Quote:
Originally Posted by Big10
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
is that Guantanomo should be free of uncivilized tactics.
And I have no proof that that this is not the case.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
