people and blow themselves up.

Please refer following article
---------------
The Salafee Position on Terrorism, Suicide Bombings, and Hijackings

Learn what orthodox Salafee Scholars say concerning the what has become widespread in contemporary times of the ideologies of terrorism, suicide bombings, and hijackings, protests and revolutions as independent means of reform and societal change, clothed in garb of Islaam and Salafiyyah. These are no more than the sickly outward expressions and practical requirements of the doctrines of the likes of Sayyid Qutb [the Fusionist of Alexis Carrel's “Barbarism”, the Leninist Marxist “Revolutionary Vanguard Elite”, and Mawdudi's “Raafidee Imaamate”] as exemplified in the actions of contemporary Takfeeri, Jihaadee and Khaarijee renegade sects, masquerading their actions as Islaam and masquerading themselves as Salafiyyah.

CLICK HERE:

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sLF/sLF.cfm?sc=channel&CID=3

I would never declare war against a religion, such as Islam. But Islamic extremists have declared jihad against me and my kind, stating that if we don't share the same religion that we are all infidels and must die. And their methods are to aid killing their own: suicide murderers, etc. They started this, long before 9-11, and don't show any signs of stopping, until they are all gone. It's their call.

Recent atrocities in Iran has gotten people asking if the US should intervene, after the reports of two of the twentysomething kidnapped South Koreans have been murdered by the cowards.

This isn't the first time this century that the US has been asked to go in defense of human suffering worldwide.

With all of the rhetoric surrounding our involvement in other world theaters, as well as UN involvement worldwide, why would we want to extend ourselves any more than any other countries peoples want their own governments to step in?
Because that was where the war on terrorism began…the government just seems to have lost track of that detail.

Keep in mind that there are more similarities between Iranian leadership and Afghanistan/Taliban than many people realize. Anyone here remember the fact that Iran recently took a bunch of British sailors hostage, and tried to do the same to some Aussie sailors? I don't see much of a difference between using kidnapped Brit sailors as political leverage and using South Korean nationals as political leverage. Do you?


The Iranian leader gave the Soldiers that they said were in Iranian waters back because they respect Easter (as they too believe in Jesus). The Iranians were trying to get the British government to admit that the Soldiers were in Iranian waters. And when the Soldiers were returned (even though the British maintained the stance that their soldiers were not in Iranian waters), the soldiers did not have permission to speak to the media at all until the British military talked to them first. This was a rule. No solider was allowed to talk to the media before the military talked to them first. After the British military talked to their soldiers, only 6 of the 15 captured crew came to talk to the media…that's less than half of them wanting to talk to the British media to confirm that “we were never in Iranian waters”. I found this a bit bizarre.

I'm not sure if that scenario was even close to the Afghanistan one. That incident does not make those two countries similar at all…they are outstandingly different. Women in Iran go to school, are professors, women are doctors, and the Iranian leader is democratically elected through votes. That is a far far far cry from the disgusting regime of Afghanistan. Although I do admit that Mouhamad-whatever (the Iranian President) is one crazy son-of-a-bit&ch, I think it should still be made clear that the two countries (including their systems), Afghanistan and Iran, are extremely different. To come on this board and to try and make them appear similar because of the British soldiers incident is weak. Look at the way Iran handled their capture of British Soldiers versus the way Afghanistan did. In fact, Iran handled their prisoners far better than we Americans handle our “suspected terrorists”. I'm not saying the two countries do not have similarities, but I am saying they are far far far more different than they are similar.

This is all coming from a Republican who supports a War on Terror, but in the process, I believe we should not shade the truth. We should not even half-lie to strengthen our own position.

Point of order, Big10. Afghanistan didn't kidnap the S Koreans. Terrorist murderers did.

Reports from those British sailors whose chose to face the media after their release had some very different things to say about the way they were treated. We will never know, persoanlly.

I'm not proud of everything we did to some of the terrorists, but they chose to associate with the bad guys.

How about the way the terrorists deal with their own! Beheadings and other horrific executions, left to the discretion (though not discrete) of whatever crazy is in charge that day!

Point of order, Big10. Afghanistan didn't kidnap the S Koreans. Terrorist murderers did.

Reports from those British sailors whose chose to face the media after their release had some very different things to say about the way they were treated. We will never know, persoanlly.

I'm not proud of everything we did to some of the terrorists, but they chose to associate with the bad guys.

How about the way the terrorists deal with their own!! Beheadings and other horrific executions, left to the discretion (though not discrete) of whatever crazy is in charge that day!

Okay then lets go with what WE DO KNOW FOR SURE about how the British soldiers were treated. They came back perfectly unscratched. They came back and were released because the Iranian President recognizes Easter. Those are things we do know for sure. The British Soldiers were also (6 out of 15 of them being interviewed at the same time) were at their conference seemingly very very very healthy, and not in a state of frenzy or depression from torture (which is strange because the Iranians have been depicted as savages in the media). Although, as you say, we will never know personally what went on, these are the things we do know for sure.

As for the Afghanistan situation, I agree with you. A totally different scenario. Whereas the Iranian one has stood out internationally and will go down in history for releasing the Brits in a very healthy condition, and with respect for the Easter season, the Afghanistan situation is a testament to the savagery of the Taliban. The Afghanistan situation shows all the more reason why the Taliban must be stopped.

And yes, Captain, it's good of you to mention beheadings that terrorists do... although it is a little distracting... I'm not sure why you had to remind us of this. This is a "fact" that you have presented, but it doesn't seem to be in it's place. This is a red herring; where we discuss A, and then B is thrown in under the guise of a "good point"... as if you are sticking to "A".

OK I have brought this up before to little or know response. We are very quick to blow the whistle on Middle Eastern nations and there treatment of prisoners etc. Why are we so scared of the skeletons within our closet?

Law Council of Australia - David Hicks - Five Years Without Justice (http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/hicksjustice.html)

JURIST - Forum: David Hicks and the US Military Commissions Process: Next Steps (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/10/david-hicks-and-us-military.php)

David Hicks wasn't treated like a human or with an ounce of Justice. He was a man whose initial charges after 2 years in captivity were thrown out because they were considered unconstitutional. So in effect he was a man held five years without charge. His charges were written whilst he was in detention specifically to deal with his case.

And whilst being held was treated like an animal.

Hicks: my life of terror and torture - World - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hicks-my-life-of-terror-and-torture/2007/03/01/1172338791480.html)

The Military Commissions Act certainly doesn't seem to have humanitarian interests at heart!

The Iranian leader gave the Soldiers that they said were in Iranian waters back because they respect Easter (as they too believe in Jesus).

Baloney. They didn't return the soldiers because of any great respect for Jesus or Easter. They returned them because it made for a great international political spectacle, made the Brits look foolish, gave him the ability to spin himself as the great humanitarian, and gave him a political lever to use against the UK. It was pure political theater.


The Iranians were trying to get the British government to admit that the Soldiers were in Iranian waters. And when the Soldiers were returned (even though the British maintained the stance that their soldiers were not in Iranian waters), the soldiers did not have permission to speak to the media at all until the British military talked to them first. This was a rule. No solider was allowed to talk to the media before the military talked to them first. After the British military talked to their soldiers, only 6 of the 15 captured crew came to talk to the media…that’s less than half of them wanting to talk to the British media to confirm that “we were never in Iranian waters”. I found this a bit bizarre.

Of course you did. And you believe that Ahmadinejad released them for humanitarian reasons and because of respect for Jesus.


I’m not sure if that scenario was even close to the Afghanistan one. That incident does not make those two countries similar at all…they are outstandingly different. Women in Iran go to school, are professors, women are doctors, and the Iranian leader is democratically elected through votes.

Yeah... and I like the part where the ruling party won 100% of the popular vote. You really believe that Iran's government is a fairly elected democracy, and women are well treated in Iran? Sorry, but I have friends who used to live there, and you are just plain wrong.


That is a far far far cry from the disgusting regime of Afghanistan.

No it isn't. Gang rapes of women as punishment for violations of religious clothing laws, or as punishment for actions of theitr brothers, fathers or husbands, is commonplace in Iran. Women are treated like chattle, and are badly abused by the system.


Although I do admit that Mouhamad-whatever (the Iranian President) is one crazy son-of-a-bit&ch, I think it should still be made clear that the two countries (including their systems), Afghanistan and Iran, are extremely different.

Yeah, real different. One is a government run by religious fanatics that suppress opposition with jailings, tortures, gang-rapes, murders, disappearances, and beatings. The other is a government run by religious fanatics that suppress opposition with jailings, tortures, gang-rapes, murders, disappearances, and beatings.


To come on this board and to try and make them appear similar because of the British soldiers incident is weak. Look at the way Iran handled their capture of British Soldiers versus the way Afghanistan did.

So, kidnap is okay if the vitims of the kidnap are better-treated than they would be elsewhere? Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, kidnap for political leverage is kidnap for political leverage, and there is absolutely no difference between Iran taking hostages and Afghanistan taking hostages.


In fact, Iran handled their prisoners far better than we Americans handle our “suspected terrorists”. I'm not saying the two countries do not have similarities, but I am saying they are far far far more different than they are similar.

Yeah, one is Shia, and one is Sunni. Other than that, they are pretty much the same, use the same tactics, and have the same goals... an Islam-only world.

Furthermore, our "suspected terorists" are given three square meals a day under their dietary laws --- and some pretty good meals too... the average detainee has gained 25 pounds in "captivity"--- soccer fields, prayer services, books, clothing, education if they wish it, TV, music, etc. One terrorist has actually sued the government to keep him in Guantanimo until the end of hostilities because he was so comfortable there.


This is all coming from a Republican who supports a War on Terror, but in the process, I believe we should not shade the truth. We should not even half-lie to strengthen our own position.

I agree. So take a look at Iran's human rights violations (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78852.htm)before say that things are so different between Iran and Afghanistan.

[QUOTE=ETWolverine] Baloney. They didn't return the soldiers because of any great respect for Jesus or Easter. They returned them because it made for a great international political spectacle, made the Brits look foolish, gave him the ability to spin himself as the great humanitarian, and gave him a political lever to use against the UK. It was pure political theater.[QUOTE=ETWolverine]

Again Wolverine, we are going with what we know, remember, and not what you are guessing. We are stating the facts and are not basing this on theory. We are simply stating the facts: They have been returned in a healthy condition, they were never in a state of frenzy from any type of torture, only 6 out of 15 of the British soldiers wanted to talk to the media to confirm that they were in Iranian Waters (this was when they were BACK HOME AGAIN IN ENGLAND…and this was after them talking to the military first), and they all talked to the media at the "exact" same time. We also know that the Muslims believe in Jesus (this is another fact) and the President said that he wanted to give them back due to this season (he said this – another fact).

I don't understand why they can be depicted as religious fanatics, yet when it comes to them mentioning the prophet Jesus, you are saying "they didn't return the soldiers because of any great respect for Jesus or Easter". Interesting on your part. Anyway, what you are stating about it being a "great international political spectacle", although I agree with you because this is my guess too, is sadly not a FACT, but it is just a theory. The fact is that the soldiers have been returned healthy and sound.

[QUOTE=ETWolverine] Yeah... and I like the part where the ruling party won 100% of the popular vote. You really believe that Iran's government is a fairly elected democracy, and women are well treated in Iran? Sorry, but I have friends who used to live there, and you are just plain wrong.[QUOTE=ETWolverine]

Yes it is a democratic vote there. By your logic, then are you saying that like how our own voting system is being mocked by the world (when Bush won the first time) and the counts came in mysteriously different in favor of Bush in the American nation, then does this mean that we do not have a system, that at least on paper, tells us we can elect our man? On paper, they have a similar voting system to ours (the similarity here between America and Iran in them voting for their leader is more alike than Afghanistan is to Iran or than, obviously, Afghanistan is to America).

[quote=ETWolverine] No it isn't. Gang rapes of women as punishment for violations of religious clothing laws, or as punishment for actions of theitr brothers, fathers or husbands, is commonplace in Iran. Women are treated like chattle, and are badly abused by the system.[quote=ETWolverine]

Yes the rape of women in the American prisons and American Military are "insane"! It is a "huge deal" (and this is all in places where security and law should be flourishing...noway...)! But this does not mean it is law to "gang" rape women in America...does it? Obviously not, just as it is not law in Iran. You are manipulative for this point of yours, and by your logic you could easily say, "It is law for women to be raped in an American Military".

[quote=ETWolverine] Yeah, real different. One is a government run by religious fanatics that suppress opposition with jailings, tortures, gang-rapes, murders, disappearances, and beatings. The other is a government run by religious fanatics that suppress opposition with jailings, tortures, gang-rapes, murders, disappearances, and beatings. [quote=ETWolverine]

Yes they are very different. America and Iran are more alike in their systems than Afghanistan is similar to Iran. In 1Afghanistan, women wouldn't even be permitted to put on nailpolish, yet in Iran, women are doctors! Wolverine, you must relax, because this is not stating that Iran is "the number one great utopia" of the world. What do you fear of people knowing that the Brit soldiers were returned healthy and sound? What do you fear of this? Why must you insist that this is very similar to the case of Afghanistan (yet in Afghanistan they tortured and beheaded their Korean hostages). The Afghan case goes closer with how we have tortured our suspected terrorists in America.

[quote=ETWolverine] So, kidnap is okay if the vitims of the kidnap are better-treated than they would be elsewhere? Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, kidnap for political leverage is kidnap for political leverage, and there is absolutely no difference between Iran taking hostages and Afghanistan taking hostages.[quote=ETWolverine]

No, see this is you manipulating because your stance is weak. You are trying to make my argument seem as though I was saying "kidnap of victims is okay if they are better-treated than they would be elsewhere".

This is manipulative because you leave a very important part of my stance out... I am NOT saying simply that "kidnap is fine if you don't torture" but I am saying "the Iranian and Afghanistan cases are very very different because the Iranians returned the British soldiers in a healthy and sound condition, yet the Afghan case has lead to the torture of their captures". Very clever of you to try and make people on this post think that my position is "Kidnap is fine as long as you don't torture" and to say as you did above, that "there is absolutely no difference between Iran taking hostages and Afghanistan taking hostages". I have shown you a clear and very important disctinction, yet you try very hard to neglect this. Why? Do you not believe in the power of your own stance enough that you have to shade parts of the truth?

[QUOTE=ETWolverine] Yeah, one is Shia, and one is Sunni. Other than that, they are pretty much the same, use the same tactics, and have the same goals... an Islam-only world.[QUOTE=ETWolverine]

Sorry my friend, I have shown you otherwise. Very manipulative again on your part. For example, Both Canada and America are democratic nations, but they seem to have very different goals. They may both have goals of democracy, but their approaches and concepts of this have differences. I am interested in differences that you try so hard to blur, all to make Afghan and Iran seem like "one". Interesting.

[QUOTE=ETWolverine] Furthermore, our "suspected terorists" are given three square meals a day under their dietary laws --- and some pretty good meals too... the average detainee has gained 25 pounds in "captivity"--- soccer fields, prayer services, books, clothing, education if they wish it, TV, music, etc. One terrorist has actually sued the government to keep him in Guantanimo until the end of hostilities because he was so comfortable there.[QUOTE=ETWolverine]

Wait, but I thought your logic was: "Kidnap is kidnapping, so it does not matter the Brits were not beheaded and they were returned home safe and sound, because Afghan and Iran case are totally the same (even though the Afghan kidnapping resulted in the beheading of soldiers!)".

Then I guess, by your logic...you can just cross out what you wrote above. Despite, as you say, the treatment of the suspected terrorists in the USA is "better" or "great", by your logic, the American hold of these people is the same as the Afghan case. Wait? The same or even similar to a case where in Afghan they beheaded people??

Now you get it? See how illogical your whole argument is?

Big10,

I don't have a lot of time right now. I have responses for most of your points, but right now I will only address the final one.


Wait, but I thought your logic was: "Kidnap is kidnapping, so it does not matter the Brits were not beheaded and they were returned home safe and sound, because AFGHAN and IRAN case are totally the same (even though the Afghan kidnapping resulted in the beheading of soldiers!!!)".

Then I guess, by your logic...you can just cross out what you wrote above. Despite, as you say, the treatment of the suspected terrorists in the USA is "better" or "great", by your logic, the American hold of these people is the SAME as the Afghan case. WAIT? The same or even similar to a case where in AFghan they beheaded people???

Now you get it? See how illogical your whole argument is?

Sorry, that doesn't follow through. The basic difference is that both the South Koreans and the Brit sailors were kidnapped. They were innocent victims held for political reasons. The POWs held in Gitmo are just that... POWs captured in the field. That isn't kidnapping, that is adherence to the rules of war. There is a legal, moral and ethical difference between kidnappees and POWs. Legally, Iran and Afghanistan are the same: they both kidnapped innocents for political leverage. The USA, on the other hand, is not guilty of kidnapping. HUGE difference.

I'll address your other points later.

Elliot

Big10,

I don't have a lot of time right now. I have responses for most of your points, but right now I will only address the final one.



Sorry, that doesn't follow through. The basic difference is that both the South Koreans and the Brit sailors were kidnapped. They were innocent victims held for political reasons. The POWs held in Gitmo are just that... POWs captured in the field. That isn't kidnapping, that is adherance to the rules of war. There is a legal, moral and ethical difference between kidnappees and POWs. Legally, Iran and Afghanistan are the same: they both kidnapped innocents for political leverage. The USA, on the other hand, is not guilty of kidnapping. HUGE difference.

I'll address your other points later.

Elliot




What? I really hope you are not full of lies and manipulation, and that you are joking or have made a mistake. I don't have much time either, but where have you been? That the American held “suspected terrorists” are not PRISONERS OF WAR (POWs) because after September 11th , the Bush administartion wanted suspected terrorist or kidnapees to be treated by “extrajudicial” means. Go around the world and say "POW" and they will laugh at you, because everyone knows they were classified as "enemy combatants".

The detainees held are being classified as “enemy combatants” and not POW's… so I am sorry to break your heart by exposing this. This means, as the USA has been doing, the Geneva Convention does NOT APPLY! Only recently in July has the department of defense ruled that the Geneva Convention should be intact because of the insane torture and breaking of the Geneva Convention that has been going on by the American system… why?

No they are not POWs... intead, think "enemy combatants". Or maybe you just did not know what a POW is?

POW gets to be innocent until proven guilty. When the United Stated denied this of their detainees, it became in violation of the Geneva Convention. This is because the “enemy combatants” are not permitted to see lawyers, can be tortured, etc, Under the Geneva Convention, the interrogation of soldiers through mental or physical torture is ILLEGAL.

And then here you are telling everyone they are POWs? I guess you have made the same mistake as Captain? Who said by mistake "Iran" instead of "Afghan" in his question that started this post (although Iran had nothing to do with this). Captain admitted he was wrong and made a "mistake", and I think you should seriously tell everyone what they already know: that the "suspected terrorists" in Gitmo, under the Bush administration, were not recognized as POWs, going against the Geneva Convention.

Anyway, I am with the War on Terror, but I do wish that we were holding "POWs" in Guantanamo Bay, but no, not the case! The fact that you have made the mistake of saying "POW" shows that you are for the same kind of America that I am, and that you are unsatisfied with some of the things that are going on. We cannot let ourselves stoop to the level of uncivilized nations.

OK i have brought this up before to little or know response. We are very quick to blow the whistle on Middle Eastern nations and there treatment of prisoners etc. Why are we so scared of the skeletons within our closet??

Law Council of Australia - David Hicks - Five Years Without Justice (http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/hicksjustice.html)

JURIST - Forum: David Hicks and the US Military Commissions Process: Next Steps (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/10/david-hicks-and-us-military.php)

David Hicks wasn't treated like a human or with an ounce of Justice. He was a man whose initial charges after 2 years in captivity were thrown out because they were considered unconstitutional. So in effect he was a man held five years without charge. His charges were written whilst he was in detention specifically to deal with his case.

And whilst being held was treated like an animal.

Hicks: my life of terror and torture - World - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hicks-my-life-of-terror-and-torture/2007/03/01/1172338791480.html)

The Military Commissions Act certainly doesnt seem to have humanitarian interests at heart!!

Hmmmnn.. Anyone??

Also Wolverine, how come you don't explain for everyone that many of the people in Guantanamo have been proven to be innocent? This is shading the truth again on your part. You try to make the distinction between countries by saying “The basic difference is that both the South Koreans and the Brit sailors were kidnapped. They were innocent victims held for political reasons” which implies that the “suspected” terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, held by Americans, have not been innocent people as well? Wrong again my friend and I am sorry to break your heart, but a vast number of people who suffer from physical and mental torture by the Americans in Guantanomo, have been proven to be innocent. Sad isn't it?

This is not to say that innocent people are not being held in other countries…this is not my argument in case you are not following again, but I want to make clear that we should “not lie” to make our own positions stronger…the POW comment was disappointing on your part, and so is trying to make the distinction that “innocents” are held by other countries in comparison to the humans we torture in Guantanomo bay. We have been holding some very innocent people as well. We should not blur the truth. If we blur it, we show that there is something jaded about our own argument here at home. If we do not speak the truth, then we will also show the world that we hold a double-standard. We don't, do we?

CNN.com - Annan: Shut Guantanamo prison camp - Feb 17, 2006 (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/16/un.guantanamo/index.html)

This is from CNN, to show you Wolverine, and Captain that in Gitmo, there is something called “enemy combatant”.
I will paste some of it for you here:

In a report out Thursday, U.N. experts said the United States should close the Guantanamo Bay camp "without further delay" and either try the roughly 500 detainees held there or release them.
"There's a lot in the report, and I cannot say that I necessarily agree with everything," Annan said. But he said the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay can't be held "in perpetuity" and need to be "given a chance to explain themselves."
"I think sooner or later there will be a need to close Guantanamo, and I think it will be up to the government to decide, hopefully, to do it as soon as is possible," he said.
The Bush administration dismissed the findings of the report, with White House spokesman Scott McClellan calling it "a rehash" of claims made by lawyers for some of those prisoners.
The 54-page report concluded that prisoners held in Guantanamo, most of whom were captured in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, should be able to challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body and be released if no grounds for imprisonment are found. (Watch clips of dramatic new film about Gitmo detainees -- 2:23)
"This right is currently being violated," it added. "The executive branch of the United States government operates as judge, prosecutor and defense counsel of the Guantanamo Bay detainees."
The United States has defended the use of the facility to hold "enemy combatants" without charges for as long as the "war on terror" may last.

What? I really hope you are not full of lies and manipulation, and that you are joking or have made a mistake. I don’t have much time either, but where have you been? The fact of the matter is that the American held “suspected terrorists” are not PRISONERS OF WAR (POWs) because after September 11th , the Bush administartion wanted suspected terrorist or kidnapees to be treated by “extrajudicial” means. Go around the world and say "POW" and they will laugh at you, because everyone knows they were classified as "enemy combatants".

The detainees held are being classified as “enemy combatants” and not POW’s… so I am sorry to break your heart by exposing this. This means, as the USA has been doing, the Geneva Convention does NOT APPLY! Only recently in July has the department of defense ruled that the Geneva Convention should be intact because of the insane torture and breaking of the Geneva Convention that has been going on by the American system… why?

No they are not POWs...intead, think "enemy combatants". Or maybe you just did not know what a POW is?

POW gets to be innocent until proven guilty. When the United Stated denied this of their detainees, it became in violation of the Geneva Convention. This is because the “enemy combatants” are not permitted to see lawyers, can be tortured, etc,. Under the Geneva Convention, the interrogation of soldiers through mental or physical torture is ILLEGAL.

And then here you are telling everyone they are POWs? I guess you have made the same mistake as Captain? Who said by mistake "Iran" instead of "Afghan" in his question that started this post (although Iran had nothing to do with this). Captain admitted he was wrong and made a "mistake", and I think you should seriously tell everyone what they already know: that the "suspected terrorists" in Gitmo, under the Bush administration, were not recognized as POWs, going against the Geneva Convention.

Anyway, I am with the War on Terror, but I do wish that we were holding "POWs" in Guantanamo Bay, but no, not the case! The fact that you have made the mistake of saying "POW" shows that you are for the same kind of America that I am, and that you are unsatisfied with some of the things that are going on. We cannot let ourselves stoop to the level of uncivilized nations.

Ummm, Big10, I think you have misundertood the entire point of that classification. The point of classifying them as "enemy combatants" was so that they could be treated as POWs rather than as CRIMINALS which is what most liberals want them to be treated as. A POW is by nature an enemy combatant rather than a criminal. The point was to take terrorism out of the realm of "criminal activity" and reclassify it, correctly, as an act of war. The Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants, and thus POWs, and are not subject to the judicial system. The classification of "enemy combatants" is what makes them POWs. You, along with many others, have missed the point of what that classification means.

As a side note, they are also UNLAWFUL enemy combatants, because they attack civilians, do not wear uniforms, and regularly break the established rules of war. As such, they are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, but are being given those protections anyway. But that doesn't mean that they aren't POWs.

They are POWs whether they are lawful or unlawful enemy combatants. And as such, they are not kidnappees. That makes them legally different from the South Koreans held by the Taliban and the Brits held by Iran.

BTW, did you know that according to the Geneva Conventions, it is illegal to charge an enemy fighter with a crime for doing his job as an enemy soldier? That is, a soldier cannot be tried for the "crime" of killing his enemy on the field of battle and punished/executed for doing his job as a soldier. So, if we are going to apply the protections of the GC to the Gitmo detainees, we must not treat them as criminals, but rather as captured enemy combatants who are now prisoners of war. Were you aware of that fact?

Elliot

Ummm, Big10, I think you have misundertood the entire point of that classification. The point of classifying them as "enemy combatants" was so that they could be treated as POWs rather than as CRIMINALS which is what most liberals want them to be treated as. A POW is by nature an enemy combatant rather than a criminal. The point was to take terrorism out of the realm of "criminal activity" and reclassify it, correctly, as an act of war. The Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants, and thus POWs, and are not subject to the judicial system. The classification of "enemy combatants" is what makes them POWs. You, along with many others, have missed the point of what that classification means.

No I think you are missing the point: they are not being treated as POWs, but simply as unlawful enemy combatants. I was calling you on what you were trying to make people believe under your argument. You try to make the distinction between countries by saying “The basic difference is that both the South Koreans and the Brit sailors were kidnapped. They were innocent victims held for political reasons” which implies that the “suspected” terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, held by Americans, have not been innocent people as well? And it is odd of you to say “Well the point of classifying them as enemy combatants was…” when you in fact said “POW” in the first place to only present that America was acting “morally” when it came to Guantanomo bay. What goes, in fact, with the treatment of enemy combatants in Gitmo, is some very immoral things. No amount of, Elliot, circular reasoning can disprove this. And if immorality (the physical and psychological torture of 'suspects' in Gitmo) is being done in the name of the law, as you Elliot are proposing, then go back to the day that slavery worked within a legal frame in America. It was the law right? So it was justified? I see. And wait... was it a law that let both sides make slaves out of each other? No. Double standard. And I'll show you how in what follows.


As a side note, they are also UNLAWFUL enemy combatants, because they attack civilians, do not wear uniforms, and regularly break the established rules of war. As such, they are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, but are being given those protections anyway. But that doesn't mean that they aren't POWs.

As a side note, my point after your comments, is and was that “no”, like the Korean soldiers, we are also holding innocent people, and you are neglecting this fact. And maybe you should research how frightfully the “unlawful” enemy combatant is defined, as is being used by the logic of the administration. I'm going to give you some examples.


BTW, did you know that according to the Geneva Conventions, it is illegal to charge an enemy fighter with a crime for doing his job as an enemy soldier? That is, a soldier cannot be tried for the "crime" of killing his enemy on the field of battle and punished/executed for doing his job as a soldier. So, if we are going to apply the protections of the GC to the Gitmo detainees, we must not treat them as criminals, but rather as captured enemy combatants who are now prisoners of war. Were you aware of that fact?

This seems like the classic double standard Elliot: picking and choosing which parts of the law we like (even when it comes to torturing others) while then cleverly shading the truth and pointing at the “other” when the law is not followed. This is the double-standard that creates an air of hostility, racism, and ends in War. Elliot, what you are doing is trying to campaign for torturing, both mentally and physically, suspected terrorist in Gitmo (many of which have been proven to be innocent civilians). I ask you, were you aware of the “fact” that it is terrorism to torture someone who is innocent? No amount of wording or literary-puff can prove otherwise.

It is in the place of a legal system, courts, and lawyers that someone can usually be innocent until proven guilty… See here? The whole use of “enemy combatant” in the place of POW is obscene.

Elliot, you said “So, if we are going to apply the protections of the GC to the Gitmo detainees, we must not treat them as criminals, but rather as captured enemy combatants who are now prisoners of war” you have left out something very important. Why is the international community finding the logic behind Gitmo dangerous? Were you aware of this: alien enemy combatants that commit any form of hostility against America or even support it, will now be denied of their rights under the Geneva Convention.
Interesting, because this means that if someone is an American citizen, they still get the protection of the Geneva Convention, even if they are committing the same thing that an Afghan does. Double-standard (and similar to the kind of laws we use to see involving "black" people). Under the logic of the Senate, and the Bush administration's use of “enemy combatant”, even someone who is against the War on Terror can be taken in as a suspected terrorist and deprived of POW status, and have their rights under Geneva to be overturned.
And as we have seen, people have come out innocent, but released after being both physically and mentally tortured.

Let me make this clear in case someone thinks I am anti-American; I'm a republican and I am with the War on Terror. But I am not with the way we are approaching the War on Terror, nor am I with any double standards, shading the truth, or manipulating people so that our position looks stronger.

I will paste something for you, according to the United Nations on Terrorism. Look closely at number 2, which explains that provoking a state of terror in a particular person for political or ideological reasons, is “terrorism”. And according to the Geneva Convention, the practices of Americans in Guantanomo Bay, is illegal.

UN Resolution language (1999):
"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

I have to say Big10 that is refreshing to see an American and a Republican at that who does not simply see through rose colored glasses.

The double standards shown by many with these glasses on is quite astounding. The use of torture along with the complete disregard for the law.

Hearings before the military commission at Guantanamo Bay are, for the most part, a contrived affair, played out for the benefit of the media and public.

Afters years of design and redesign the military commissions process could not and still has not risen above its flaws and produced anything like an internationally accepted justice system.

I continue to give example of this in my posts but and it continually fails to get a response. Perhaps it is in the too hard p basket or perhaps it is seen as irrelevant to this discussion. Not sure.

But 5 and a half years in detention, two without legal representation and two and a half before he was even charged, and during which time he was tortured. Finally a political solution had to be found for his situation. And that is only because we are now in an election year and this was becoming quite a head ache for the Government.

I fail to see the difference between the torture used by the US government and that which so many of those who so blindly support the war and everything it encompasses accuse our enemy of using.

It is amazing that two adverse Supreme Court decisions and numerous other forced changes to the military commissions process still hasn't shaken some peoples confidence in the system. WOW!

Big10,

Define "innocent"? Are they "innocent" as in "they never committed any terrorist acts"? Or are they "innocent" as in "we can't prove it in a court of law"?

And are you aware of the fact that a large percentage (I have read 80%, but I can't remember where) of the so-called "innocent" Gitmo detainees that have been released due to "lack of evidence" have been proven to have gone back to fight alongside other terrorist groups against us? Innocent my @$$. You leave off this little fact about the "innocent" Gitmo detainees.

You cannot apply the criminal justice system to POWs (no matter what you call them). They aren't criminals and shouldn't be treated as criminals. Otherwise they will end up being released, and then go on to fight against you elsewhere. That is why the GC provides for keeping POWs incarcerated until the end of hostilities.

Elliot

ETWolverine ,

"And are you aware of the fact that a large percentage (I have read 80%, but I can't remember where) of the so-called "innocent" Gitmo detainees that have been released due to "lack of evidence" have been proven to have gone back to fight alongside other terrorist groups against us? Innocent my @$$. You leave off this little fact about the "innocent" Gitmo detainees."

Not to argue, but it has been an interesting post to read..

I just wanted to point out to you that when someone is being held prisoner for whatever reason, even if the person is innocent there will ferment a hatred for the authorities keeping him or her and by the time they are released without charge then the hatred may push a person to fight alongside anyone in order to fight a common enemy.

I am talking from a very human point and stating my opinion and not for the sake of argument (I repeat not for arguement):)

I just wanted to point out to you that when someone is being held prisoner for whatever reason, even if the person is innocent there will ferment a hatred for the authorities keeping him or her and by the time they are released without charge then the hatred may push a person to fight alongside anyone in order to fight a common enemy.

I am talking from a very human point and stating my opinion and not for the sake of arguement (I repeat not for arguement):)

Firm,

I knew someone was going to bring that up... the argument that they weren't terrorists till we made them that way.

I have had a lot of people do things to me that I intesely disliked and even hated. I was mentaly and emotionally abused as a child by one of my teachers for 9 years. I was screwed around with and abused in ways that would make you hair curl if I took the time to express it. Somehow, I managed to avoid becoming a terrorist or criminal (or an abuser... I got help and broke the cycle of abuse). So did all of the abuse victims that I associate with, even though they had far more "cause" to become terrorists or criminals than the Gitmo detainees, who have been nothing but coddled in Gitmo.

Three Halal meals a day, with a pretty nice looking menu, prayer time and religious services, soccer fields, game rooms, excersize rooms, etc. does not sound like abuse to me... having suffered abuse and being able to recognize abuse when I see it.

If the released detainees were so angry that they felt they had to take some sort of action, they could have become advocates for POW rights, peace protestors, etc. But no, they decided to "become terrorists"... as if this was their first actual offense as terrorists.

In my experience, Firm, people who choose to become terrorists because of some real or imagined wrong that has been done to them are people who intended to become or were already terrorists anyway. The USA didn't turn these guys into terrorists. They were already terrorists, and we released them to do again what they were caught doing the first time, but couldn't "prove".

Sorry, that horse don't run. The guys in Gitmo were already terrorists. And 80% of those released went back to their old ways. The fact that 20% of them didn't is a friggin' miracle.

Elliot

Firm,

I knew someone was going to bring that up... the argument that they weren't terrorists till we made them that way.
I have had a lot of people do things to me that I intesely disliked and even hated. I was mentaly and emotionally abused as a child by one of my teachers for 9 years. I was screwed around with and abused in ways that would make you hair curl if I took the time to express it. Somehow, I managed to avoid becoming a terrorist or criminal (or an abuser... I got help and broke the cycle of abuse). So did all of the abuse victims that I associate with, even though they had far more "cause" to become terrorists or criminals than the Gitmo detainees, who have been nothing but coddled in Gitmo.
Three Halal meals a day, with a pretty nice looking menu, prayer time and religious services, soccer fields, game rooms, excersize rooms, etc., does not sound like abuse to me... having suffered abuse and being able to recognize abuse when I see it.
If the released detainees were so angry that they felt they had to take some sort of action, they could have become advocates for POW rights, peace protestors, etc. But no, they decided to "become terrorists"... as if this was their first actual offense as terrorists.

In my experience, Firm, people who choose to become terrorists because of some real or imagined wrong that has been done to them are people who intended to become or were already terrorists anyway. The USA didn't turn these guys into terrorists. They were already terrorists, and we released them to do again what they were caught doing the first time, but couldn't "prove".

Sorry, that horse don't run. The guys in Gitmo were already terrorists. And 80% of those released went back to their old ways. The fact that 20% of them didn't is a friggin' miracle.

Elliot

Hey Elliot,

I am so sorry to hear that you had to go through such a tough life (I didn't know about this before), but then you turned out to be a good strong human being and for that it must have taken a lot hard work and I commend you for what you have accomplished and still must be.

As I said I am not making excuses for those who use suicide bombing to kill innocents, especially in the name of Islam.
And it is wrong to take a life unjustly no matter who is doing it.
As you said some people do not need a reason to become a murderer or an abuser or a killer in any form.
Not to argue, but do you really believe that when someone is in jail and he is given his food shelter and clothing , the people questioning will coddle them for answers? I don't believe such things happen anywhere in the world (and I include all those who kidnap people for whatever reason)!!

Big10,

Define "innocent"? Are they "innocent" as in "they never committed any terrorist acts"? Or are they "innocent" as in "we can't prove it in a court of law"?

I do believe that you have been “caught” somehow. You tell me how one is proved innocent or not, especially when the rules of Guantanomo Bay favor no court of law. I'm glad you asked this. Please answer everything yourself, and please keep asking questions.

If there is no court of law present to prove them innocent, then could one argue that the people are being released because in the first place, there wasn't nearly enough evidence to show them guilty; to hold someone as a devil-worshiping terrorist; to torture them? Well, the International Community is a little upset that a “suspected Terrorist” being taken to Guantanomo bay could even be someone “against the War”, or someone “hostile” towards America. But wait, only those “hostile” to the part of America that is pro-war.

I would say that the whole releasing of terrorists could have something to do with the fact that…maybe some of the people who were held there in the first place were clearly not terrorists at all. After all, you did point out “we can't prove it in a court of law”. Outside the realm of rational thought? What could possibly go on in a place that exceeds the law? A place that is “above” the law? What does one do when they are “above” the law?


And are you aware of the fact that a large percentage (I have read 80%, but I can't remember where) of the so-called "innocent" Gitmo detainees that have been released due to "lack of evidence" have been proven to have gone back to fight alongside other terrorist groups against us? Innocent my @$$. You leave off this little fact about the "innocent" Gitmo detainees.

My goodness. I was not aware of this 80% that you have mentioned, but I will run with it.
Your whole statement here is only telling me one thing that I never wanted to conclude or see; that maybe, America is helping produce terrorists where they once never even existed? You just put the statistics there. This is very frightening.

This reminds me of things we have all read and heard. There's the case of, for instance, a white-racist-man attacking an innocent black man. The black man who was once innocent comes back and kills the white man. Then, this case could justify for those white racists, when they say to their friends, “man, I told you so…I told you we should've kept those blacks in there place…they just killed one of ours”. I wonder where this story goes. How does this story end? By obliterating the white guys, or, by ridding of the blacks guys? I would say, maybe it's by getting rid of the “garbage” on both sides.

Violence seems to not be the answer then. I am with the War on Terror, like I said before, but I'm starting to think that the way to win this is by thinking of it more as an “ideological one” rather than a physical one. And maybe not every person in a nation is evil. For instance, I surely hope that no one associates me with some of the criminals in America. And then maybe some people are simply, “following orders” like those that torture even on American soil. Now this is much more complicated than “us” versus “them”, isn't it?


You cannot apply the criminal justice system to POWs (no matter what you call them). They aren't criminals and shouldn't be treated as criminals. Otherwise they will end up being released, and then go on to fight against you elsewhere. That is why the GC provides for keeping POWs incarcerated until the end of hostilities.

Elliot

Elliot, you had earlier presented cases where people actually wanted to stay at Guantanomo bay because of the “wonderful” treatment they were getting. Now you are saying that we should “not” apply the justice system when it comes to Guantanomo bay (in defense to me being against the torture that suspected terrorists receive there) because, as you said, the suspected terrorists will get out to only fight against us elsewhere!

Now this doesn't sound right.

What I'm going to say, after listening to you, is, good-God, do not treat them well enough that they will beg to stay at Guantanomo Bay. Like, giving them free healthcare when millions of our own American's can't afford it?
I'm also going to say, after you began to give defenses for the immoral treatment of “suspected terrorist” – many times being proven as innocent civilians, is that Guantanomo should be free of uncivilized tactics.
We already know the terrorists hate us, but then…to get innocent people to hate us too? I think then, violence is not an answer, and I guess your argument does point to the fact that the War on Terrorism could actually be helping produce more terrorism? You said yourself that, “Gitmo detainees that have been released due to 'lack of evidence' have been proven to have gone back to fight alongside other terrorist groups against us?”

Let us not analyze the statistic you gave with any “theories for a minute”. Let us present the facts outside of theory:

People are released from Gitmo on the basis that they are “innocent” by the best intelligence and security forces America has got. Then, 80% of the people we release, we prove that they join to fight against America. WHAT?

Either we are helping produce terrorists where they did not exist once, or, we actually want some terrorists out there. Why?

I'm still with the War on Terror. But now this has gotten very complicated. Should we re-define the War on Terror? Should we change our approach? Is it more of an ideology we are to attack than a specific region or people? Who exactly is the enemy? Is it more than a religion? How? Why? What? Where to go? What to do?

Okay, I'm confused about “how” we approach this War on Terror, but at least I now know a bit of how we “shouldn't” approach it. Some things are just not adding up here.

If there is no court of law present to prove them innocent, then could one argue that the people are being released because in the first place, there wasn't nearly enough evidence to show them guilty; to hold someone as a devil-worshiping terrorist; to torture them? Well, the International Community is a little upset that a “suspected Terrorist” being taken to Guantanomo bay could even be someone “against the War”, or someone “hostile” towards America. But wait, only those “hostile” to the part of America that is pro-war.

I would say that the whole releasing of terrorists could have something to do with the fact that…maybe some of the people who were held there in the first place were clearly not terrorists at all.

My entire point was that there is no "guilt" or "innocence" for POWs. Enemy soldiers aren't "guilty" of anything. They aren't incarcerated because they committed a crime. They are incarcerated because they are the enemy and the rules or war say that you can't arbitrarily kill them. You and Firm are still trying to fit POWs into a criminal justice system in which they do not belong. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole with a big hammer, and you are breaking the peg-board in doing so. POWs aren't guilty or innocent. They are the enemy. Their "guilt" or "innocence" in the legal system is irrelevant to their incarceration.


My goodness. I was not aware of this 80% that you have mentioned, but I will run with it.
Your whole statement here is only telling me one thing that I never wanted to conclude or see; that maybe, America is helping produce terrorists where they once never even existed? You just put the statistics there. This is very frightening.

See my last response to FirmBeliever, above.


This reminds me of things we have all read and heard. There's the case of, for instance, a white-racist-man attacking an innocent black man. The black man who was once innocent comes back and kills the white man. Then, this case could justify for those white racists, when they say to their friends, “man, I told you so…I told you we should've kept those blacks in there place…they just killed one of ours”. I wonder where this story goes. How does this story end? By obliterating the white guys, or, by ridding of the blacks guys? I would say, maybe it's by getting rid of the “garbage” on both sides.

Or, perhaps it ends with the military putting down the violence on both sides, incarcerating the criminals, and not letting sillyvilians with no experience in putting down violence tell them how to treat the enemy.


Violence seems to not be the answer then.

Hate to tell you this, but as I have posted elsewhere, history would seem to differ with your conclusion. Violence has solved more problems than any other form of problem-solving in history. We may not like the result, but there is no denying that violence is an effective means for getting rid of opposition and imposing your will on others. Ghenghis Khan, the Mongols, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Ottomans, the Brits, the Germans, etc. all proved that violence is an effective means of bringing an end to violent opposition.


I am with the War on Terror, like I said before, but I'm starting to think that the way to win this is by thinking of it more as an “ideological one” rather than a physical one. And maybe not every person in a nation is evil. For instance, I surely hope that no one associates me with some of the criminals in America. And then maybe some people are simply, “following orders” like those that torture even on American soil. Now this is much more complicated than “us” versus “them”, isn't it?

Uneccesarily so. It is about us vs. them. THE ENEMY has declared it to be so. This is an ideological war... militant Islam vs. capitalist democracy. Only one side can win this war. Only one side will survive in the long run. And being Mr. Nice-Guy is not the way to survive. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with out-and-out torture of terrorists for information. And I also know that we haven't actually done that, and it makes me angry that those charged with defending this country are doing so with kid gloves.

If I were given that duty, I would sell my soul to protect this country and my family. I would kill and torture the enemy until there was no more enemy. I would be more brutal than the enemy until the enemy realizes that the price of facing me is too high. I would teach the enemy that challenging the USA and a brutal death are the same thing, and I would sleep well at night after doing it. Because anything less is an abrogation of the responsibility given to me to protect this country and my family. Screw the idea of becoming "as bad as them". I want to be WORSE than the enemy, so that the folks at home have the luxury of being better than I am. THAT is the job of those charged with defending our country. They are supposed to be "rough men".

"People sleep soundly in their beds because rough men wait to do violence to those who would harm them." --- George Orwell.


Elliot, you had earlier presented cases where people actually wanted to stay at Guantanomo bay because of the “wonderful” treatment they were getting. Now you are saying that we should “not” apply the justice system when it comes to Guantanomo bay (in defense to me being against the torture that suspected terrorists receive there) because, as you said, the suspected terrorists will get out to only fight against us elsewhere!

Now this doesn't sound right.

Not really. One statement was that there is no torture of POWs going on. That is true. The other was a statement that POWs should not be subject to the criminal justice system. That statement is also true. Neither is contradictory.


What I'm going to say, after listening to you, is, good-God, do not treat them well enough that they will beg to stay at Guantanomo Bay. Like, giving them free healthcare when millions of our own American's can't afford it?

We can talk about healthcare in the USA in another post if you'd like. But that is not the topic of this post.


I'm also going to say, after you began to give defenses for the immoral treatment of “suspected terrorist” – many times being proven as innocent civilians,

Again... innocence and guilt in the legal sense is beside the point. They aren't criminals, they are POWs/enemy combatants. "Guilty" or "innocent" they should be detained until the end of hostilities.


is that Guantanomo should be free of uncivilized tactics.

And I have no proof that that this is not the case.


We already know the terrorists hate us, but then…to get innocent people to hate us too?

It won't matter if the war is over. That's why you hold them indefinitely until the end of hostilities.


I think then, violence is not an answer, and I guess your argument does point to the fact that the War on Terrorism could actually be helping produce more terrorism? You said yourself that, “Gitmo detainees that have been released due to 'lack of evidence' have been proven to have gone back to fight alongside other terrorist groups against us?”

Yes. "Gone back" indicates that they were there before. These guys didn't become first-time-offenders once we released them.


Let us not analyze the statistic you gave with any “theories for a minute”. Let us present the facts outside of theory:

People are released from Gitmo on the basis that they are “innocent” by the best intelligence and security forces America has got. Then, 80% of the people we release, we prove that they join to fight against America. WHAT?

Either we are helping produce terrorists where they did not exist once, or, we actually want some terrorists out there. Why?

"We" don't. Liberals who believe that "terrorists" are just "freedom fighters", who believe in "criminal rights", even though the POWs aren't criminals, and who believe that our military is supposed to be "better" than the rest of the world's militaries are the ones who want them released. And they use the idea that if their "crimes" can't be "proven" they should be released as their excuse to do so. That is the very reason we need to stop this idea that POWs should be put through a court system.


Okay, I'm confused about “how” we approach this War on Terror, but at least I now know a bit of how we “shouldn't” approach it. Some things are just not adding up here.

Only because you are trying to fit that square peg into the round hole. You are trying to fit "war" into the concept of "crime" and because of that, the equation doesn't track. If you keep "war" and "crime" separate, then the equation falls into place quite neatly.

The POWs aren't criminals. Soldiers aren't cops. And neither should be treated like what they aren't. POWs should be detained INDEFINITELY and without trial. If they are legal combatants, they should be treated according to the Geneva conventions. If not, they should not. Soldiers should not have their hands tied when fighting the enemy as if they were cops. They should be brutal killers who's job is to be more brutal and effective at killing their enemies than their enemies are.

With that in mind, the entire equation of "who, what where, when why and how" becomes much simpler.
Who: the enemy wherever it exists.
What: kill them or capture them and hold them indefinitely until the war ends.
When: whenever we see the.
Where: wherever we see them. Right now, that means Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why: because it is a matter of survival, us vs. them, and only one side can survive in the long run. And because that is how to win wars quickly and limit long-term casualty counts that result from long wars.
How: by any means necessary, no matter how brutal or uncivilized it may seem to civillians.