Guant?namo Prison - the dark side of the "free world"

[Klaus]

STING2:
Terrorism is a crime, so why aren't those people who could be Terrorists (and therefore criminals) treated like people who could be criminals?
Just because G.W.B. tells us it is a war?
Terrorism is a crime, not a war.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

STING2:
Terrorism is a crime, so why aren't those people who could be Terrorists (and therefore criminals) treated like people who could be criminals?
Just because G.W.B. tells us it is a war?
Terrorism is a crime, not a war.

Jihad-A religious war against infidels or Mohammedan heretics; also, any bitter war or crusade for a principle or belief.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

that is no fucking crime... that is an act of war. maybe if you could smell the sulfur-like odor of melted steel and charcoaled bodies from your front yard for weeks afterwords, you'd feel this way, too.

if these a-holes believe they are at war with us, then we certianly should oblige.

or maybe i'm just being naive.

 

[Klaus]

Headache in a Suitcase:
This is a crime!

When i look at this thread i'm surprised that you publish this picture here also relatives of the victims could disslike it.

So you think it's not one criminal organisation but a jihad, a crusade muslims vs. christians?

Klaus

 

[meegannie]

Are incidents of domestic terrorism acts of war as well?

 

[STING2]

Ok to all of you who keep saying "this is war" and "they are prisoners of war" then what's keeping them from just locking up the whole Middle East until they decide on the rules? Obviously they didn't catch most of these people with gun in hand aiming at us, or waving some flag. So why not just lock up the whole damn place until we figure these things out cause honestly they really don't have to have a reason to be locked up, that's what all of you are saying. They don't need one f##king reason.

If they did have a reason to lock these people up then come forth and prove your case and let the innocent free. How hard is this to understand. You don't throw out all logic because the environment of this so called "war" changes.

The United States Military and intelligence services have gone after people they know or believe to be serious threats to security. They are not just picking people at random. It about time people here start to respect the hard work that the men and women of the US Military and intelligence services do every day to prevent the next 9/11.

If anything, they need to cast their nets wider in order to catch more of these terrorist. It is a mistake to compromise the lives and security of millions of people in order to insure that there will be no mistakes in regards to the capture and imprisonment of terrorist.

You cannot engage in war fighting and have the expection that no innocent civilians will accidentally be killed. You cannot also expect that in attempting to fight a terrorist organization like Al Quada that there will be no mistakes.

The military and intelligence services have captured or killed those individuals that based on their experience in the field and training, they see as threats to global security.


Do you honestly think the US military should have given every German and Japanese soldier captured the opportunity for a trial and the chance to go free in the middle of a war?

How many lives do you want to risk by potentially letting terrorist get away?

It is a good thing to be concerned about the potential that innocent people are locked up. But I'm far more concerned about preventing the next 9/11 that could kill thousands or even millions of people. The lives of that many people have priority over the potential that there might be a few people locked up by mistake.

 

[STING2]

STING2:
Terrorism is a crime, so why aren't those people who could be Terrorists (and therefore criminals) treated like people who could be criminals?
Just because G.W.B. tells us it is a war?
Terrorism is a crime, not a war.

Its a crime only in the sense of a general definition. Its a war because of the potential number of lives at risk. It would be a mistake to potentially allow terrorist to get away and kill thousands or millions of people because of attempts to prevent all possibilities of locking someone up by mistake. The lives of millions of people take priority over the potential that there are a few people locked up by mistake.

 

[STING2]

Are incidents of domestic terrorism acts of war as well?

They can be. Certainly during the Civil war, the Union Army did not give Confederate prisoners a trial and opportunity to get out of prison.

 

[BVS]

The United States Military and intelligence services have gone after people they know or believe to be serious threats to security. They are not just picking people at random. It about time people here start to respect the hard work that the men and women of the US Military and intelligence services do every day to prevent the next 9/11.

Quit with the "it's about time we respect" bullshit. Because one questions the means and actions of this administration does not mean we lose all respect for our military.
Any how many have been released without charge? Obviously their intelligence is flawed.

If anything, they need to cast their nets wider in order to catch more of these terrorist. It is a mistake to compromise the lives and security of millions of people in order to insure that there will be no mistakes in regards to the capture and imprisonment of terrorist.

Like I said lock up the whole Middle East that should be a large enough net for the time being, until the next wave of terrorists hit.

Do you honestly think the US military should have given every German and Japanese soldier captured the opportunity for a trial and the chance to go free in the middle of a war?

They were soldiers wearing uniforms and bearing arms held at us, it wasn't flawed intelligence that led us to them. This comparison doesn't work.

How many lives do you want to risk by potentially letting terrorist get away?

How is ensuring justice and asking for evidence for detainment letting terrorist get away? I don't get it. Has anyone here asked for the guilty to be set free? Where do you get this?

It is a good thing to be concerned about the potential that innocent people are locked up. But I'm far more concerned about preventing the next 9/11 that could kill thousands or even millions of people. The lives of that many people have priority over the potential that there might be a few people locked up by mistake.

Once again how is allowing representation, justice served, or asking for charges going to change this. Are we so afraid of our system that guilty terrorist may be set free, is this what we fear.

 

[STING2]

BonoVoxSupastar,

"Quit with the "it's about time we respect" bullshit. Because one questions the means and actions of this administration does not mean we lose all respect for our military.
Any how many have been released without charge? Obviously their intelligence is flawed."

You said the following:

"So why not just lock up the whole damn place until we figure these things out cause honestly they really don't have to have a reason to be locked up, that's what all of you are saying. They don't need one f##king reason."

I responded by saying the military and intelligence community have carefully gone after those individuals they have found to be threats to security. They have had excellant reasons for capturing and killing lots of individuals.

Whats B####### is your assertion that they don't need a reason. People have worked hard and lost their lives to bring many of these people in. They could have brought in 10 times or 100 times as many people, but they brought these people in because based on their work, they found these people to be threats.

All intelligence is to some degree flawed. There is no such thing as perfect. Intelligence is not like looking into a crystal ball or anything you may have seen in science fiction. Its a difficult process in which mistakes happen on a daily basis.


"Like I said lock up the whole Middle East that should be a large enough net for the time being, until the next wave of terrorists hit."

How many people live in the Middle East? How many people have been detained?

"They were soldiers wearing uniforms and bearing arms held at us, it wasn't flawed intelligence that led us to them. This comparison doesn't work."

Ever wonder why terrorist don't wear uniforms and overtly carry arms?

Are the consequences any different for failing to detain or capture "soldiers" vs. "terrorist" with much the same goals?


"How is ensuring justice and asking for evidence for detainment letting terrorist get away? I don't get it. Has anyone here asked for the guilty to be set free? Where do you get this?"


Let me ask you this:

Has a person guilty of murder ever gotten out through the legal system and then committed the crime again?

Is the legal system perfect? Does it ever make mistakes?

The fact is that people who have committed murder, multiple murders have been found innocent and set free.

That is a risk we cannot not afford to take with terrorist committed to killing everyone in this country if they could. Thousands died on 9/11, but the potential is there for an attack that could kill a hundred or thousand times that number.

This is a war and we must detain those we fill are a risk to our security and survival as a nation just as we would soldiers of another military. Doing so increases the chances of stopping the next terrorist attack that could kill thousands of people.

 

[Salome]

They can be. Certainly during the Civil war, the Union Army did not give Confederate prisoners a trial and opportunity to get out of prison.

I blame bad media coverage for that one

 

[BluberryPoptart]

They can be. Certainly during the Civil war, the Union Army did not give Confederate prisoners a trial and opportunity to get out of prison.

True, Lincoln suspended the prisoner exchanges halfway through the war because he knew that the South was getting short of men and didn't want them to have more back in action.

While a lot is made of Andersonville and the poor conditions of southern war prisons, it should be taken into consideration that they were in areas that had be devastated by war, where Union soldiers had burned the homes, barns and fields of innocent civilians, the ports were blockaded from getting supplied from outside the country, and the south couldn't even feed its own people, or its own army, much less enemy prisoners. But conditions in some northern prisons such as Elmira, NY were almost as bad, though the war was nowhere near the region and the locals had no war related hardships and food and supplies were not scarce. Survivors of Elmira claimed that the doctor bragged he had killed more rebs than any man on the battlefield.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

What is the differece between blind trust and ignorace?

I trust no one blindly, not even my family. I certainly don't trust the gov't regardless of the person or party in power. I am not ignorant and feel there is basis for everything I said.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

But maybe the only 'ignorance'* is that NONE of us knows the whole story behind this, yet we continue to make definite statements about it.

*As in uninformed properly or ignorant to the true facts, not ignorant as in low IQ.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Headache in a Suitcase:
This is a crime!

When i look at this thread i'm surprised that you publish this picture here also relatives of the victims could disslike it.

So you think it's not one criminal organisation but a jihad, a crusade muslims vs. christians?

Klaus

When I look at that same thread, I see that you still fail to read, or maybe just don't undestand, what I was saying. I said that I could see why family members may have objections to the use of the pictures, however, I myself do not have any objection to their use what-so-ever. i myself know people who lost their lives in that very instant shown in that 9/11 picture. i do not object to the use of 9/11 photos and videos, but i can see why some may. Hopefully you can go back to the thread and re-read my posts so you can better understand my opinion. If not, I can break it down for you in e-mail if you'd like.

it's easy for those who oppose this to sit back and use the "muslims vs. christinans" ploy, and that's really a load of crap. i could really care less what religion they claim to worship. if al qaeda were an organization of scientologists, i'd still feel the same way. it's not their religion that i am against... it's their actions.

it's funny though... when there's a debate over the war on terror, or our action in the middle east, it's easy for people to bring up their religion... that we're conducting a crusade against muslims. but then when the topics of gays, aranged marrige and civil rights come up, religion isn't allowed as an excuse for the actions of certain groups.

i prefer to toss religion out of both equations and just look at right and wrong... but i'm probbaly just being naive on this too. seems to be the case most times around here.

 

[Klaus]

Headache in a Suitcase:
I read your statement but i'm still trying to find the right words to respond to you.

a) you don't have a problem when these pics are shown but
b) you understand the people who have a problem with it?

ok, so do i, but i'd try to talk to the people who have a problem with it (no matter if you talk about pics of 9/11 or pictures of the dead soldiers) that there is a necessisity to show these picures to the public so that they can understand what hapened.

At the WTC, in Guatamo Bay as well as in Iraq it's hard for people to realize the dimension of what is happening if they don't see pictures.

It's a difference to hear the number of dead civilians or see their dead bodies.
It was a difference to hear how the inmates of g.b. were treated and see pictures of them.

Klaus