Yes, it's so humane holding people for 5 years without charging them... :rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Guantanamo-Suicide.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- A Saudi Arabian detainee died Wednesday at Guantanamo Bay prison and the U.S. military said he apparently committed suicide. Guards at the U.S. Naval Base in southeast Cuba found the detainee in his cell unresponsive and not breathing Wednesday afternoon, the U.S. military's Southern Command said in a statement.

''They tried to save his life but he was pronounced dead,'' said Mario Alvarez, a Miami-based spokesman for the command.

It would be the fourth suicide at Guantanamo since the prison camp opened in January 2002. On June 10, 2006, two Saudi detainees and one Yemeni hanged themselves with sheets. Details, including the prisoner's name and manner of death, were not released.

A spokesman for detention operations, Navy Cmdr. Rick Haupt, declined to comment, referring questions to the Miami-based Southern Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Caribbean and Latin America.

The death came as the U.S. military prepared to try two detainees -- Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni, and Omar Khadr, a Canadian who was 15 when he was captured in a firefight with U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Their arraignment is scheduled to proceed on Monday at Guantanamo as planned, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said late Wednesday.

Khadr on Wednesday fired his American attorneys, leaving him without defense counsel as his arraignment approaches, his former U.S. military attorney said.

''He doesn't trust American lawyers, and I don't particularly blame him,'' said U.S. Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, who was taken off the case Wednesday. ''The United States is responsible for his interrogation and his treatment under a process that is patently unfair.''

The military toughened security at the prison camp following the previous suicides and an uprising last spring, taking measures to remove access to light fixtures and other possible makeshift weapons.

About 380 men are held at the isolated prison camp on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is conducting an ongoing investigation into the three previous suicides.

A cultural adviser was helping the military handle the remains. ''The remains of the deceased detainee are being treated with the utmost respect,'' the military said.

Stuff like this gets ZERO traction with the pro-life crowd.

Go figure.

Stuff like this gets ZERO traction with the pro-life crowd.

Go figure.

and is thus condemned to hell

and is thus condemned to hell

Good!

Guards at the U.S. Naval Base in southeast Cuba found the detainee in his cell unresponsive and not breathing Wednesday afternoon, the U.S. military's Southern Command said in a statement.

''They tried to save his life but he was pronounced dead,'' said Mario Alvarez, a Miami-based spokesman for the command.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Corps Outline for Recruit Training. You're familiar with this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: You've read it?
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ross: Good. Would you open it up to the chapter that deals with code reds, please?
Cpl. Barnes: Sir?
Capt. Ross: Just flip open to the page of the book that talks about code reds.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I really don't think that...
Capt. Ross: Ah, we're in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we'll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I right?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir.
Capt. Ross: Coporal Barnes, I'm a Marine. Is there no book. No pamphlet or manual, no regulation or set of written orders or instructions that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds?
Cpl. Barnes: No sir. No book, sir.
Capt. Ross: No further questions.

Hey, if the guy has been in prison for 5 years, he must be guilty of something. I would have to see how, and why he was picked up, before I felt sorry for him. Maybe he was a bad dude, maybe he wasn't.

Hey, if the guy has been in prison for 5 years, he must be guilty of something. ...

So, the fact that he's "in" a concentration camp means he's 'guilty?' That's a poor assumption, even for you Grump...

Not too long ago, they had close to 100 people they couldn't prove anything so they wanted to send them back to their countries of origin, but their country refused. So now these people are stuck in GITMO limbo/hell.

In antiquity they would probably have been put to the sword.

It seems to me that injustice is a given in war, and a good conscience something only afforded to the stupid, the weak, those not in harms way, or fanatics. The rest of us have to navigate a path between dilemmas , where the right path is not always clear, and sometimes a new path must be forged by getting our hands dirty.

In antiquity they would probably have been put to the sword.

It seems to me that injustice is a given in war, and a good conscience something only afforded to the stupid, the weak, those not in harms way, or fanatics. The rest of us have to navigate a path between dilemmas , where the right path is not always clear, and sometimes a new path must be forged by getting our hands dirty.

You are funny and you make me laugh...

If you are getting your hands dirty mayheps you should wash them before you hit another gruelling day in front of the keyboard.

So, the fact that he's "in" a concentration camp means he's 'guilty?' That's a poor assumption, even for you Grump...

Not too long ago, they had close to 100 people they couldn't prove anything so they wanted to send them back to their countries of origin, but their country refused. So now these people are stuck in GITMO limbo/hell.

He's not in a concentration camp, he's in a prison built for people too dangerous to put back on the streets and a danger to their jailers if they are kept in a conventional prison atmosphere.

Why wouldn't the countries of origin accept your poor innocent 100?

He's not in a concentration camp, he's in a prison built for people too dangerous to put back on the streets and a danger to their jailers if they are kept in a conventional prison atmosphere.

Why wouldn't the countries of origin accept your poor innocent 100?

You know that if we would have just done the consitutional thing and declared war...Bush could have had his prisoners for the duration. But poor leadership puts this miscarriage firmly on his mealy little shoulders as well. It is a wonder when people will understand that the Constitution...is a help, not a hinderance.

You know that if we would have just done the consitutional thing and declared war...Bush could have had his prisoners for the duration. But poor leadership puts this miscarriage firmly on his mealy little shoulders as well. It is a wonder when people will understand that the Constitution...is a help, not a hinderance.

We have had this discussion about a "declaration" of war before. When was the last time we declared war in a conventional manner?
Congress, in spite of their indignant denials, approved of this little dustup.

Good!


Yeah, really? ...and what exactly do you know about this inividual beyond the fact he was a resident of GITMO?

Do you have any children?

We have had this discussion about a "declaration" of war before. When was the last time we declared war in a conventional manner?
Congress, in spite of their indignant denials, approved of this little dustup.

With the tacit approval on both sides...that they could run away from it as well.

You get what you pay for...Bush needed something, but had a nickel in his pocket. Congress was a cheap hore ready to take him into the alley if they could deny that it ever happened...

Hey, if the guy has been in prison for 5 years, he must be guilty of something. I would have to see how, and why he was picked up, before I felt sorry for him. Maybe he was a bad dude, maybe he wasn't.


It's time that we all find out.

Why wouldn't the countries of origin accept your poor innocent 100?


Why not exercise your intellect for a change by doing some research?

When you talk about getting <u>our</u> hands dirty, what you really mean is someone <i>other than you</i> getting their hands dirty. Given your past posts, this would ideally be someone you don't have to actually know about, or even want to know, and would probably shun should you ever find out. But as long as they do the dirty work and don't track blood into public areas, you can puff up your chest and feel good about what they do.

In antiquity they would probably have been put to the sword.

It seems to me that injustice is a given in war, and a good conscience something only afforded to the stupid, the weak, those not in harms way, or fanatics. The rest of us have to navigate a path between dilemmas , where the right path is not always clear, and sometimes a new path must be forged by getting our hands dirty.\

Reading some good old fashioned documents and ran across this...thought you might like it.

Ernest Mercier..January 24th, 1934...

"There is only one solution--and circumstances will soon impose it--and that is a government of authority supported by an irresistible popular moral force. This is the task to which we dedicate ourselves. And not one among us will stop until it has been accomplished." (translated)

The congress which approved of this "little dust-up" as you called it was controlled by the Republican party. The party followed Bush and Cheney's directives to their smallest whim. Congress also went along with this due to faulty intelligence. The administration has abused the powers that given to them by Congress and it needs to stop.

Send the people to trial or sentence them to life. If they are too dangerous for the public, the U.S. can build a small high-security prison in the states for them. The reason they are still in GITMO is that the administration screwed up the whole LEGAL process.

The congress which approved of this "little dust-up" as you called it was controlled by the Republican party. The party followed Bush and Cheney's directives to their smallest whim. Congress also went along with this due to faulty intelligence. The administration has abused the powers that given to them by Congress and it needs to stop.

Send the people to trial or sentence them to life. If they are too dangerous for the public, the U.S. can build a small high-security prison in the states for them. The reason they are still in GITMO is that the administration screwed up the whole LEGAL process.

Nope...the Senate was in Democratic hands with Tom Daschle as majority leader.

As it turns out about 6 of them went to the classified area to actually read the classified documents about Saddam and his WMDs... Democrats were weak, spineless and as it turns out to lazy to even read what they now say was doctored (although it did contain 10 pages of dissenting views)... Hey...they were afraid of getting steam rolled in the iambic pentameter that is the election cycle...so they did what they have done very well recently...caved like a bunch of puppies.

/the analogy of puppies is not meant to impugn the strength...of puppies.

Background on the senate changes...
"On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session."

It was during this time (january 2002) that the Iraqi war resolution was offered.

Hey, if the guy has been in prison for 5 years, he must be guilty of something. I would have to see how, and why he was picked up, before I felt sorry for him. Maybe he was a bad dude, maybe he wasn't.


DNA evidence has begun letting inappropriately jailed individuals with life sentences out on a regular basis nowadays...just because he's there didn't mean he did anything...

Why does being imprisoned for 5 years mean they're guilty of anything? There are convicted people in US prisons that aren't guilty of anything. While I believe there are probably prisoners in GITMO that are very bad I also believe there are probably prisoners in GITMO that are not bad. Which one of these groups does the person who committed suicide belong too? Any way for us to tell? The obvious answer is no, because there haven't been any trials. We haven't seen any evidence. So we should either grieve or cheer for this persons death. Flip a coin.

He's not in a concentration camp, he's in a prison built for people too dangerous to put back on the streets and a danger to their jailers if they are kept in a conventional prison atmosphere.

Why wouldn't the countries of origin accept your poor innocent 100?

Calling GITMO a "prison" implies they've been convicted of a crime. They haven't even gone before a judge. Concentration camps are for holding undesirables who haven't been convicted of any crimes.

"concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. "


I don't know exactly why the countries of origin won't take back their citizens. I believe part of the reason is they don't want the responsibility of tracking potentially dangerous individuals. It's also probably because we won't share any information about how or why they ended up in GITMO or why they're being released...etc.

It's a freakin' mess!

Calling GITMO a "prison" implies they've been convicted of a crime. They haven't even gone before a judge. Concentration camps are for holding undesirables who haven't been convicted of any crimes.

"concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions. "


I don't know exactly why the countries of origin won't take back their citizens. I believe part of the reason is they don't want the responsibility of tracking potentially dangerous individuals. It's also probably because we won't share any information about how or why they ended up in GITMO or why they're being released...etc.

It's a freakin' mess!

What we probably should do is cut their damned heads off and throw them in a river someplace like they do with our prisoners. Maybe put some pieces of rope in their cells, just long enough to hold their feet off the floor when they use them. It's a mess of freaks.

What we probably should do is cut their damned heads off and throw them in a river someplace like they do with our prisoners. Maybe put some pieces of rope in their cells, just long enough to hold their feet off the floor when they use them. It's a mess of freaks.

Pretty much crossed over into a very dark place here. Was sorry to read this from you.

Pretty much crossed over into a very dark place here. Was sorry to read this from you.

Sorry to disapoint you but I get sick of hearing all the bleeding hearts here whine about the fate of these murderous bastids. They have a clean place to stay, three hots and a cot and that is far better than they deal out to our guys that fall into their hands. There is no good way to dispose of them, some of them can't even go home again and the reason is their countries don't want them there to continue their murderous ways and to inspire others to the same life. I am perfectly content to leave them where they are and let the people in charge who look after our safety and interests do as they must until such time as this crap might be over, if ever. My sympathy is at the same level as my guilt over their fate, zero.

What we probably should do is cut their damned heads off and throw them in a river someplace like they do with our prisoners. Maybe put some pieces of rope in their cells, just long enough to hold their feet off the floor when they use them. It's a mess of freaks.

Dude, I was tryin' to be real with you and you respond with this?

You really are a scary individual.

Nope...the Senate was in Democratic hands with Tom Daschle as majority leader.

As it turns out about 6 of them went to the classified area to actually read the classified documents about Saddam and his WMDs... Democrats were weak, spineless and as it turns out to lazy to even read what they now say was doctored (although it did contain 10 pages of dissenting views)... Hey...they were afraid of getting steam rolled in the iambic pentameter that is the election cycle...so they did what they have done very well recently...caved like a bunch of puppies.

/the analogy of puppies is not meant to impugn the strength...of puppies.

Background on the senate changes...
"On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session."

It was during this time (january 2002) that the Iraqi war resolution was offered.
WOW you had to go all the way back to May 24, 2001? You mention one little speed bump in bush's mad rush into Iraq and forget all of the other details. Nice try .. try again. For every "wimpy" Democrat action you mention there are at least ten "stupid pet tricks" made by the Bush Administration and the GOP.

Too bad my repsonse has all to do with the last couple of years and how the administration has handled GITMO and Iraq. Typical response .. deflicting the blame by accusing the Democrats for not being stronger. The Democrats do not have the votes, plain and simple; with the Republican party holding the executive branch of the goverment the rule of law swings with the Republicans. GITMO, Iraq, wire tapping, Valeria Plame, whatever, the blame falls clearly onto the Republicans...may God have mercy on their souls.

What an animal comparison? If the Democrats are puppies then the Republicans are blind monkeys with loaded handguns. I pick the puppies, at least they are harmless.

Again...sorry to hear it.

Not that it matters...but it is really disappointing to me, to read about how Americans are willing to act and allow their government to act so barbarously in their name.

I will still hope for the rule of law...

Suppose this concludes our former relationship of witty anonymous bantor...you don't believe in the same country I do.:confused:

I can't figure out why the US government doesn't publicize the evil deeds that the detainees have done. If these people are really so bad, it would seem like the govenment would want to let us know what they have done.

Only 4 suicides in 5 years? I'd say that's a great record for any prison/concentration camp.

WOW you had to go all the way back to May 24, 2001? You mention one little speed bump in bush's mad rush into Iraq and forget all of the other details. Nice try .. try again. For every "wimpy" Democrat action you mention there are at least ten "stupid pet tricks" made by the Bush Administration and the GOP.

Too bad my repsonse has all to do with the last couple of years and how the administration has handled GITMO and Iraq. Typical response .. deflicting the blame by accusing the Democrats for not being stronger. The Democrats do not have the votes, plain and simple; with the Republican party holding the executive branch of the goverment the rule of law swings with the Republicans. GITMO, Iraq, wire tapping, Valeria Plame, whatever, the blame falls clearly onto the Republicans...may God have mercy on their souls.

What an animal comparison? If the Democrats are puppies then the Republicans are blind monkeys with loaded handguns. I pick the puppies, at least they are harmless.

Ummm...why the vitriol? The "dust-up" that I believed your post intimated was the Iraqi war resolution debated in January of 2002, when the Senate had a Democratic majority and could have held off "the speed bumps" by voting the resolution down...or at least refined the language...but they did neither...they cowered under the glare of a popular president and the drum beat of war.

This is where the dust-up began...as did the Patriot Act during a Democractic Majority in the senate. These are the facts...historical record.

But if you want to flash forward...how is the new Democratic congressional majority working out? They holding thier own? Hell the president is an unpopular lame duck with numbers Nixon wouldn't envy. They pulling the funding? Standing up for what they were elected to do? They pushing the pres. around? Marching into 1600 pennsylvania avenue with their agenda? Everything should be just hunky dory now then. Gonzales should be cleaning out his locker, the worst parts of the Patriot Act should be repealed, the wiretaps should have laws outlawing them and of course the impeachment proceedings should begin by...what say you...mid June(ish).

You have me wrong...I hate them both equally...one for being sadistic warmongering trouncers of the constitution...and the other for being feeble spineless losers who play the same politics with American men and treasure.

Have a nice day...:)

With the tacit approval on both sides...that they could run away from it as well.

You get what you pay for...Bush needed something, but had a nickel in his pocket. Congress was a cheap hore ready to take him into the alley if they could deny that it ever happened...

Honestly now, the only reason the Democrats get away with their denial is because their base allows them to. Bush is what he is, I believe Democrats have and are behaving shamefully. Just like the last little "showdown" over funding, if they are elected to the WH and total control of Congress, they will NOT pull out of Iraq. The reason being that they know as well as Republicans do that we can't.

AMEN!!!

Honestly now, the only reason the Democrats get away with their denial is because their base allows them to. Bush is what he is, I believe Democrats have and are behaving shamefully. Just like the last little "showdown" over funding, if they are elected to the WH and total control of Congress, they will NOT pull out of Iraq. The reason being that they know as well as Republicans do that we can't.

Some of the detainees don't seem to be too bad. For example (http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070531/NEWS/70531025),

Khadr was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan during a firefight in which he allegedly killed a U.S. Army special forces soldier with a grenade.Not exactly an al-Qaeda mastermind.

Some of the detainees don't seem to be too bad. For example (http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070531/NEWS/70531025),

Not exactly an al-Qaeda mastermind.

Not exactly an innocent bystander either. There is no question that this is a sad situation for many, still, what are we supposed to do with what amounts to enemy soldiers? We can't turn them loose to take up arms again and many of these same prisoners came from a prison riot in Afghanistan in which they killed some of the people guarding them. I will save my tears for the 18 and up soldiers on my side that are losing life and limb in this fight.

Again...sorry to hear it.

Not that it matters...but it is really disappointing to me, to read about how Americans are willing to act and allow their government to act so barbarously in their name.

I will still hope for the rule of law...

Suppose this concludes our former relationship of witty anonymous bantor...you don't believe in the same country I do.:confused:

I don't believe we are behaving like barbarians we are following the rule of law. In spite of your disappointment in me, I don't think the country we believe in is all that different. I am not ashamed of anything that has been done in my name, though I doubt my name holds any great significance for anyone involved.

Not exactly an innocent bystander either. There is no question that this is a sad situation for many, still, what are we supposed to do with what amounts to enemy soldiers? We can't turn them loose to take up arms again and many of these same prisoners came from a prison riot in Afghanistan in which they killed some of the people guarding them. I will save my tears for the 18 and up soldiers on my side that are losing life and limb in this fight.

Saving your tears is fine...dispensing with the rule of our laws is another. It is beyond comprehension to want to see a person slaughtered without the benefit of a rigorous defense under the law...it is immoral, unChristian and it is unAmerican.

Put them on trial, if they are guilty put them in a max cell for 23 1/2 a day and forget about them.

I don't believe we are behaving like barbarians we are following the rule of law. In spite of your disappointment in me, I don't think the country we believe in is all that different. I am not ashamed of anything that has been done in my name, though I doubt my name holds any great significance for anyone involved.

You are willing to let our government behead them and throw them in a river...if you think we live in the same America...then you are delusional.

You are willing to let our government behead them and throw them in a river...if you think we live in the same America...then you are delusional.

Unclinch your sphincter perfesser, (I understand there is a lot of that going around) it was angry hyperbole. Our guys ain't like that and I wouldn't want them to be. Was aiming at shocking Spydie out of his web, not you out of your tower. :)

Are you all experts in military law? I am pretty sure they aren't being held as civilian prisoners, so civilian law really doesn't freaking much to me. We hold soldiers without bail until they are tried (whenever) that may be, why would we do different for terrorists?

Dude, I was tryin' to be real with you and you respond with this?

You really are a scary individual.

BOOOO!

Ummm...why the vitriol? The "dust-up" that I believed your post intimated was the Iraqi war resolution debated in January of 2002, when the Senate had a Democratic majority and could have held off "the speed bumps" by voting the resolution down...or at least refined the language...but they did neither...they cowered under the glare of a popular president and the drum beat of war.

This is where the dust-up began...as did the Patriot Act during a Democractic Majority in the senate. These are the facts...historical record.

But if you want to flash forward...how is the new Democratic congressional majority working out? They holding thier own? Hell the president is an unpopular lame duck with numbers Nixon wouldn't envy. They pulling the funding? Standing up for what they were elected to do? They pushing the pres. around? Marching into 1600 pennsylvania avenue with their agenda? Everything should be just hunky dory now then. Gonzales should be cleaning out his locker, the worst parts of the Patriot Act should be repealed, the wiretaps should have laws outlawing them and of course the impeachment proceedings should begin by...what say you...mid June(ish).

You have me wrong...I hate them both equally...one for being sadistic warmongering trouncers of the constitution...and the other for being feeble spineless losers who play the same politics with American men and treasure.

Have a nice day...:)
You forget the President's veto power. Without the votes from the Republicans the Democrats cannot over-ride the veto. That's what you are missing.

Give the Democrats some more time, Gonzales may be leaving in a little while. Not getting the timetables installed in the war funding bill get my goat but at least it gets rid of one more excuse from the Bush administration on why they were not able to handle Iraq or Afghanastan.

Not exactly an innocent bystander either. There is no question that this is a sad situation for many, still, what are we supposed to do with what amounts to enemy soldiers? We can't turn them loose to take up arms again and many of these same prisoners came from a prison riot in Afghanistan in which they killed some of the people guarding them. I will save my tears for the 18 and up soldiers on my side that are losing life and limb in this fight.


if the insurgents in Iraq caught a U.S. soldier throwing a grendade at them and kept them in imprisoned for five years without any sort of due process, torturing them for information, you'd be cryin... nice filter on reality, bud.

You forget the President's veto power. Without the votes from the Republicans the Democrats cannot over-ride the veto. That's what you are missing.

Give the Democrats some more time, Gonzales may be leaving in a little while. Not getting the timetables installed in the war funding bill get my goat but at least it gets rid of one more excuse from the Bush administration on why they were not able to handle Iraq or Afghanastan.


Section 8-Powers of Congress...

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

When a Congress with the backing of up to 70% of the country is too scared to stare down a president looking up at 30% approval ratings...I call what I see...spineless.

The dems have no time...they are here on probation. They didn't get put in office because they were loved...they got there because the electorate was piassed. The last thing they want is the status quo...and that is what is being rammed down their throats. In November of 08 their time is up...and if they don't deliver it will another one of those James Carville with a trash can on his head moments.

Not willing to stand behind a group that cowers at the only important thing they were sent to congress to do.

The first part of my post was in jest. The second part wasn't. If this person was taken in combat with coalition forces, he should have been shot on the spot. If he was pulled from some village because someone didn't like him, I would feel sorry for him. The problem is that we don't know anything about this person. Like I said before, he might have been a bad dude, or he might have been an unlucky dude.

He must have deserved it. America can do not wrong, all the lives we've taken, all the lives we've destroyed have been because we're right and we're always right and completely immune from mistakes and consequences (again, because we never mess up). Any questions? /sarcasm off.

Pretty much crossed over into a very dark place here. Was sorry to read this from you.


...but you're not surprised, or are you?

Are you all experts in military law? I am pretty sure they aren't being held as civilian prisoners, so civilian law really doesn't freaking much to me. We hold soldiers without bail until they are tried (whenever) that may be, why would we do different for terrorists?


They're all positively soldiers?... like as in with uniforms, rank and serial number?

You should do a little more research because I'm here to tell you that many if not most weren't combatants in any shape of form but were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. You must not be aware of the fact that many were detained based only on accusations from people who were only interested in the substantial monetary rewards being offer by the US and the opportunity to stick it to others against which whom they held a grudge. There are people in GITMO who only there based on accusations of the most tenuous associations with the bad guys... accusations that have been proven by foreign (allies) governments to be completely false/wrong.

They're all positively soldiers?... like as in with uniforms, rank and serial number?

You should do a little more research because I'm here to tell you that many if not most weren't combatants in any shape of form but were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. You must not be aware of the fact that many were detained based only on accusations from people who were only interested in the substantial monetary rewards being offer by the US and the opportunity to stick it to others against which whom they held a grudge. There are people in GITMO who only there based on accusations of the most tenuous associations with the bad guys... accusations that have been proven by foreign (allies) governments to be completely false/wrong.

How??

Are you all experts in military law? I am pretty sure they aren't being held as civilian prisoners, so civilian law really doesn't freaking much to me. We hold soldiers without bail until they are tried (whenever) that may be, why would we do different for terrorists?The US military is under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Gitmo detainees are not under any legal code.

Section 8-Powers of Congress...

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

When a Congress with the backing of up to 70% of the country is too scared to stare down a president looking up at 30% approval ratings...I call what I see...spineless.

The dems have no time...they are here on probation. They didn't get put in office because they were loved...they got there because the electorate was piassed. The last thing they want is the status quo...and that is what is being rammed down their throats. In November of 08 their time is up...and if they don't deliver it will another one of those James Carville with a trash can on his head moments.

Not willing to stand behind a group that cowers at the only important thing they were sent to congress to do.
You do not give credit to the Democrats for any accomplishments .. thats okay I can see you have an opinion and you will not change it. There is a lot more going on then just approval ratings. Bush's approval ratings were at it's highest before the war.

The Democrat backed down to support the troops. Without the war funding bill passing Congress they would appear to have sabatoged the war effort. So if they back down they are wimps, if the don't back down they are not supporting the troops. Make up your mind. What do you want, they cannot over-ride the President's veto?

The Democrats are not on probation, they are going to be in Congress for quite a while. The republicans have nobody... well maybe a couple of more actors. That's what we need some more politicians to play pretend. The next thing you know someone will wear a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. Democrats may be divided internally but at least they are dealing with reality and not creating fiction, they stand as individuals, willing to go with their personal ideals rather than cave into party demands. If that's being a coward to choose the unpopular choice, to bear the brunt of idiots demanding more drama, then so be it.

You do not give credit to the Democrats for any accomplishments .. thats okay I can see you have an opinion and you will not change it. There is a lot more going on then just approval ratings. Bush's approval ratings were at it's highest before the war.

The Democrat backed down to support the troops. Without the war funding bill passing Congress they would appear to have sabatoged the war effort. So if they back down they are wimps, if the don't back down they are not supporting the troops. Make up your mind. What do you want, they cannot over-ride the President's veto?

The Democrats are not on probation, they are going to be in Congress for quite a while. The republicans have nobody... well maybe a couple of more actors. That's what we need some more politicians to play pretend. The next thing you know someone will wear a flight suit on an aircraft carrier. Democrats may be divided internally but at least they are dealing with reality and not creating fiction, they stand as individuals, willing to go with their personal ideals rather than cave into party demands. If that's being a coward to choose the unpopular choice, to bear the brunt of idiots demanding more drama, then so be it.

What have they accomplished? I am prepared to be dazzled with the list.

Let me see if I can break this down logically. In 2001-02...they couldn't confront the president because of his popularity. Now in 2007 they can't confront the president because there is more than just polls? I am afraid that you lost me there.

Look if the Dems wanted they could have said...Mr. President the only money your getting from us is enough to bring our boys home flying first class for their troubles. They could have cut funding completely and forced Bush to come to them for the coinage to get them home...either way...they do what they said they were going to do.

Instead they handed the dude a blank check of 100 billion or so and said hey...we don't want to look bad. Well guess what they look worse...they could have had their honor, but maybe lose their jobs. Now they have no honor...and many will lose their jobs.

Personal ideals...like Sherrod Brown...anti-war candidate extraordinaire? Railed against his opponent DeWine and the status quo...consistantly called for a timeline. Now as Senator he votes the blank check for Bush...no timeline...all the funding the President wanted. Is this what his personal convictions were? Or did he fold like a cheap suit?

The Dems are trying to dance on the head of a pin. Not be seen as anti-this (troops)...but be against the war. Well the only way to end it is bring them home. So scared they are of their puny political lives...that they would prefer to let them die...if it means a chance of putting one of their own in the White House. Jesus...Truman would be ashamed of them.

How??


I've said it before and I'll say it again. I recommend that everyone listen to edition 310 of This American Life which is titled Habeas Schmabeas. It won a Peabody Award.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1123

http://www.peabody.uga.edu/about/

...You have me wrong...I hate them both equally...one for being sadistic warmongering trouncers of the constitution...and the other for being feeble spineless losers who play the same politics with American men and treasure....

...The dems have no time...they are here on probation. They didn't get put in office because they were loved...they got there because the electorate was piassed. The last thing they want is the status quo...and that is what is being rammed down their throats. In November of 08 their time is up...and if they don't deliver it will another one of those James Carville with a trash can on his head moments.

Not willing to stand behind a group that cowers at the only important thing they were sent to congress to do...........

The Dems are trying to dance on the head of a pin. Not be seen as anti-this (troops)...but be against the war. Well the only way to end it is bring them home. So scared they are of their puny political lives...that they would prefer to let

them die...if it means a chance of putting one of their own in the White House. Jesus...Truman would be ashamed of them.

more worried about being re-elected than doing the 'right thing' or the 'thing that got them there'
heck if you want to get re-elected do your voters bidding. I hope they all lose their seats to new blood.
we don't have an override majority
we don't have enough votes
keep sending him the same bills until you do
you frickin blinked you ch1ckensh1ts with a 70% backing

TMB I lack your eloquence and your library, thx for sharing both
evil turds
lame turds
oh what choices
you know if the roles were reversed (Dem Pres and Con Congress) the Cons would have had the Stones to hold their ground. It's like this 'Impeachment is Off the Table" crap would never have been spoken from the Cons in such a situation, and for that they have my appreciation. If they weren't such money grubbing, Constitution crushing corporate *****s intent on ruining all the good things that America was I'd consider joining up.

A Pox on both their houses

and everybody, to whatever party you belong, vote against the incumbent in your primaries
I really think this is the BEST thing both sides could do right now
oh and campaign finance reform

and Dems, my dad has an old saying he often shared with me
"Dance with the one that brung ya"

yer trying to please a small minority of people who will NEVER like you IDIOTS!

And we should care, why? This is just so sad on so many levels.

What have they accomplished? I am prepared to be dazzled with the list.

Let me see if I can break this down logically. In 2001-02...they couldn't confront the president because of his popularity. Now in 2007 they can't confront the president because there is more than just polls? I am afraid that you lost me there.

Look if the Dems wanted they could have said...Mr. President the only money your getting from us is enough to bring our boys home flying first class for their troubles. They could have cut funding completely and forced Bush to come to them for the coinage to get them home...either way...they do what they said they were going to do.

Instead they handed the dude a blank check of 100 billion or so and said hey...we don't want to look bad. Well guess what they look worse...they could have had their honor, but maybe lose their jobs. Now they have no honor...and many will lose their jobs.

Personal ideals...like Sherrod Brown...anti-war candidate extraordinaire? Railed against his opponent DeWine and the status quo...consistantly called for a timeline. Now as Senator he votes the blank check for Bush...no timeline...all the funding the President wanted. Is this what his personal convictions were? Or did he fold like a cheap suit?

The Dems are trying to dance on the head of a pin. Not be seen as anti-this (troops)...but be against the war. Well the only way to end it is bring them home. So scared they are of their puny political lives...that they would prefer to let them die...if it means a chance of putting one of their own in the White House. Jesus...Truman would be ashamed of them.
PLEASE SPARE ME. What is it that you want to be dazzled with? The Democrats have been in hold of congress by one seat since January, six months. The GOP were in control for a lot longer before public outcry came out. You want to be dazzled try pro-wrestling. You want to work in the real world deal with reality. The democratic system for this country is not efficent and it does not work quickly, it never was meant to be. You want to someone to play chicken with the President on war funding, that's not brave, it's stupid. If you had a friend, son, father, mother, daughter in the service right now you would not be so gung ho to pull their funding. Also playing politics is what politcians do, what did you expect them to do, play checkers? The democratic party is very large and diverse, they have many opinions inside the party..don't like it? Then you can go either Indepedent or Republican. Of course if you are waiting for superman (Ralph Nader) to come down and save us all, that could work too but I rather deal with reality. We have a system in place for goverment that's not perfect...deal with it or leave.

The libs have no balls, brains or values. Even the leftists of you party see them for what they are. Actually the libs are the best thing to happen to the Republican Party. See you in November of '08. Oh and please spare us yourself.

more worried about being re-elected than doing the 'right thing' or the 'thing that got them there'
heck if you want to get re-elected do your voters bidding. I hope they all lose their seats to new blood.
we don't have an override majority
we don't have enough votes
keep sending him the same bills until you do
you frickin blinked you ch1ckensh1ts with a 70% backing

TMB I lack your eloquence and your library, thx for sharing both
evil turds
lame turds
oh what choices
you know if the roles were reversed (Dem Pres and Con Congress) the Cons would have had the Stones to hold their ground. It's like this 'Impeachment is Off the Table" crap would never have been spoken from the Cons in such a situation, and for that they have my appreciation. If they weren't such money grubbing, Constitution crushing corporate *****s intent on ruining all the good things that America was I'd consider joining up.

A Pox on both their houses

and everybody, to whatever party you belong, vote against the incumbent in your primaries
I really think this is the BEST thing both sides could do right now
oh and campaign finance reform

and Dems, my dad has an old saying he often shared with me
"Dance with the one that brung ya"

yer trying to please a small minority of people who will NEVER like you IDIOTS!
Typical silly response. If a bird poops on your head in a forest what would you do? Cut down all the trees? I believe in democracy, it is inefficent, slow, and sometimes unfair, but it is my country's goverment. If you don't like the party vote for a different one or start a third one. But the political parties are here to stay ... pick one or not. Just because the Democrats back down on war funding doe not make the whole party bad. One bump in the road and you call it quits. You sound pretty wimpy. Me, I am in it for the duration. The Democrats have not said they are not going to give up ..why are you?

One less to feed a ham sandwich to at lunch......Crit

They're all positively soldiers?... like as in with uniforms, rank and serial number?

You should do a little more research because I'm here to tell you that many if not most weren't combatants in any shape of form but were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. You must not be aware of the fact that many were detained based only on accusations from people who were only interested in the substantial monetary rewards being offer by the US and the opportunity to stick it to others against which whom they held a grudge. There are people in GITMO who only there based on accusations of the most tenuous associations with the bad guys... accusations that have been proven by foreign (allies) governments to be completely false/wrong.

That the problem they will not fight with all of these things......No one knows what the charges or crimes they have commited. All that info has been sealed. I pretty sure it wasn't for jaywalking......Crit

Good!

One less we have to make a ham snadwich for at lunch time....Crit

Yeah, really? ...and what exactly do you know about this inividual beyond the fact he was a resident of GITMO?

Do you have any children?

Yeah, but none of them are terrorists. Well, the 4 yr old....................

PLEASE SPARE ME. What is it that you want to be dazzled with? The Democrats have been in hold of congress by one seat since January, six months. The GOP were in control for a lot longer before public outcry came out. You want to be dazzled try pro-wrestling. You want to work in the real world deal with reality. The democratic system for this country is not efficent and it does not work quickly, it never was meant to be. You want to someone to play chicken with the President on war funding, that's not brave, it's stupid. If you had a friend, son, father, mother, daughter in the service right now you would not be so gung ho to pull their funding. Also playing politics is what politcians do, what did you expect them to do, play checkers? The democratic party is very large and diverse, they have many opinions inside the party..don't like it? Then you can go either Indepedent or Republican. Of course if you are waiting for superman (Ralph Nader) to come down and save us all, that could work too but I rather deal with reality. We have a system in place for goverment that's not perfect...deal with it or leave.
Hey...keep believin' if that is what works for you. The repulitards are criminals and dumocrats want to be just like them.

Worked pretty quickly after 9/11...how quickly did we have that patriot act anyway? From September to January we had managed to have war resolutions on a country that hadn't fired a shot on us. It most certainly was bad governance (and worse oversight)...but never let it be said that democracy has to work slowly.

Chicken? They played chicken alright...clucking their way, laying the egg...playing hen to George's rooster. It is something the Democrats seemed uniquely comfortable with doing.

I have been an Independant for oooh...I would say about a year or more, tearing up my D card. It was a bright and sunny day, with birds chirping...the rose colored glasses of needing to "defend" a certain side of criminals vanished. It was most refreshing. Took to my roots really, had been reading a great many philosphers Tocqueville, Mill, Burke, Constant etc. and came to the realization that partisanship plays no role other than to weaken your position and the nation as a whole.

So...you have nothing to dazzle me with? Most disappointed...and highly expected.

/off to ride.

...........and came to the realization that partisanship plays no role other than to weaken your position and the nation as a whole.


"And he who would not languish amongst men, must learn to drink out of all glasses; and he who would keep clean amongst men, must know how to wash himself even with dirty water."

Yeah, but none of them are terrorists. Well, the 4 yr old....................


Are you sure? I might have some pretty strong evidence that they know some bad Muslim people. Maybe I'll have share that with my Secret Service buddy. :)

That the problem they will not fight with all of these things......No one knows what the charges or crimes they have commited. All that info has been sealed. I pretty sure it wasn't for jaywalking......Crit

Is that faith-based kind of sure? You need to get informed (http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/special/310_bonus.mp3)... unless you're affraid it will conflict with your simple and easy living view of the world.

-- If you read (http://www.thislife.org/extras/radio/310_transcript.pdf)

One less to feed a ham sandwich to at lunch......Crit

We got the ham sandwich quip the first time.

We got the ham sandwich quip the first time.

I think he wanted to make certain we knew he was a disrespectful bunghole.

I think he wanted to make certain we knew he was a disrespectful bunghole.

Well if being disrespectful to a bunch of 14th century nutcases, who in a moment would take away your right to choose just about anything that you have today in your life, treat your wife as a thing and make you kill your sister for liking the wrong kind of guy, then thats what I am DISRESPECTFUL......Soon or later you have to choose a side in the ugly conflict and I may be a bunghole, but these people would cut your throat in a minute and think they have done something holy.......Crit

I think he wanted to make certain we knew he was a disrespectful bunghole.

But we are told the are not 'proper' muslims?

Well if being disrespectful to a bunch of 14th century nutcases, who in a moment would take away your right to choose just about anything that you have today in your life, treat your wife as a thing and make you kill your sister for liking the wrong kind of guy, then thats what I am DISRESPECTFUL......Soon or later you have to choose a side in the ugly conflict and I may be a bunghole, but these people would cut your throat in a minute and think they have done something holy.......Crit

"These people?" There are 1.4 billion Muslim people in the world. Are they all terrorists?

The libs have no balls, brains or values. Even the leftists of you party see them for what they are. Actually the libs are the best thing to happen to the Republican Party. See you in November of '08. Oh and please spare us yourself.
Boy, you have your head srewed on striaght. Thanks for enlightening me on bias and the heavy use of adjectives. Is everything you see black and white or are you just limited to a very narrow mind. Please don't try to several points of views. Leave yourself in the dark if and I'll see you in November 2008 to remind you of your mistakes.

Oh and please spare us yourself.

Hey...keep believin' if that is what works for you. The repulitards are criminals and dumocrats want to be just like them.

Worked pretty quickly after 9/11...how quickly did we have that patriot act anyway? From September to January we had managed to have war resolutions on a country that hadn't fired a shot on us. It most certainly was bad governance (and worse oversight)...but never let it be said that democracy has to work slowly.

Chicken? They played chicken alright...clucking their way, laying the egg...playing hen to George's rooster. It is something the Democrats seemed uniquely comfortable with doing.

I have been an Independant for oooh...I would say about a year or more, tearing up my D card. It was a bright and sunny day, with birds chirping...the rose colored glasses of needing to "defend" a certain side of criminals vanished. It was most refreshing. Took to my roots really, had been reading a great many philosphers Tocqueville, Mill, Burke, Constant etc. and came to the realization that partisanship plays no role other than to weaken your position and the nation as a whole.

So...you have nothing to dazzle me with? Most disappointed...and highly expected.

/off to ride.
The next time I want alot of adjectives I'll call you. You response lacks any kind of sense. My point was that I believe in the democratic process more than the political parties. I'll make sure to keep my words down to couple of letters and my sentences short.

I am glad your an independent, that means your vote counts for little other than a protest. Stick with philosophy, the real world may be too much for you.

I am not here to dazzle you ... thank god. The point being is that politcs is not suppose to be a fast drama for you to watch but a slow method for the public to construct compromises for laws which should work for everyone.

You may want to get use to disappointment, the country will probably be divided over alot of issues for a few more years and nothing going to be easy except gridlock.

Worked pretty quickly after 9/11...how quickly did we have that patriot act anyway? From September to January we had managed to have war resolutions on a country that hadn't fired a shot on us. It most certainly was bad governance (and worse oversight)...but never let it be said that democracy has to work slowly.

War resolutions on Afghanistan were bad governance? Or are you babbling about Iraq...Which happened in 2003...9/11 was in 2001. Aren't you supposed to be some sort of history buff?

But we are told the are not 'proper' muslims?


...and there are some Christians who say that Catholics aren't 'proper' Christians and... so what?

Well if being disrespectful to a bunch of 14th century nutcases, who in a moment would take away your right to choose just about anything that you have today in your life, treat your wife as a thing and make you kill your sister for liking the wrong kind of guy, then thats what I am DISRESPECTFUL......Soon or later you have to choose a side in the ugly conflict and I may be a bunghole, but these people would cut your throat in a minute and think they have done something holy.......Crit


Are you too lazy to get informed... or just too afraid?

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=1070920&postcount=1

...and there are some Christians who say that Catholics aren't 'proper' Christians and... so what?

But it is not just some people saying this, it is all the 'moderate muslims', the liberal media establishment, and anyone else PC.

If they are not 'proper muslims' why do we indulge their 'religion' in prison?

/just wondering.
//maybe you think radical muslims are real muslims?

But it is not just some people saying this, it is all the 'moderate muslims', the liberal media establishment, and anyone else PC.

If they are not 'proper muslims' why do we indulge their 'religion' in prison?

/just wondering.
//maybe you think radical muslims are real muslims?


Clearly you just don't get...


1. You continue to assume that all GITMO detainees are radical or extreme Muslims.

2. Radicals/extremists sects within many religions have claimed that the moderates aren't true/devout and vice versa. There's nothing remarkable about sanctimony in religion.

3. In America we generally frown upon any branch/sector or representative of the US government setting and implement discriminatory policies based on religion.

Clearly you just don't get...


1. You continue to assume that all GITMO detainees are radical or extreme Muslims.

I never actually said that, and that is not the issue, lets think about those convicted and in other institutions if that makes you happy.


2. Radicals/extremists sects within many religions have claimed that the moderates aren't true/devout and vice versa. There's nothing remarkable about sanctimony in religion.

Radical Islamists represent Islam? Yes or No? Simple question...which is it? Are the 'moderates' wrong?

/careful, think about what you are saying and how in impacts upon your liberal world view, you have to answer No really. To say Yes would be to place common responsibility and guilt for all Islamist terrorist attacks and their aggressive ideology on all 1.4 billion muslims...since they are all of the same religion.

The flipside of this is that Western 'aggression' against Muslims which your kind love to trumpet (Iraq etc) suddenly becomes more reasonable..........after all they flew planes into our towers, and one can always justify retaliation........ after all, the left has been doing it for years regarding the Palestinians....even AQ?!


3. In America we generally frown upon any branch/sector or representative of the US government setting and implement discriminatory policies based on religion.

You mean like special meals for Islamist prisoners etc?

I never actually said that, and that is not the issue, lets think about those convicted and in other institutions if that makes you happy.


Clearly you can't weasel your way out of the fact that there are ample contextual indications that you do believe that they (GITMO detainees) are all radicals. Just because you said that it isn't an issue doesn't make it so. You're the one who is pushing judgement about who the true representative Muslims are, that all radicals Muslims are terrorists and that all GITMO detainees are terrorists. You're the one who is driving at the notion that radical Muslims aren't really legitimate Muslims thus should be forced to eat pork at GITMO or any other institutions... convicted or otherwise.


Radical Islamists represent Islam? Yes or No? Simple question...which is it? Are the 'moderates' wrong?

/careful, think about what you are saying and how in impacts upon your liberal world view, you have to answer No really. To say Yes would be to place common responsibility and guilt for all Islamist terrorist attacks and their aggressive ideology on all 1.4 billion muslims...since they are all of the same religion.


Clearly the moderates outnumber the radicals. I'm an agnostic... practically an atheist. I don't make judgements about which wing or a sect within Islam is the most pious or legitimate representative of the Islamic religion. I don't really have any chips in that game.

Responsibility and guilt for all terrorist attacks (Islamist or otherwise) should belong to the individuals who actually commited them.

Whether you think I should have an unconflicted liberal world view isn't my problem. That's your judgement... your assumption... your projection. My world view is what it is. I don't give a rat's ass about how you label my world view.


The flipside of this is that Western 'aggression' against Muslims which your kind love to trumpet (Iraq etc) suddenly becomes more reasonable..........after all they flew planes into our towers, and one can always justify retaliation........ after all, the left has been doing it for years regarding the Palestinians....even AQ?!


They... the individuals who flew the planes into the towers and took so many of our fellow citizens lives were not all of the Muslims and they weren't Iraqi and they weren't even all of the so called radical Muslims in the world either.

Your notion of what I think about the Israelis and the Palestinians is again your assumption... your projection.

You think purely in terms of simple groups and kinds. You don't acknowledge people as individuals.

You speak about "our towers". They weren't your towers, my towers or our towers! You could argue that the Pentagon is ours but those aren't the "towers". Regardless, those structures weren't important in the grand scheme. They were just steel, concrete and glass. They were just property. They're replaceable. IMO it's telling that you don't speak of our fellow human beings who lost their lives and aren't replaceable. Do you always place yourself and property above all else?


You mean like special meals for Islamist prisoners etc?


US prisons and detention centers provide special meals for inmates/detainees of all religions that are sensitive of their orthodox dietary traditions. To not do so for Muslims, radical or otherwise would be religiously based discrimination. Again, Americans tend to frown on religious discrimination.

You're the one who is pushing judgement about who the true representative Muslims are,

Not me. We are told this by the liberal-left, 'moderate' muslims, even our own government on a virtually day-to-day basis.

Here is an example for you:

"....If these bombers are found to be Muslims, we will make it clear we utterly dissociate ourselves from them - even if they claim to be Muslims or are acting under the mantle of the Islamic faith. We reject that utterly," The official spokesman of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)..."


You're the one who is driving at the notion that radical Muslims aren't really legitimate Muslims thus should be forced to eat pork at GITMO or any other institutions... convicted or otherwise.

I never said they should be forced to do anything.

I simply find a contradiction in the official line that "they are not real muslims", with the fact that we institute 'special muslim diets' for their benefit. I am intrigued by this. Either they are muslims or they are not surely?


Responsibility and guilt for all terrorist attacks (Islamist or otherwise) should belong to the individuals who actually commited them.

I had this debate with KenB a while ago. I argued the same as you, that terrorist acts are a matter of individual choice.....we are capable of free will as human beings after all?

KenB initially pushed the line (I am paraphrasing) that circumstances are mitigating, one can be absolved of some responsibility for say......blowing oneself and several other innocent people up, if said innocent peoples government killed your children.....ergo free will is a myth.......vengance makes its own decisions. (KenB will deny this but this is what he meant logically).

The left, certain 'moderates', Islamist apologists, and terrorist sympathisers, take this logic further; percieved injustices against muslims in general are mitigating circumstances for muslims to commit terrorist acts in the West. Of course when pushed, they will 'condem' the radicals but this is always qualified with a "but"...but what about Israel, or Iraq or >>>>insert grievance against the West<<<<<<....but....but......but!

For example:

“It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad,” and that the British should “change our foreign policy,” - Open letter from British Muslim groups to the government post July London bombings.

Clearly this demonstrates that the responsibility of the bombing, does not really lie with the bombers at all! So much for free will....

It also, quite disturbingly, shows that the so called 'moderates' are more than willing to play 'good cop' to the radicals 'bad cop', but that is another debate.


Your notion of what I think about the Israelis and the Palestinians is again your assumption... your projection.

Not really. How many times our we told this is a reason for current problems?

KenB initially pushed the line (I am paraphrasing) that circumstances are mitigating, one can be absolved of some responsibility for say......blowing oneself and several other innocent people up, if said innocent peoples government killed your children.....ergo free will is a myth.......vengance makes its own decisions. (KenB will deny this but this is what he meant logically).


LOL.... I didn't know vengance was an external force.

US prisons and detention centers provide special meals for inmates/detainees of all religions that are sensitive of their orthodox dietary traditions. To not do so for Muslims, radical or otherwise would be religiously based discrimination. Again, Americans tend to frown on religious discrimination.
Americans also tend to eat too much and talk too loud in crowds. You can argue law, morality, etc, it's absurd to defend a point of view based on "group tendencies."

Where did this 'tendency' for religious tolerance come from? How about the love and respect your enemies tendency? Has the left become the defacto defender of Christian priniciples?

Personally, I'm sorry we took prisoners.

War resolutions on Afghanistan were bad governance? Or are you babbling about Iraq...Which happened in 2003...9/11 was in 2001. Aren't you supposed to be some sort of history buff?

Jumping in late can be difficult in a thread like this...as a history "buff" I think I do pretty well. My professors and thesis advisor seems to think so.

I have been against the Patriot Act from the beginning just as any real conservative would be...it was pushed through quickly and without thought. The war resolution--for Iraq was passed in 2002--I was speaking of the resolution and vote not of the beginning of the actual debacle.

As an historian I think I am on pretty solid ground...but this more of a political science question at this point.

You may now go back to whatever you were doing before you decided to be wrong again...

The next time I want alot of adjectives I'll call you. You response lacks any kind of sense. My point was that I believe in the democratic process more than the political parties. I'll make sure to keep my words down to couple of letters and my sentences short.

I am glad your an independent, that means your vote counts for little other than a protest. Stick with philosophy, the real world may be too much for you.

I am not here to dazzle you ... thank god. The point being is that politcs is not suppose to be a fast drama for you to watch but a slow method for the public to construct compromises for laws which should work for everyone.

You may want to get use to disappointment, the country will probably be divided over alot of issues for a few more years and nothing going to be easy except gridlock.

If you feel that way...you really should quit the party system...the current ones are ruining your democractic process.

I am an historian...not a philospher, merely dabble in the intellectual side of history--but thanks! As for the real world, the two jobs that I have, working full time, going to graduate school and serving as a TA...is really all the reality that I can handle...any more and I would think that these bills I have to pay the wife I want to keep happy, the home that I need to upkeep and the cars I need to keep running and everything else were hallucinations. But I don't mind the personal attack after all...you cling to a broken down party that has just stabbed you in the back. Projection and repression are pretty common in times like these.

Still waiting for the simple...what meaningful things have the Democrats done since clawing their way back into power? You seem to have gotten off on the wordspeak...but really I just want something that they have done that the rank and file dem can really get behind and say.."that's why we put them back there."

Gridlock would be great...I pray for gridlock everyday. We have enough laws. Barring gridlock...well their is always the constitutional Monarchy.

Jumping in late can be difficult in a thread like this...as a history "buff" I think I do pretty well. My professors and thesis advisor seems to think so.
As a professor and thesis advisor, I stand firmly above all of you both intellectually and philosophically. I look great in a Speedo too.

Lovely how you have sliced and diced the ham... I mean, that sentence up into an ellipsis. Again, you're the one here and now who is advocating the notion that all radical Muslims are terrorists and that all GITMO detainees are terrorists. You're the one who is pushing the idea that if moderate Muslims are the true representatives Islam and that it follows that detained Muslims aren't really Muslims thus don't deserve to be respected or treated as Muslims.

You offered a single example quote as though it was proof that "the media" is of a single unified opinion that deems that "they are not real Muslims".

Again, it’s all about kinds and groups with you… not individuals. You seem to see the world as only being filled with unthinking herds because you read a little bit of Nietzsche for Idiots. It’s rather entertaining to watch you run around the field with you butterfly net trying gather individuals into simple “unthinking herds” so ironically you don’t have to think so hard.

Guess what?... The imaginary block of liberals and the media you keep alluding to is a red herring. The media doesn’t set or implement policy regarding the operations of US government prisons and detention centers. Show us any shred of proof that there is an official and lawful US government policy/line that categorizes any sect or group of Muslims as not being real.



-- I’m not KenB. KenB and I aren’t part of one of your artificial herds inside of your Fred Nietzsche model butterfly nets. We are individuals who think independently and that’s as much as I’m going to say about KenB here and now.

Lovely how you have sliced and diced the ham... I mean, that sentence up into an ellipsis. Again, you're the one here and now who is advocating the notion that all radical Muslims are terrorists and that all GITMO detainees are terrorists. You're the one who is pushing the idea that if moderate Muslims are the true representatives Islam and that it follows that detained Muslims aren't really Muslims thus don't deserve to be respected or treated as Muslims.

You offered a single example quote as though it was proof that "the media" is of a single unified opinion that deems that "they are not real Muslims".

Again, it’s all about kinds and groups with you… not individuals. You seem to see the world as only being filled with unthinking herds because you read a little bit of Nietzsche for Idiots. It’s rather entertaining to watch you run around the field with you butterfly net trying gather individuals into simple “unthinking herds” so ironically you don’t have to think so hard.

Guess what?... The imaginary block of liberals and the media you keep alluding to is a red herring. The media doesn’t set or implement policy regarding the operations of US government prisons and detention centers. Show us any shred of proof that there is an official and lawful US government policy/line that categorizes any sect or group of Muslims as not being real.



-- I’m not KenB. KenB and I aren’t part of one of your artificial herds inside of your Fred Nietzsche model butterfly nets. We are individuals who think independently and that’s as much as I’m going to say about KenB here and now.


Rydster will be quick to point out that the US is not the entire world and that Europe ['s lack of backbon] is "the problem" while implying often enough that it is the US who should fix said problem, all the while denying that the very things that makes the US largely immune to the "problems" Europe faces are indeed an example of the ideology that ultimately will fix said "problems".

Rydster has the same failing his hero, Neitzsche, has: Both are naysayers quick to point out the failings of society while offering nothing in the form of a solution to the problems they see facing the world.

LOL.... I didn't know vengance was an external force.


'Your Honor, the accused should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were under the control of an external force called 'vengance' at the time of their allegedly criminal actions.' :rolleyes:

Let's just say all the prisoners in Gitmo are boy scout. This is what what Rocco and others here are implying. I'm sure this will make everyone feel better as the boy scouts are such a radical group. Ok. lets not say that because the real world doesn't see them as boy scout but radicals who want to impose their way upon all. Convert or die is a popular slogan.

Let's just say all the prisoners in Gitmo are boy scout. This is what what Rocco and others here are implying. I'm sure this will make everyone feel better as the boy scouts are such a radical group. Ok. lets not say that because the real world doesn't see them as boy scout but radicals who want to impose their way upon all. Convert or die is a popular slogan.


If you want to say all the prisoners in Gitmo are boy scouts then you are free to do so but those are your words not mine. That's certainly not what I believe or have ever implied. You can also keep on claiming that all of the detainee at GITMO are "radicals who want to impose their way upon all" but that is false.

Let's just say all the prisoners in Gitmo are boy scout. This is what what Rocco and others here are implying.


Really??? Can you link to the posts where those implications are made? We'd really like to see them.

All those like Rocco and myself are asking for is a oversight to ensure that WE, the Good Guys, are in fact the Good Guys and not just a bunch of hypocritical bullsh*t artists who, when things get a little tough, only pay lip service to the notion of the rule of law.

Really??? Can you link to the posts where those implications are made? We'd really like to see them.

All those like Rocco and myself are asking for is a oversight to ensure that WE, the Good Guys, are in fact the Good Guys and not just a bunch of hypocritical bullsh*t artists who, when things get a little tough, only pay lip service to the notion of the rule of law.

Conditions at Gitmo are much changed from the initial stages of this war. I don't think you will accept anything less than civil trials for the prisoners and that ain't gonna happen, nor should it.

Conditions at Gitmo are much changed from the initial stages of this war. I don't think you will accept anything less than civil trials for the prisoners and that ain't gonna happen, nor should it.


You're incorrect. I don't expect nor think the prisoners deserve civil trials in probably most cases as they're prisoners of war. I think I've been pretty consistent on this subject from day one. What I want is to ensure that MY government is not violating the law in MY name. Let the Red Cross in to observe, unannounced, whenever they want to. Based on its track record, I don't trust my government to follow the rules.

You're incorrect. I don't expect nor think the prisoners deserve civil trials in probably most cases as they're prisoners of war. I think I've been pretty consistent on this subject from day one. What I want is to ensure that MY government is not violating the law in MY name. Let the Red Cross in to observe, unannounced, whenever they want to. Based on its track record, I don't trust my government to follow the rules.

There havee been inspections by various entities including hostile representatives from Congress. Nothing has been uncovered to indicate that these people are mistreated in the manner most people here seem to think. Whatever valuable intelligenc that could have been gathered is long past being useful on a timely basis and I doubt that anything of the level of waterboarding is common practice at this time.

There havee been inspections by various entities including hostile representatives from Congress. Nothing has been uncovered to indicate that these people are mistreated in the manner most people here seem to think. Whatever valuable intelligenc that could have been gathered is long past being useful on a timely basis and I doubt that anything of the level of waterboarding is common practice at this time.

If I know company is coming, I generally tend to straighten up the place a bit. I don't want planned, partisan motivated BS visits. I want see something like the Red Cross do the inspections and I want it in all of our prison camps, not just Gitmo. To use your argument in support of warrantless wiretaps of our own citizens... What are we worried about if we're not doing anything wrong?

If I know company is coming, I generally tend to straighten up the place a bit. I don't want planned, partisan motivated BS visits. I want see something like the Red Cross do the inspections and I want it in all of our prison camps, not just Gitmo. To use your argument in support of warrantless wiretaps of our own citizens... What are we worried about if we're not doing anything wrong?

International politics.

Let's just say all the prisoners in Gitmo are boy scout. This is what what Rocco and others here are implying. I'm sure this will make everyone feel better as the boy scouts are such a radical group. Ok. lets not say that because the real world doesn't see them as boy scout but radicals who want to impose their way upon all. Convert or die is a popular slogan.

Lets ask the 15 year old that WE are holding there. He may still be in the Boy Scouts and not have finished all his merit badges.

I wonder if he qualifies for his "Concentration Camp" merit badge?

Lets ask the 15 year old that WE are holding there. He may still be in the Boy Scouts and not have finished all his merit badges.

I wonder if he qualifies for his "Concentration Camp" merit badge?

Probably wears it right under his grenade throwing and gun shooting badges. One of you worried libs oughta look into adopting him. Then keep us posted on how well you sleep, you know, with your conscience at rest and all.

International politics.

Irrelevant. If we cared about international politics, we'd never have invaded Iraq. Plain and simple.


I can't think of a single, reasonable and valid explanation why we shouldn't let the Red Cross or some other impartial entity randomly and regularly inspect our prison camps but I can think of several reasons why we should.

Probably wears it right under his grenade throwing and gun shooting badges. One of you worried libs oughta look into adopting him. Then keep us posted on how well you sleep, you know, with your conscience at rest and all.

Or he's there because his neighbor turned him in for a reward because he didn't like him. An awful lot of people wound up in GITMO for this very reason.

So, do you think a 15 year old kid should be held in GITMO? Why didn't they turn him into the local authorities and let them handle the issue?

The very fact that a 15 year old kid is being held in OUR concentration camp is direct evidence that we aren't upholding our own AMERICAN ideals!

Or he's there because his neighbor turned him in for a reward because he didn't like him. An awful lot of people wound up in GITMO for this very reason.

So, do you think a 15 year old kid should be held in GITMO? Why didn't they turn him into the local authorities and let them handle the issue?

The very fact that a 15 year old kid is being held in OUR concentration camp is direct evidence that we aren't upholding our own AMERICAN ideals!

Jerked him right out of gym class did they? I swan, whatever can we do?

Jerked him right out of gym class did they? I swan, whatever can we do?

Let us know when you're ready to deal with reality... :out:

If you feel that way...you really should quit the party system...the current ones are ruining your democractic process.

I am an historian...not a philospher, merely dabble in the intellectual side of history--but thanks! As for the real world, the two jobs that I have, working full time, going to graduate school and serving as a TA...is really all the reality that I can handle...any more and I would think that these bills I have to pay the wife I want to keep happy, the home that I need to upkeep and the cars I need to keep running and everything else were hallucinations. But I don't mind the personal attack after all...you cling to a broken down party that has just stabbed you in the back. Projection and repression are pretty common in times like these.

Still waiting for the simple...what meaningful things have the Democrats done since clawing their way back into power? You seem to have gotten off on the wordspeak...but really I just want something that they have done that the rank and file dem can really get behind and say.."that's why we put them back there."

Gridlock would be great...I pray for gridlock everyday. We have enough laws. Barring gridlock...well their is always the constitutional Monarchy.
The Democrats have only been in "power" since January. Their power is limited to one seat in the Senate. The president has veto power over Congress. What is it you want?

Usually a quick decisive action in politic leads to politcal back-lash or end up with very poor results. Look at all the actions post 9/11 for an example quick and poor decisions (Patriot Act, GITMO, Homeland Security, Iraq War..etc). Only careful deliberation and compromise can solve the very complicate problems facing our nation. Once again this is a very slow process. There is no quick answer. Sorry to break it to you, As a historian you can appreciate how our democratic system worked in the past. It took over a hundred years to get rid of slavery. Over a hundred years to have women vote. Amost 200 year to get African-Americans equal rights.

I will be the first one to say the two party system does not work well but I believe in our system of goverment and consider it to still be the best in the world. Of course it needs improvements in campaign finance reform, corruption, and goverment regulations but so does every goverment.

You still what a list don't you? Well you are going to have to wait. Immigration, healthcare, social security, Iraq, Afghanaistan, Iran, North Korea, National Debt, the housing market, oil prices, China and many more are more complicated than anyone here in the forum can describe. These items will take many years to solve, not days or months.

The only thing I can give you to ease your mind is see the list of accomplishments the Democratic party has done in the past and what President Clinton did in the 90's. Of course this list is debateble, just like the Republican list, but that is the only list I can think of right now.

To give up on the Democrats is to go with the Republicans. I cannot stand what the Republicans have done in the past eight years, so I go with the Democrats. I have no choice until another party comes into play or the other two disolve.

You're the one who is pushing the idea that if moderate Muslims are the true representatives Islam and that it follows that detained Muslims aren't really Muslims thus don't deserve to be respected or treated as Muslims.

You offered a single example quote as though it was proof that "the media" is of a single unified opinion that deems that "they are not real Muslims".

Firstly, I never said they did not deserve to be treated like real muslims. I just asked a question; why do we treat them like proper Muslims when the general consensus is that they (as radicals/terrorists) do not represent Islam at all?

I did offer only a single quote, but that the quote is the official line of the Muslim Council of Great Britian (an umbrella group that represents a multitude of Muslim interests in the UK) seems lost on you.

You do not even offer a single counter quote or any evidence to the contary of what I am saying.

Believe me, if I had the time I could dredge up dozens of these quotes.....

Looks to me like you do not know what you are talking about.


Again, it’s all about kinds and groups with you… not individuals. You seem to see the world as only being filled with unthinking herds because you read a little bit of Nietzsche for Idiots. It’s rather entertaining to watch you run around the field with you butterfly net trying gather individuals into simple “unthinking herds” so ironically you don’t have to think so hard.

Guess what?... The imaginary block of liberals and the media you keep alluding to is a red herring. The media doesn’t set or implement policy regarding the operations of US government prisons and detention centers. Show us any shred of proof that there is an official and lawful US government policy/line that categorizes any sect or group of Muslims as not being real.

Now you have stopped making sense....what is your argument exactly?

Now I ask again: Do you think that Islamists terrorists represent Islam? Yes or No answer.

LOL.... I didn't know vengance was an external force.

It is not, but that is what you implied in an earlier thread about suicide bombers.

/I am glad you now disagree with what you said before.

Rydster will be quick to point out that the US is not the entire world and that Europe ['s lack of backbon] is "the problem" while implying often enough that it is the US who should fix said problem, all the while denying that the very things that makes the US largely immune to the "problems" Europe faces are indeed an example of the ideology that ultimately will fix said "problems".

While I would say that demographics and the younger conciouness of the States give you some advantages and bide you some time, it is my belief that Europe should be a warning......one need only extrapolate forward 50 or 100 years, the US is not so different.


Rydster has the same failing his hero, Neitzsche, has: Both are naysayers quick to point out the failings of society while offering nothing in the form of a solution to the problems they see facing the world.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose?

It is not, but that is what you implied in an earlier thread about suicide bombers.

/I am glad you now disagree with what you said before.


Care to link to it?

I think pretty much anyone could sympathize with the suicide bombers on a certain level. For example, if I felt that the government killed my kid, I would work to kill the entire families of those I felt responsible, knowing full well I'd die somewhere in the carrying out of my mission.

A lot of the bombers have lost family members to US/Israeli bombs. Others feel that their country has been unjustly attacked. I can absolutely sympathize with their wanting revenge.

This thread:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=95610

This thread:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=95610


And that implies that vengance is an external force in what way? Forgive me for not seeing how you inferred that from what I posted. The choice to seek revenge is with the individual. I never implied anything but that.

When presented with an overwhelming force, how does a weaker group fight?

Let us know when you're ready to deal with reality... :out:

You pretty much know when you are losing the argument when the other side starts calling you names (bunghole) and they reply with the "reality" chant. It's over, you lose....Crit

Firstly, I never said they did not deserve to be treated like real muslims. I just asked a question; why do we treat them like proper Muslims when the general consensus is that they (as radicals/terrorists) do not represent Islam at all?

Take every instance where I wrote "real" and exchange it with "proper". It makes zero difference.


I did offer only a single quote, but that the quote is the official line of the Muslim Council of Great Britian (an umbrella group that represents a multitude of Muslim interests in the UK) seems lost on you.?

Not lost on me... it's still a red herring.

You do not even offer a single counter quote or any evidence to the contary of what I am saying.

Believe me, if I had the time I could dredge up dozens of these quotes......


No need to as your quote and point is irrelevant to how these individuals should be treated. Dozens of quotes wouldn't change a thing. Quanity dosen't do a thing for lack of quality... it's just more crap.



Looks to me like you do not know what you are talking about......


This says more about you than me.


Now you have stopped making sense....what is your argument exactly?.


It makes sense... there's nothing more I can do to accommodate your lack of it.


Now I ask again: Do you think that Islamists terrorists represent Islam? Yes or No answer.


Again, it's not my judgment to make and whether they do or don't isn't relevant.

Not lost on me... it's still a red herring.

No need to as your quote and point is irrelevant to how these individuals should be treated. Dozens of quotes wouldn't change a thing. Quanity dosen't do a thing for lack of quality... it's just more crap.


Suit yourself. Choosing to deny the reality of mainstream opinion is your perogative.

My point is simply; it is ironic that the liberal-left and 'muslim moderates' who most likely to complain if radicals were denied 'Muslim rights' in prison, are the ones who are so quick to dismiss radicals as not really being 'true muslims' at all.

I do not see how this can be argued with. I am just stating reality, not making judgements about who and who should not be allowed 'special meals'....which you seem to think I am doing.



Again, it's not my judgment to make and whether they do or don't isn't relevant.

It is dangerous when we are content to offload all responsibility (and guilt?) onto a political class only, do you not think? Historically speaking that is....

My point is simply; it is ironic that the liberal-left and 'muslim moderates' who most likely to complain if radicals were denied 'Muslim rights' in prison, are the ones who are so quick to dismiss radicals as not really being 'true muslims' at all.

All individuals regardless of whether they are 'radicals' should never be denied 'human rights' and freedom of religion whenever, wherever the US government is involved.