more ... http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...ber/index.html

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

The stock response you will get now is either " he did it cause we drove him to it" or " So what?" Followed by what an innocent man he was and never should have been held to begin with.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

I new the "we drove him to it" was coming when I posted the article.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

Or maybe we just should have tried people and put them away.

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen

When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the world's most unhinged lunatic. He's now dead. So that moves Ann Coulter up to first place - David Letterman

O, when she is angry she is keen and shrewd; / She was a vixen when she went to school, / And though she be but little, she is fierce. — Shakespeare

51 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Maybe. Maybe this is a new kind of war that doesn't work too well with the rules of conventional war and they're still working on something that does. Prisoners of War are held for the duration of the war then released and not cahrged with crimes unless specific allegations of crimes have been made against individuals.

From a military viewpoint, sending potential enemies back prior to the conclusion of a war so they can resume waging war against you is beyond dumb. Reinforcing the enemies ranks is NOT a sound tactic of warfare.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

We couldnt do that because LAWYERS were too busy arguing whether or not he was an enemy combatant.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354209,00.html

__________________
Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

No. They couldn't do that because they were never charged with any crimes.

__________________
"Trust none of what you hear And less of what you see" Springsteen

When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it.

Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the world's most unhinged lunatic. He's now dead. So that moves Ann Coulter up to first place - David Letterman

O, when she is angry she is keen and shrewd; / She was a vixen when she went to school, / And though she be but little, she is fierce. — Shakespeare

51 days left http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Yes they were. Its called being an enemy combatant.

__________________
Only the dead have seen the end of war - Plato

Thats not a crime. They weren't charged with anything, they were accused of actions, but not charged. See charging actually requires something called evidence, or you get laughed out of court. Accusing requires pretty much nothing.

Again, prisoners of war aren't charged with crimes.

The fact is, not charging soldiers in a war with crimes for fighting in the war works to their advantage rather than harm them as has been continually pushed. Most will go free.

The alternative is to charge each with being a terrorist and/or aiding terrorists/terrorist organizations in which case you would have more people serving actual prison sentences/sitting on death row. The punishment for those crimes is far more severe than participating in a war.

Those charged with actual war crimes, unless they are our own, have not been tried until the conclusion of the war.

I don't know that there is an actual solution in dealing with this situation. Conventional rules don't apply. The war itself is not conventional. But to treat these people better than our own people, and allow them US Constitutional Rights is BS to me, and just allowing them to exploit yet another of out weaknesses against us.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

These aren't POW's. At least according to Bush co.

Except thats when soldiers are commanded by their governments and there is a set chain of command. Terrorism doesn't work like that so holding them in camps proclaming them as "illegal combatants" and we can hold them until the war is over is essentially just saying we can grab foreigners we don't like off the street and hold them in jail for as long as we want with no charges.

The really scary thing is that Bush tried to apply that same logic to US citizens.

Maybe, assuming they could actually convict them. I suspect thats why we haven't been trying people. I have no problem with putting these people in jail assuming we can prove they've done something wrong.

You really have stated nothing here I haven't already said. I just left off the anti-Bush administration, leftwing spin.

Yeah, we can hold them as illegal combatants. I already addressed the issue of what to call them, thanks. There is no clear rule to apply.

Which does not support the argument that they should just be turned loose to pick up where they left off because a specific rule doesn't cover them. Again, it's a unsound tactic of war to keep resupplying your enemy with manpower.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

Right...its spin that Bush wants to hold American citizens like those held in GITMO. Spin isn't defined as facts you disagree with.

There is a morally clear rule. The GC doesn't exactly give a shit ton of rights, but it does give some basic ones. Those should be respected.

Then we should try them. Picking up foreigners who we don't like, accusing them of crimes with no public evidence and then holding them in jail forever isn't really an option imo.

Blah, blah, blah Bush. I'm sorry, did I not respond to your irrelevant deflection?

There's also a crystal clear rule to warfare ... you don't resupply your enemy's army.

By the Geneva Convention, they are POWs. Nothing more for you to worry about.

Holding supected enemies until the end of hostilities is historically documented, and makes perfect sense. A lot more sense than resupplying your enemy with manpower to appease your moral relativism.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke

I agree. Unfortunately they aren't being treated as such.

As you pointed out, this isn't a conventional war. Usually you can tell your enemies by their uniform. Now we are picking up people we think might be associated with terrorists.