No you missed my point completely. Closing Gitmo does not make us more ethical, it makes us appear that way. It does not strengthen our ethics, it strengthens our reputation. A reputation that was destroyed not by Bush, but by the emotive, exagerrated liberal characterization of Gitmo. I thought there may be confusion here so I included:
<If I say that x is wrong and I continue x, then the world sees me as doing wrong. Not becasue x is wrong, but because I said that it was.>
where x could be anything at all. If a priest swears to be celibate, then has sex, he has done something wrong. But that does not make having sex wrong. It is a subtle point that shoulod be carefully analyzed before being challenged.

You also seemed to have missed the second point where I specifically said lets ignore the defintion of torture and see where it leads. But your general theme seems to be an all or nothing attitude. We are either right in everyway by any measure or we are wrong. I think we can agree that what we do could be used by others for justification. However, you think it justifies anything that is generally similar while I think it is the exception of unique circumstances.

 

ah... so being ethical is not the argument - just appearing ethical is the key...

You'd make a great defense attorney, mate... lol

 

Who is the one worried about appearances? What I care about is what the President says to the rest of the world. I care about how we label our own actions because those labels are used by the rest of the world.

What I am now typing is pointless because even after I suggested that the argument is subtle and needs careful consideration, you reply in minutes, with a few sentences, dismissively.

But I proceede anyway to avoid your confusion. Gitmo was used by the Democrats during the election to rally support. They made statements to the world that what we did at Gitmo was unquestionably wrong and dispacable and underminded our very core principles. True or not, the democrats have declared that it is so. Then they declare that our reputation has been tarnished! But tarnished by thier description as much as by the actual actions.

There are many perspectives to every issue, and the ones that we promote will be the ones that we are judged on.

I dont now how I can explain what is complicated with more clarity.

 

Excuse the term - but calling a spade a spade is the thing here. Gitmo was wrong - we held people there without cause or proper jurisdiction - we just held them off shore away from the eye of American justice - that's what Gitmo was. Patreaus was correct. These war criminals needed to be held on American terms. Not the Bush administrations.

How can we prosecute others for attrocities when we hide our own? You argue a circular contention that we fight a "just" cause, yet can do so "unjustly" because of whom we are fighting. The blind eyes of justice is not to see such arguments, but to treat all the same.

Our actions - no matter how you try to justify them - were wrong - plain and simple. If we continue to act as arrogant as we have over the past 8 yrs we will not have any support from countries outside the US.

We are all nations under God - we don't get to behave above the law no matter what you may think we can get from it. It's just wrong.

 

I dont really understand these attrocities that you talk about. Holding terrorists without trial is an attrocity? Once again you lump these things into a common set without distinction. And I think it is distinction that your argument lacks.

The fact is that military law is different than civil law. How we label these people determines how they may be treated. Soldiers captured in battle may be held, legally, until the end of hostilties...but terrorists deserve the benefits of the American legal system? People held there without cause? There is certaintly a case or two of this, but to say that is what Gitmo represents is exactly the politisizing that I mentioned in my last post. I would say that holding person x without cause was a mistake, not that Gitmo was a mistake.

Even Obama admitted that many of the remaining prisoners will not be sent to trial and we just be moved to a different prison. Somethings will not really change. The distinction in this case is an American prison in Cuba or an American prison in America. Sort of a fine line to use to define "justice."

Obama also said that each prisoner must be considered separately. Instead of saying "Gitmo is wrong" we should say what happened to person x is wrong because of y. Then if you want to talk about be justice, a bullet to the head is what many of them deserve.

 

I lived nearly half my life under the laws of the UCMJ. Btw, did you know according to the UCMJ adultry is a punishable offense?

You speak as if you know what you speak of - but you don't, mate.

POW's are held until you cease hostilities - correct - but that's between two (or more) combatant nations. When you have oraganizations going up against you you have to treat them differently. UCMJ doesn't fully work and there is still due process under UCMJ as well - you can't hold anyone indefinately without a hearing done in a timely fashion.

If you capture an Iraqi soldier during the conflict he is treated as a POW. A civilian without affiliation to wartime army is treated differently.

Gitmo was wrong. It started as something temporary then became an on going thing.

Am I saying that all those held there are innocent? No. Never had. But you can't push people into cells and forget about them - that flies against every right Americans hold dear. Are they intitled to them? Maybe. But as Americans we should treat others the way we expect ourselves to be treated.

Just being an American does not give us freedoms carte blanc. Abroad we fall under other national laws and jurisdictions.

We captured these twits and we need to prosecute them accordingly. Not set up some hideaway, offshore, Devil's Island sort of makeshift prison.

What should have happened, but didn't, was these twits were to be "processed" at Gitmo - determined crimes through a hearing and then shipped elsewhere for prosecution. Not held indefinately or until hostilities cease.

You can look at these fools as members of a militant cult or renegade militia. Either way they still are entitled to due process.

Even in Vietnam we dealt with two combatants - the Northern Vietnamese soldier and the Vietcong guerilla. We still treated them far better than they did us - some feel that American POWs were still held onto after hostilities ceased and we left the country.

Now we are doing this to others? That's wrong. Even Gen. Patreaus said it best:

"With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the attorney general the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward.

But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."

It's time to be responsible - not pretend we're in some episode of "24"

 

Once again we return to the classification of the captured terrorists. I apologize if my comments came off as definitive. I was trying to convey the confusion that exists or existed about the laws that apply to these people. I have not read any conclusive articles that state, the terrorists are clearly defined this way and clearly have these rights and must be treated this way. But this is a technical discussion that will not likely be resolved on this forum.

The philisophical discussion, however, can be productive. You state that we should treat them the way that we expect to be treated. This is a reasonable starting point. In fact, about 70% of the detainess have already been released from Gitmo. The remaining 30% represent the most dangerous people and complicated cases. Again, I think this distinction and context is important. So lets ask the question,

as a terrorist who has sworn jihad against the US, follows no code of military conduct, is suspected of targeting innocent civilians, and is captured in fog of war. How would you expect to be treated?

It is difficult for me to imagine myself in their shoes. Its hard for me to comprehend the outrage at how on average these prisoners were treated. I lack the degree of liberal empathy that would allow me to argue for equal rights for someone like that. But I dont pretend to be perfect.

If we look at exactly what the General said, he is in favor of closing Gitmo to send a "meassge to the world." But this is after we sent the message that what has happened at Gitmo is dispicable and UnAmerican. This goes back to my previous posts about being judged on the perspectives that we promote.

If you read or heard Obama's speech about Gitmo he clearly states that some of the remaining prisoners will likely have to remain in prison without trial. This admission does not look good for your argument. Even Obama is admitting that holoding some without trial is necessary.

In his speech, Obama also makes a profound philisophical mistatement. He declares that Gitmo is a symbol of a lapse of American values. And therefore, he states, it serves as a recruitment tool for future terrorists. I think Cheney said it best when he said that the terrorist hate America because of our values, not because of a failure to act according to our values.

 

You have lived in America, right?

Sorry, mate, but that's just one stupid question. Who gives a hairy rat's *** who they swear alligence to? God, Satan, Micheal Jackson - it desn't matter.

Do you think criminals "follow the rules"? Police still have to. Same applies to war. This argument holds no water. Treatment is the same. Regardless of how dispicable or vile the act - the "treatment" is the same onc captured.

What in the hell do we have laws for? Let's act like them and just start beheading them on video or gas their villages or brainwash your neighbor to strap on explosives for some holy cause. Why not? The Christians did that (sans video taped evidence and explosives) during the crusades long ago. The Muslims did it back shortly there after.

We're better than that. There is no philosophical discussion. Let Cheney try that tactic - it's bullshit now as it was back then.

You can't fight the "good" fight and do it dirty. If so, you pay the price, regardless of results.

Again this is not an episode of "24"

 

Yes I live in America. The terrorists do not. If you have an article that describes where they fit into existing law than post it and I will read it carefully. I dont think that they should share the same priveldges as American citizens. If my question is stupid, then you are calling yourself stupid since you asked it first. BUt your answer seems to be that terrorists should be treated like civil criminals.

I dont expect you to have time to answer all of my questions, but you should find the time to analyze Obama's assetion that some of the prisoners will continued to be held without trial. Because it is really the lack of a speedy trial that you find so intolerable. Obviously our civil system treats people differently based on the severity of their crime. Some are executed. Hardened criminals goto supermax prisons. Others have socail interaction, TV, and other amenities.

It is a bizarre stance to compare the lack of a trial to suicide bombing. Your logic is that if we dont give them a speedy trial we might as well rape their families. I reject such sensationalism. Once again, you speak about broad sets without distinction. Saying that Gitmo implies that we fight "dirty" is another generalization that uses a small part of the cause to characterize the entire war effort. We dropped atom bombs on Japanese civilians but I would still say that we fought WWII with honor and dignity.

Ignoring the philisophical discussion is a convenient way to avoid the controversy. If you dont think their is a deep philisophical divide bewteen the current and last administration then you are clueless to current events.

A simple yes or no about the Cheney statement would be helpful to the discussion. Do you think the terrorists hate us because of our values? I read an article that said the Islamic extremist reject the very notion of "pursuit of happiness." Cheney and Bush both say that waterboarding prevented a specific attack in the US. Obama denies this and is the only person in the world that can declassify the douments that will clarify it. He refuses to release the documents, citing Bush policy (LOL) and that tells me that memos refute Obama. It is up to him to prove them wrong.

It is important because Obamas world view has a major impact on our actions. He thinks that if we live a certain way, the whole world will respect us. He thinks that Iran should be appraoched in the same way as North Korea. And this has led to nuclear proliferation.

 

Where did the word "civil" come into this? Justice both swift and sure needs to be handed out - nothing more or less. But to say that the right to a speedy trial or habeus corpus is only an American right... think again. Even the UCMJ affords those rights to captured combatants.

No, you're incorrect. Our justice system tries to treat everyone the same - punishments are the variable that fits the crime - after they have been tried and convicted. None of the detainees at Gitmo have been tried as of last I heard.

Suicide bombing? If he's successful, what's left to try? lol

My logic was never to go after the families. Even mass murders in this country don't have their families attacked... stay focused and don't go all Glenn Beckian on me here... lol

The bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshoma were so devasting that to use that type of weapon (a true WMD) today takes waaaay too many checks and balances to avoid a misstep it's incredible. We know what it can do now. The US would be very hard pressed to do so again.

Of course there was - Bush/Cheney felt the President was above it all. That is wrong and even our founding fathers knew that - so much so they set up the three levels of government to make sure none will ursurp the power of the their elected office.

Obama understands that - Cheney obviously still doesn't.

So they hate us for our beliefs? So what? Yes or no it doesn't make anything different.

Now here is where you fail. Even if waterboarding uncovered every cell in the US - it's still torture and it's still wrong. It's doesn't matter AT ALL what you get from it. Even Bush declared that the US will not torture prisoners - and then found some convenient way to dance around the issue and then point and declare "But look! It saved lives!"

Even if it works this time - what's stopping others from doing it more to get similar results? Waterboarding ain't cutting it - let's try shock therapy
or psychodelic drugs!

The **** doesn't end - why do you think they wrote the Geneva Convention articles in the first place?

America, for the past century or more, has influenced the world's mood more than any other nation of late. If America prospers, the world does too. If America falters so will rest. From our policital stances and policies to our fast food and motion picture culture. Nothing we do goes unnoticed.

So now we have a President that feels that our "age or arrogance" needs to fade away and we need to be more respectful - I, for one, applaud his efforts.

Why do Islamic extremist hate us so much - we push our policies where don't need to be most of the time.

You and I both know not everyone is going to love America and her people. But I feel it's time to prove that we are more than the thugs they think we have become.