Thankful to be an American


PDA






SnWnMe
June 18, 2005, 06:51 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050618/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/aruba_missing_teen_7;_ylt=AgD_x5Wb1I5C_fJvKRl_ZqXa_JYv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

118 days? :eek:

If you enjoyed reading about "Thankful to be an American" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Alex45ACP
June 18, 2005, 07:40 PM
Indefinite detainment? We'll have it here soon enough.

armoredman
June 18, 2005, 08:13 PM
Gitmo. 'Nuff said.

kel
June 19, 2005, 11:00 AM
I wish I could live in America.

DRZinn
June 20, 2005, 02:02 PM
Gitmo. 'Nuff said.Prisoners of war, held until the end of the conflict. 'Nuff said.

RevDisk
June 20, 2005, 02:16 PM
118 days?

A judge must review the case after the first 10 days, then every eight days after that. They're allowed to see their lawyers. Not perfect, but the system is held accountable for its detainees.


Prisoners of war, held until the end of the conflict. 'Nuff said.

Erm. No, not exactly. A lot of folks at Gitmo we haven't classified as POW's as there are specific laws regarding the treatment of POW's. We use the term "unlawful combatants", "enemy combatants" or whatever these days. This is so prisoners are not afforded civilian or military style legal protections.

DRZinn
June 23, 2005, 01:02 AM
Erm. No, not exactly. A lot of folks at Gitmo we haven't classified as POW's as there are specific laws regarding the treatment of POW's. We use the term "unlawful combatants", "enemy combatants" or whatever these days. This is so prisoners are not afforded civilian or military style legal protections.Yeah yeah yeah. I know they're not actually referred to as Prisoners of War. That's because then people would assume (wrongly) that they are POW's as defined in the Geneva Conventions (which they aren't) and subject to the protections thereof. But they are, in point of fact, prisoners of war. And they are held until the war ends.

Flyboy
June 23, 2005, 02:17 AM
But they are, in point of fact, prisoners of war. And they are held until the war ends.
Which is when?

I'm not trolling here--when does the war end? There's been no formal declaration of war--indeed, Congress offered one after the attacks, and the President declined--so how, exactly, do we determine when the war is over?

JohnBT
June 23, 2005, 07:56 AM
When the fighting stops.

John

Delmar
June 23, 2005, 08:36 AM
We use the term "unlawful combatants", "enemy combatants" or whatever these days. This is so prisoners are not afforded civilian or military style legal protections.

There is a reason for this-also spelled out in the convention. They are not uniformed military, and do not fight under a recognisable flag or country. In not so older times, they would have been shot as spies or common murderers. They should not expect to be treated as well as they are, and technically, have zero protections under the so-called rules of war.

Derby FALs
June 23, 2005, 08:46 AM
I doubt any of us will live that long.

Pilot
June 23, 2005, 09:10 AM
I'm not trolling here--when does the war end? There's been no formal declaration of war--indeed, Congress offered one after the attacks, and the President declined--so how, exactly, do we determine when the war is over?


First and foremost these "detainees" at Gitmo are not soldiers, they are terrorists which in the past would be shot as spies or kept and traded. They don't wear a uniform of a soveriegn nation, they have no rights as prisoners of war yet we give them these rights and good treatment they do not deserve. They have it better at Gitmo than whatever rat hole they came from. We can keep them however long it takes to get the information we need form them to stop their buddies from killing U.S. civilians and soldiers. Let's worry a little less about these murdering criminals and more about the safety of our soldiers and citizens.

Flyboy
June 23, 2005, 12:34 PM
OK, JohnBT, and I think (regrettably) Derby FALs, have come closest to actually answering my question, so I'll pose it again.

When does the war end? How will we know?

When the fighting stops? Define that. If we go for a week without firing a shot, is the war over? What if somebody tries something after that? Two weeks? A month? When we pull our troops out? Given that we still have troops in Korea, is that war over? What is our objective definition of "when the fighting stops?" For that matter, what's our objective definition of "fighting?" We've seen the words "fight," "combat," and so forth used to describe actions taken in the financial and intelligence sectors--are those part of the war? Even if we're not actually shooting, are we still "fighting terrorism" when we use intel reports to freeze assets we think are going to be used to fund terrorism? If so, is that sufficient to consider the war to still be ongoing, and to continue to hold people?

What about the fact that we've been "fighting" crime since, oh, about the dawn of man? The "war on crime" that President Clinton declared doesn't seem to have ended. The "war on drugs?" Hah.

So, I ask again: if we're going to hold people "until the war ends," when does the war end?

mercedesrules
June 23, 2005, 11:47 PM
I anxiously await the answers to Flyboy's fine questions.

Wars usually end when one side surrenders. That's why one should never fight a war against something that can't surrender.

Some things that can't surrender:

Drugs.
Poverty.
Terrorism.
Obesity.
Crime.
Hunger.
AIDS.
Illiteracy.
Racism.
Want.
Etc.

thorn726
June 24, 2005, 12:10 AM
Gitmo. 'Nuff said.
Prisoners of war, held until the end of the conflict. 'Nuff said.

for real? prisoners caught in iraq, afghanistan,for the most part combatants, ok but Americans? legal immigrants ? many of the detainees were not charged, basically got rounded up for being in the wrong place, taken out of the US so we dont have to obey our own laws.

glad to be a white american born citizen maybe, but a little ashamed of it too

DRZinn
June 24, 2005, 12:40 AM
You are correct that the war may have no definite end. Too bad. We'll hold them as long as we want.

Note: I'm talking about the terrorist detainees captured trying to kill Americans. Not the US citizens captured doing something suspicious and never given a trial.

Edited to add:
many of the detainees were not charged, basically got rounded up for being in the wrong place, taken out of the US so we dont have to obey our own laws.Wrong. There are what, two or three US citizens? Somebody correct me on that, but the vast majority were captured on the battlefield.

Flyboy
June 24, 2005, 12:47 AM
I'm talking about the terrorist detainees captured trying to kill Americans.
OK, fine. Define "trying to kill Americans." Taking a shot, fine. That's pretty clear. Building or placing an IED, also pretty clear. But what of those captured with less definite charges?

However, MG Fast, according to BG Karpinski, routinely denied the board's recommendations to release detainees in this category who were no longer deemed a threat and clearly met the requirements for release.--Maj. General Antonio Taguba, on Abu Ghraib; somehow, I doubt that Gitmo is being handled much better.


You'll have to forgive me for not trusting my government; it seems I have this nasty habit of watching the news.

Delmar
June 24, 2005, 07:44 AM
"Given that we still have troops in Korea, is that war over?"

Check your history, Flyboy, the answers to your questions are there.
The CEASEFIRE, signed in 1953 had a 20 year life span, and has never been renewed. I take that to mean we are once again in the "police action" as that dummy Truman called it.

As to the current war, it will end when:
1. The terrorists are dead or give up.
2. When we say it is.
3. If Gerald Ford gets elected :rolleyes:

As to how long we hold these folks at gitmo-till we are finished with them, one way or another. We might have made some trades with the bad guys, as we did to get Francis Gary Powers back from the Soviets, but the enemy we face currently either shoot you down in cold blood (documented) or they cut your head off while filming it. Not much left to trade, eh?

Also why a lot of people don't feel too bad about holding radical muslim extremists indefinately.

Ryder
June 24, 2005, 09:13 AM
Pretty sure they've already released a butt load of people back to their countries from GITMO and it goes on. Y'all are watching too much CNN.

17 orisoners to be freed (http://www.dawn.com/2005/06/23/top11.htm)


ISLAMABAD, June 22: Pakistan has decided to free 17 nationals who have been detained since their repatriation from the US Guantanamo Bay detention centre nearly one year ago, officials said on Wednesday.

After their release next week the government also intends to free some 210 prisoners from jails in Punjab who were returned from Afghanistan in batches last year, the officials said.

“We have decided to release all these prisoners after securing surety bonds on good behaviour from their families,” Tahir Ashrafi, the provincial government’s adviser on religious affairs, told AFP.

“Surety bonds are being furnished to make sure that these people would not be involved in any violence in the country,” Mr Ashrafi said.

GT
June 24, 2005, 09:33 AM
All the detainees at Gitmo have received military tribunals and many were released.

This is all lefty BS

Get over it.


G

Moondoggie
June 24, 2005, 12:19 PM
I've got several thoughts/questions:

1st...When did the "War on Terror" begin? Was it 9/11, or when the USS Cole was attacked, or when our embassies in Africa were bombed, or when the WTC was first bombed in 93, or when the bomb went off in OKC? Perhaps it was when OBL and his buds got together and decided to murder anybody who didn't see things their way...Muslim, Christian, American, Canadian, Australian, Indonesian, Saudi...doesn't matter to them who they are. OK, since there's no clearcut answer to when it began, how can there be one for when it's over? This is the "New Reality"...it's never gonna be "Over".

2nd...As far as turning the area in question "into glass" is concerned; do you think the other side would hesitate for a second if they had the capability to do it to us?

3rd...If Sen Durbin is sooooo concerned about the treatment of these folks (and not primarily interested in bashing the administration...gee, 'Ya think?) then how about if we embark all of the detainees on one-way flights to O'Hare and turn 'em loose in Chicago. They can make their way back home or whatever they choose from there. After all, what's a few hundred more "undocumented immigrints" to a major metro area like Chicago? Since the Democratic People's Republic of Il-annoy and that bastion of civil liberties Chicago has such effective gun control laws, what possible harm could they cause? Another idea would be for those who feel that we're violating these folks civil rights to "Adopt a Detainee" and one could be dropped-off at their house. Let's offer them employment as custodians at the school their kids attend.

Bottom line...they don't need no stinkin' rules; you can't expect us to play by them either if we're gonna win. Loosing is an unacceptable option.

Compared to them, our folks have stayed on the high road. The exceptions among our folks have been punishied accordingly.

Art Eatman
June 24, 2005, 01:53 PM
Given all the semantic confusion extant, I'd venture that the biggest mistake Bush has made is to call it a War on Terror. I think we'd all be better off to say that the Al Qaida group has effectively escalated a condition of warfare against us. Killings, military actions such as assaults or invasions, and other acts by us will only end when Al Qaida and other sympathetic organized groups no longer function in any organized fashion.

As long as there is religious hatred of "infidels" or "otherness" among militant Islamic jihadists, there well be acts of what we call terrorism. The key is whether these acts are done by random individuals or by organized groups. The former will always be with us, and can only be dealt with in policing fashion.

Art

Ryder
June 24, 2005, 05:18 PM
Art - I think we'd all be better off to say that the Al Qaida group has effectively escalated a condition of warfare against us.

Yup, and it wasn't easy! Osama's original declaration of war against us is on file with the FBI and was received 9 years before 9/11 (shortly before the first attempt to detroy the twin towers). I'd point to that as being the answer to your question on when the war started Moondoggie. Even though we didn't know it then and many still don't now considering how well that particular bit of incompetance was waxed over.

White Horseradish
June 24, 2005, 06:00 PM
So. If we suspend some rights because we must make sacrifices in time of war, but the war is permanent, doesn't that mean that we lost those rights permanently?

RevDisk
June 24, 2005, 09:57 PM
1st...When did the "War on Terror" begin? Was it 9/11, or when the USS Cole was attacked, or when our embassies in Africa were bombed, or when the WTC was first bombed in 93, or when the bomb went off in OKC? Perhaps it was when OBL and his buds got together and decided to murder anybody who didn't see things their way...Muslim, Christian, American, Canadian, Australian, Indonesian, Saudi...doesn't matter to them who they are. OK, since there's no clearcut answer to when it began, how can there be one for when it's over? This is the "New Reality"...it's never gonna be "Over".

The official start to the "War on Terror" was after 9/11.

Previous to that... You could pick dozens of dates. The Muslim Brotherhood (of which al Queda is a branch) started in 1928. al-Muwahhiddun (the correct term for "Wahhabi") started in the mid-1700's. But the Wahhabi sect is inspired by the scholar Ibn Taymiyya in the early 1300's.

Keep in mind, the Muslim Brotherhood has been killing other Muslims since the 1940's. They fought Egyptian King Farouk's government during the 1940's. Assassinated the Egyptian PM in 1948. Attempted to kill Nasser in 1954. Assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981. Faught the Alawite Muslims in Syria during the late 1970's and early 1980's. Attempted to assassinate Syria's President Assad in 1980. The Syrian Brotherhood declared jihad on the Iraqi Ba'ath Party a couple times.

It was only in the 1980's did the Brotherhood start attacking "Western" governments. Namely, the USSR in Afghanistan. Incidently, the CIS is still fighting the Brotherhood in Chechnya. It was only after the USSR fell that the Brotherhood turned against America. Previously, they were considered useful assets. Just short of being 'allies'.



2nd...As far as turning the area in question "into glass" is concerned; do you think the other side would hesitate for a second if they had the capability to do it to us?

I don't have to guess. Pakistan has nukes. They are a right wing Islamic country. Not as right wing as Saudi, but still very conservative. Iran possibly has nuclear weapons. No Islamic group has yet used WMD against America. (Re anthrax letters, nope. The sample came from USAMRIID.)


3rd...If Sen Durbin is sooooo concerned about the treatment of these folks (and not primarily interested in bashing the administration...gee, 'Ya think?) then how about if we embark all of the detainees on one-way flights to O'Hare and turn 'em loose in Chicago. They can make their way back home or whatever they choose from there. After all, what's a few hundred more "undocumented immigrints" to a major metro area like Chicago? Since the Democratic People's Republic of Il-annoy and that bastion of civil liberties Chicago has such effective gun control laws, what possible harm could they cause? Another idea would be for those who feel that we're violating these folks civil rights to "Adopt a Detainee" and one could be dropped-off at their house. Let's offer them employment as custodians at the school their kids attend.

I shall quote the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It did not say "all American citizens", it said all men. Basically that we believe our freedoms are universal, and granted to every person upon their birth.

How hard is it to give the prisoners a fair trial? If guilty, punish. If not guilty, turn loose. Doesn't sound too complex to me.


Bottom line...they don't need no stinkin' rules; you can't expect us to play by them either if we're gonna win. Loosing is an unacceptable option.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Pick up a copy of Dave Grossman's "On Killing". In addition to interesting information on psychological aspects of killing, he also meantions psychological aspects of surrender. In simpliest forms, if a person thinks they will be mistreated in captivity, they are less likely to surrender and more likely to fight to the death. While killing the enemy is a good thing, sometimes there are more efficient means of destroying an enemy. While messing with a prisoner's religious beliefs or mistreating prisoners may be amusing to some people, they are not generally efficient.

For instance, during the first Gulf War, a lot of Iraqi soldiers simply surrendered. They believed the Americans would give them three hot meals a day, a soft bunk to sleep on and not mess with their religious beliefs. Compared to starving and sleeping on dirt... Well, the results speak for themselves. Circa 44% of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered.

Careful what you wish for. Hoping the US military "does not play by the rules" may come back to haunt you when they engage in domestic operations. I don't give a damn about the prisoners per se. Yea, as humans they deserve the treatment we afford to any other prisoner. If guilty, punish them accordingly. If not, treat them well enough and release them. Telling the military to disregard human rights and actively mistreat prisoners starts us down a road that I do not think most Americans want to go.

joab
June 24, 2005, 10:27 PM
Circa 44% of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered. 44% of the common foot soldiers, the ones dressed in Mickey Mouse T-shirts and flippy shoes.
The ones who did not believe in "The Cause"

How many Republican Guard soldiers simply surrendered.
They were the zealots who believed in what they were fighting for

RevDisk
June 25, 2005, 03:26 AM
44% of the common foot soldiers, the ones dressed in Mickey Mouse T-shirts and flippy shoes.
The ones who did not believe in "The Cause"

How many Republican Guard soldiers simply surrendered.
They were the zealots who believed in what they were fighting for

44% is better than 0%. Not saying PsyOps solves everything. Some Republican Guards surrendered, some retreated, some faught.

There are two ways of fighting. Efficiently, and egotistically. Efficiently is objectively viewing tactics and strategy. Sometimes it means being a professional and doing things in a manner that doesn't appease the ego but gets the job done. Egotistical (or "feel good") is being unprofessional and letting emotion cloud objective judgement.

joab
June 25, 2005, 08:42 AM
Rev 1% is better than nothing, but it hardly makes the case that they surrendered simply because we were thought of as angles of mercy

If you enjoyed reading about "Thankful to be an American" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!