Hey, Mr. President, we can't prove these Muslims are guilty!

[Partha]

So? Lock 'em up for life!

[Klast Brell]

How many ways are there of saying "I told you so"?

[Relbeek Einre]

Not nearly enough.

It's one of those days I hope there is a God because I know the fuckers in our government responsible for this aren't likely to face justice for their crimes in this world.

[McBash]

Why are we holding them in the first place? Is there some reason to believe that if released these individuals would constitute a real threat to us? Not having enough proof to stand up in court is not a huge problem for me, you cant apply the same criteria towards people who resided in country ourside our realm of influence when commiting their crimes against us.

I would however like to see some civilian court review of all of these prisoners status before moving forward with any 'lifetime' interment.

I can just imagine the uproar if we released these people and they ended up engineering another 9/11. Its not as black and white as it may seem, as I would submit we dont know even a fraction about these people that the military does. I think they have had these guys long enough to start letting us have more knowledge about them and to start letting our civilian auhtoritys start getting more involved as I do agree that how we deal with and treat these people is a reflection of us as a whole, and we have the right to know why such drastic measures are being considered.

In the interim tho, I would allow that some of the guys are very bad people, and we should proceed very carefully before allowing them the chance to strike at us again.

McBash

[Cartumandua]

What I said about not learning our lessons on the japanese american detentions.

That.

[Narith]

McBash so you are saying you wouldn't mind if they threw you into these prisons for the rest of your life because of your religious or political beliefs? Even though you have done nothing, commited no crime, just because of your views on the American government you are deemed a threat. Where does it stop? Most Aribic muslims view America as the anti-christ does t hat mean we lock up any of our own legal citizens for being a muslim with an aribian heritage? What about other political dissadents? If we lock these people away for life with no proof then should we not lock away all political dissadents as they pose a potential threat? Do we really need to turn into world war two Germany before people stop and say "Hey, wait a minute. Maybe we are doing something wrong."

You say you have no problem locking people away for life with no proof if they pose a potential threat, perhaps you have no problem executing them with no trial or evidence simply because you deem them a threat. When the people commiting attrocities like this turn thier sights on you becuase you disagree with one of thier views somewhere down the line you have no one to blame but yourself for letting these people get away with these crimes.

[McBash]

Im dont mean to be harsh about this Narith, but your grasp on matters couldnt be weaker. First off, you attributed a ton of things to me that I never said, and secondly, we are not talking about people imprisoned for being arabic, or muslim, the folks down in Cuba are presumably captured Al-quaeda, you remember them dont you? Terrorrists who have claimed thousands of lifes.....................

Hysteria makes for a weak argument.

I dont think its to much to ask to take things in context.

McBash

[Klast Brell]

the folks down in Cuba are presumably captured Al-quaeda, you remember them dont you?

Yup presumably. Not positively, not definately, just presumably.

Terrorrists who have claimed thousands of lifes.....................

Golly, You sure drank the Kool Aid. It sure is lucky for the President that people like you can be brain washed so easily.

Just keep repeating "September 11" untill the world looks black and white again

[Klast Brell]

And while we are on the subject of I Told You So
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=7193374

A spokeswoman for state Sen. Michael Balvoni, who sponsored the bill, said he does not mind that prosecutors have decided gang violence is a form of domestic terrorism and are using the statute to prosecute Morales.

[Riggen]

A quote from the article:

But it should never be justifiable to use laws with purposes other than their original intent.

This is something I can agree with 100%. If you want to apply existing law in a new direction, then draft a new bill and get it passed through Congress the proper way rather than twisting it to suit your needs.

[vaulos]

Britain is actually doing something similar.

[McBash]

Gee Klast, now your saying Al-qaeda didnt take down the trade center? And yeah, for me, with people who are PRESUMED to have been apart of the organization that planned and carried it out, I would rather error on the side of our national safety.

I am not talking about people who POSSIBLY are guilty, these people are probably guilty, and if your hatred for any decision this administration does is so great that you would loose the kind of assholes who would do such a thing apon the world, then you need help, serious help.

I did call for civilian intervention on these, its not like I want to blindly allow the military to do whatever it pleases, but your hysterical lashing out and your PRESUMPTIONs about how this is going to somehow end your personal liberties is nothing more than chicken little stuff as far as I am concerned.

Honestly Klast, you seem to be far and away the most angry poster who comes here, its a shame your not muslim and reside in the middle east, they know how to appreciate anger like yours.

McBash

[Relbeek Einre]

A) McBash, you've drunk the Kool-Aid. People in Guantanamo include "presumed" members of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban (who harbored al-Qaeda but is not known to have participated in 9-11), and insurgent movements in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

B) If they are "probably" guilty (guilty of what is the question), then putting them on trial shouldn't be an ussue.

C) Klast, I assume, and myself, are unconvinced the people they want to hold for life without trial are the danger that you seem so certain that they are. (Your faith in the Bush administration is admirable, if sadly misplaced.) We want more scrutiny and oversight before we stick these people in a hole and forget about them.

I'm willing to stipulate that the rules are different in warfare than they are in peacetime, and I'm even willing to stipulate that this nebulous "war" qualifies as warfare. However, this doesn't mean the rules are "do whatever the Administration wants."

[Torakus]

Nah, Relbeek and Klast have sat at a bong filled with some wicked paranoia for way too long.

The article starts by presuming something and presents half truths about actual government plans (the building of a new prison at Gitmo and funding prisons in source nations) mingling them with "reports" from un-named sources "within" the defense department, and hope you have sat in front of said bong just long enough to buy into it. The scary thing is, some really intelligent folks like Relbeek and Klast jump in feet first and never even think of second guessing the reporter (too busy doing that to the government and military I suppose).

Don't get me wrong. If there is even a grain of truth to this, then it is deplorable, and I would hope that an actual policy of life long detention of prisoner not brought to trial for lack of evidence would be slapped down by even the most conservative of SCs. Unfortunately this is sensationalist journalism at work again.

Torakus

[Embar Angylwrath]

I agree we shouldn't hold them without due process. Ship them to Pakistan.

[Relbeek Einre]

Torakus, nothing would please me more than to learn this report is inaccurate.

Reuters is a reliable newswire, though.

[McBash]

Relbeek, the fact that insurgents from Iraq are being held along side with the captives from Afghanistan is news to me. I absolutely dont think the same approach applys. I also never said I didnt want to see these people go through some due process, infact I called for them to do just that.

My argument is that simply allowing for the fact that some of these people may end up being 'detained' permanatly is not in of by itself a bad thing or a wrong thing. I also abslutely think its beyond ludicrous to expect the same rules of evidence and law to apply to these captured enemys who commited their crimes outside of our borders in an enviorment that simply doesnt lend itself for those rules to apply.

What perplexes me, is that far to many people seem to be looking for only the bad, or the possibly bad, and ignore all other parts of the equations. These people probably are not there by mistake, we have little incentive to take them there in error. That doesnt mean some error cant occur, and is why I from the beggining called for civilian intervention and review. Once apon a time, when the information these prisoners had was timely and valuable, our right to know was probably trumped, I think the timeline for that is probably past now tho, and as such the military should relinquish its monopoly control on their status. Thats doesnt mean I dont think some of those fuckers dont deserve everything thats being proposed and even worse.

I dont have much faith, let alone blind faith in the 'Bush administration', what I also dont have is a presumption of guilt for those who oversee these prisoners, nor a kneejerk reaction to anything that occurs during this adminstration.

To many of you cant see past your hate, and anyone who doesnt share that hate with you is drinking the 'Kool-aid'? give me a break, I dont look for anyone elses opinion to form my own, I simply apply my value structure to each situation as I encounter it, and in this case, the concept of locking up terrorists who were apart of an organization that killed thousands of US citizens, for life, is not at all unappealing. Guilt by association in this case for me applys. If it doesnt for you, then we just disagree, but to this point, I dont think thats the issue, I think its just another anti Bush rant, and this time its pretty much without merit. Sometimes you guys seem to want to make Bush out to be a bad guy sooooo badly, that you forget who the bad guys really are, whoops, more Koolaid for me, yeah yeah I know.................

McB

[Partha]

Relbeek, the fact that insurgents from Iraq are being held along side with the captives from Afghanistan is news to me.

This is the medical condition known as I Don't Pay Attention Syndrome.

For your information (and this was all publicly printed when we first started using Guantanamo as our special US-law proof holding cell), the prisoners in Guantanamo are a ragbag. Some are Al-Qaeda. Some are Taliban. Some, they're not sure WHAT the hell they are other than people from other countries who picked up a gun and went to Afghanistan to fight the US for whatever reason. There's also at least one case of someone who knew someone who knew someone involved in 9/11 ending up there. And, yes, there are also people there from Iraq who were captured.

MY beef is, they've had many of these folks in captivity from the early days of the Afghan invasion in 2002. They've had the chance to interrogate them. They've had the chance to torture them. (Yes, torture. That's what the new US Army investigation called some of the interrogations they witnessed and investigated, that's the word I'll use) They've had plenty of time to wring them dry of every piece of information they could extract from them, and they haven't gotten around to charging them with anything that could stick them in front of a court OR a military tribunal. If the evidence is that weak, I dispute the idea that locking them up for life is a good idea.

And yes, there is a nasty little back corner of my mind that suggests that this is where all the captives who were REALLY worked over will go - away from lawyers, away from law, away from public scrutiny, just so that high ranking military and civilian figures who authorized this stuff won't go to jail. It's un-American. It reeks of overturning nearly every single value I was brought up to believe made America great. Hopefully enough people think like me and won't let this die on page 12 of the NYT.

[Relbeek Einre]

If they're members of al Qaeda, McBash, I have no problem with locking them up for life.

That said, I think it should be proven that these people were, in fact, members of al Qaeda, before doing so, and not just someone in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That's where you fail. You presume those being locked up are the terrorists claimed. I want that to be independently determined.

[Alannia_Raindancer]

I'm not a big fan of letting people who threaten country or family walk free, McBash. Our own legal system makes me shiver sometimes, with stories ranging from repeat offenders to death row inmates being found innocent 10+ years later. Oh, to invent a mechanism that would prove, without doubt, that a person was guilty or innocent! Since such exists only in science fiction, I'm afraid we're stuck simply with reality.

There were several key words in that article that I think are important:

The Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Possible: From Webster's dictionary, definition 2, being something that may or may not occur; being something that may or may not be true or actual <possible explanation>

I think that we need to wait and see where this ends up. I haven't seen enough information about WHY they're being detained, let alone why it's being considered an indefinate situation, to pass judgement at this point. And it may very well be that a decision will come down that they can't and won't make this permanant.

Does not have enough evidence to charge in courts: There is no question here. If they do not have evidence to charge them with a crime, they don't have evidence to hold them, temporarily OR indefinately. Does it frighten me that someone might be let go even though they are guilty and planning more pain, just because we don't have evidence? Yes, it does! But it frightens me just as much to think that "innocent" people could be locked up forever (I'm using the term innocent to cover military prisoners, as well as other true "innocents"). You claim that it's not necessarily a bad thing. For the greater good, perhaps? I understand that position very, VERY well when I sit here freely typing at my computer, snacking on a sandwich at 2am, with my loved ones a room away.

But how you would scream if our soldiers were being held in another country for life, for following orders, or better yet, if you were being held in connection with a crime when no evidence could be presented that you were involved in that crime, and were being told it was for "the greater good". Maybe I'm wrong, that you'd accept your fate quietly, but I'd put money down to the contrary.

For the record, I thought I saw where you were going with all this in your original post, and didn't totally disagree with you. Unlike some, I don't play the "word for word" game, and think I'm pretty good at getting the gist of a message without picking it apart. But when you said:

McBash Said:

its a shame your not muslim and reside in the middle east, they know how to appreciate anger like yours.

And

And yeah, for me, with people who are PRESUMED to have been apart of the organization that planned and carried it out, I would rather error on the side of our national safety.

Those items lead me to believe that your talk about actually caring for trials and evidence is nothing more than talk.

I believe that you may be correct, that the reason these aren't going to court is because our court system may not be set up for this kind of thing. I believe that a majority of people in this prison likely deserve to be there. I do not believe that it is prudent of us as a country to lock people away for life without a trial, and while you've claimed that you think they should get one, you argue against people who have demanded no more than that...it makes me curious....