How is that an American problem? Are we supposed to provide hostile
combatants with uniforms now?
It has always been the case that combatants not in uniform could be treated
as spies and executed summarily. It was a common practice. Nathan Hale, for
one famous example, was hanged as a spy by the British who caught him
carrying incriminating papers while in civilian clothes. There was no trial,
and he was hanged the morning after he was captured.
You guys have been hanging up all the right straw men in this thread,
haven't you? Just don't forget rapists of virtuous white women.
You'll enlarge your numbers when people begin to fear the virtues of
Guess I shouldn't have made it so hard to miss my point. To clarify:
a popular propaganda tactic among rabid hawks has historically been to
sow fear in the hearts of good Americans that the enemies of American
virtue (be they criminally-minded blacks, pagan Japanese warriors,
Commies, what have you) want to rape our white women. I was
suggesting that such a tactic is still available to you and your
co-ideologues who want to strip away any desire for just treatment of
the detainees who, as you allege, are all committed to killing us.
Non sequitur. I will *keep* doing that once I begin to actually do
that. As I haven't done so, there's nothing to keep doing.
Of course you *wish* that I was. Folks like you like trotting out
straw men to whack with your impotent little sticks.
Well, isn't he? And don't you *support* that position?
I don't know what Dean would do. Our current resident-in-chief
himself said that he wasn't interested in nation-building during his
campaign. Being placed in power clearly changes one's perspective...
... of course you realize that during the campaign, the nation building
being discussed was such as being done in Kosovo and Haiti as well as
other places in which our national interest was not at stake. ... and
of course you realize that our country had not been directly attacked in
an act of war by terrorists who were being harbored and encouraged by
(and by extension, acting in proxy for) several nation-states.
Of course you realize those facts, to not do so would be disengenous,
and you wouldn't be that.
No less disengenous than your sly suggestion that
somehow the invasion of Iraq had any real connection
to the so-called "war on terrorism."
Can't catch Osama? Fuck it, let's show Saddam
Funny thing is, we can't seem to catch Saddam either,
much less those pesky WMDs.
imprisonment for the duration of the war? I mean, surely you understand
that they were not afforded access to counsel, eh? Or do you imagine that
the Allies held several million teeny little individual trials for each
enemy captured between 1939 and 1945?>
Don't waste your breath on this lefty, Giftz, he looks upon these vermin as
comrades fighting the evil Bush and his rich usurpers of human rights, etc.
Add to this all the other leftist idiocy and you'll realize he won't be
happy until they were all set free and returned to the terror camps first
class by United Airlines. Hey, even better, maybe in the process these scum
bags could hijack the planes and kill 10,000 more people, all of which the
left would laud as part of a plan to create their own "world order" of
Socialist brotherhood....that is until these vermin start killing THEM! Then
it will be another story.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's too funny. A man is either an angel or a
demon in your eyes, it appears. Have fun with that.
Oh, yeah, that's exactly what I want. *snicker*
Talk about a waste of breath.
Someone should go into making War on Terror propaganda films. Don't
forget images of "lefties," "Arab terrorists," and "Commies" raping
virtuous white women. Straw men may be straw men, but people react
emotionally when exposed to them nonetheless when the rape of white
women is added to the mix.
Oh, I know what YOU think, it is just that I see no problem whatsoever.
BWaHAhahahah! Now THAT is funny!
In any other circumstances, involving almost any country other than the US,
they would have been shot out of hand... no second thoughts about it. In
fact, that is what they THEMSELVES would (and have) done.
Since the word "fair" means the equitable balance of disparate interests,
why, we were morally OBLIGATED to shoot the bastards on sight... just to be
"fair". Good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
But no, we keep them in better conditions than those in which we found them.
And even cater to their whimsical "religious" desires by providing the sorry
lot with whatever they want except the ability to do us harm again.
So, you want to make this comparison?
How long will the "War on terrorism" last, exactly, so that those
detained can actually face the charges that might someday be made
against them? At what point will they hear what they're being accused
of having done?
Heck, considering the number that have been or are soon to be released
and/or transfered, I should think that those ordering their detainment
are not as certain of you that those people are to a person "sworn to
Under what circumstances where they apprehended? How long did they
have to wait before hearing charges? Were they POW's, protected as
First, did we keep these "several million" prison for life?
Furthermore, are we talking about POW's here? No official I've ever
heard has referred to the Guantanamo detainees as POW's. Correct me
if I'm wrong about that, and then if I am wrong, give me a hint as to
how to determine when the "War on terrorism" will end, such that they
can face charges and/or be released.
How long is the War On (some) Drugs going to last?
The so-called "War on Terrorism" would seem to have just as definite a
The enemy--and the goal-- was clear in WWII.
Sounds like someone asking for unchecked license to detain without
Why are you asking *me* this? Under what circumstances where they
caught and detained?
Just who is "we"? You? Clearly *your* statement that the detainees
are sworn to kill us. Now, apparently, it has been determined by some
body or other that such is *not* the case with regard to a significant
number of them.
The problem is the lack of external review and what appears to be the
use of technicalities to avoid the constraints of U.S.-backed (sorta)
international (and U.S. Constitutional) law.
Of course the current detainees are different, right?
No: they are "Persons of Interest." Such a term almost sounds like a
PC term, except in reverse.
Ah, yes... and for now we'll keep that as vague as possible to keep
from having to cut 'em loose before we're happy. Meanwhile, we can
move the goalposts anywhere we want to by noting that terrorism, like
drug trafficking, has a complex set of "masters."
How about Persons of Interest? Were those who were released
*terrorists* that, um, became non-terrorists due to some sort of rehab
in Gitmo? Or are those detained not all terrorists after all?
You too. Either they are soldiers in a potentially unending war ('Yay,
we can keep 'em forever!'), or they are "Persons of Interest" who may
deserve a bit more consideration for their situation ('Aw, let 'em
suffer in silence; they just *might* have done something *awful*, and
"lawyer" is French for "Commie terrorist" anyway').
Just to put all this in some sort of perspective:
Eisenhower kept German POWs imprisoned under incredibly inhumane conditions
for many months after WWII ended. Tens of thousands of them died of exposure
(some of the camps in which they were kept had no shelter of any kind for
the prisoners) or starved to death (relief trains bringing desperately
needed food and supplies from Switzerland were actually turned back). They
were denied mail, which could also have brought them food and clothing.
Their conditions were worse than in the Nazi concentration camps.
What Eisenhower did was of course absolutely against the rules of the Geneva
Convention for the treatment of POWs. So Eisenhower simply made up a new
term for them, DEFs (disarmed enemy forces). His position was basically that
as DEFs the rules of the Geneva Convention did not apply to them, and they
had no rights at all.
Cheney, and Bush, it would take a federal prosecutor months just to tabulate
them all. Your double standard is a mile wide.>
Ok, name one "illegal activity" of either Cheney or Bush, name ONE that's
actually indictable and not just something that's been concocted by leftist
North Koreans--you know, in the old days, when we had the brains and the
balls to actually have a foreign policy. Clinton got the job done.
WHAT!!!!???? The North Koreams are still laughing their asses off at
Clinton, they broke that agreement the minute they signed it, knowing fully
well that spineliess bastard wouldn't lift a finger to stop them.
Clinton, they broke that agreement the minute they signed it, knowing fully
well that spineliess bastard wouldn't lift a finger to stop them.>>
have the definitive look into the N. Korean mindset.>
And WE all know that trotsky, when confronted by the incontrovertible facts,
will always deflect and not answer the obvious: CLINTON WAS AN IDIOT with
foriegn policy and created the mess we're in now.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.