[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Still nothing but personal attacks and insults.

You reap what you sow, pal.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I won't be so easily baited by your sophmoric banter.

I'm not baiting you, it's just that you have an issue with people who criticize your president. Your symbol, your hero?

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

And complete lack of knowlege to the situation in New York.

That's right you've shown a complete lack of knowlege to the situation in New York.

V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Dork.

marden, (if that is your real name ), What you are proposing is nothing less than undermining our legal system, and the democracy it supports.

I know you think I'm being over the top here, but I assure you I am not. This country was founded, in part, in reaction to the tendency of the British to do exactly the things that Bush is proposing is necessary in his Global War On Terror. Hold people indefinitely without charging them? Deny them access to the evidence against them? Hold them in secret? It flies in the face of the principles out country was founded on. In we compromise on them, we compromise on our democracy -- it's as simple as that.

One typical argument I hear is that it's pointless to give "the terrorists" these rights, because if the shoe was on the other foot and we were being detained by them, they would not be granted to us. This is one reason why some people describe the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" -- they assume that we hold them only so that the othe side holds them too. But this is all wrong. We don't offer these rights on a tit-for-tat basis, we offer them because it is the right thing to do, and our values assert that all humans deserve these rights. We hold ourselves to a higher standard than they hold. Or, at least we used to.

Quoted in entirety for focus and agreement.

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika

Quoted in entirety for focus and agreement.

Yucca Mountain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yucca Mountain is a ridge-line in Nye County, Nevada, composed of volcanic material (mostly tuff) ejected from a now-extinct caldera-forming supervolcano. The "mountain" is most notable as the site of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, a U.S. Department of Energy terminal storage facility for spent nuclear reactor and other radioactive waste. Like many nuclear facilities, the proposed Yucca Mountain facility is controversial. Spent nuclear fuel is the radioactive by-product of electric power generation at commercial nuclear power plants, and high-level radioactive waste is the by-product from production of fissile material at defense facilities. In 1982, the United States Congress established a national policy to solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. This policy is a federal law called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Congress based this policy on what most scientists worldwide agreed is the best way to dispose of nuclear waste.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act made the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) responsible for finding a site, building, and operating an underground disposal facility called a geologic repository. The recommendation to use a geologic repository dates back to 1957 when the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the best means of protecting the environment and public health and safety would be to dispose of the waste in rock deep underground.

[...]

On July 18, 2006 the DOE agreed upon March 31, 2017 as the date to open the facility and begin accepting waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

Good thing you weren't in charge of the nuclear waste disposal project. We'd all be our own green glowing night lights by now.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by voodoo

You reap what you sow, pal.



I'm not baiting you, it's just that you have an issue with people who criticize your president. Your symbol, your hero?



That's right you've shown a complete lack of knowlege to the situation in New York.

V

I haven't sown anything, pal.
You have nothing. And know nothing.
And make many ignorant assumptions.
And continue to show it.

Anything else, take it to PMs.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

It's a gap in the justice system having to deal with a new 21st Century kind of foe.

Why do you say that terrorism is "a new 21st Century kind of foe"? Terrorism has been around for time immemorial. You keep on saying that we don't have laws to deal with terrorism and wars but this is absolute rubbish. We do have those laws. The Bush Administration doesn't have faith in the US Justice System which has been dealing with terrorism for decades. It doesn't have faith in the Geneva Conventions which have applied to wars for decades. They have moved people accused of a variety of acts or not accused of anything at all out of any justice system that might apply and into a black hole. In the last 3 years they have done very little at all to fill the gap you say there is in the law. There is still no system that would qualify in any advanced society as a justice system that applies to the people in Gitmo. It's not that the Bush Administration is looking in vain for a way to deal with the people at Gitmo. The Administration's focus is clearly to prevent any system at all from applying to them for as long as possible.

This is not hyperbole. The human rights violations that Gitmo represents are right up there with South American governments making people disappear and any other violations going on in the world today. If you can't understand any of the other reasons why America is so unpopular today, at least understand what Gitmo is doing for international opinion.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll

Why do you say that terrorism is "a new 21st Century kind of foe"? Terrorism has been around for time immemorial. You keep on saying that we don't have laws to deal with terrorism and wars but this is absolute rubbish. We do have those laws. The Bush Administration doesn't have faith in the US Justice System which has been dealing with terrorism for decades. It doesn't have faith in the Geneva Conventions which have applied to wars for decades. They have moved people accused of a variety of acts or not accused of anything at all out of any justice system that might apply and into a black hole. In the last 3 years they have done very little at all to fill the gap you say there is in the law. There is still no system that would qualify in any advanced society as a justice system that applies to the people in Gitmo. It's not that the Bush Administration is looking in vain for a way to deal with the people at Gitmo. The Administration's focus is clearly to prevent any system at all from applying to them for as long as possible.

Why would they want to prevent the system from locking these guys up or letting them go?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

Good thing you weren't in charge of the nuclear waste disposal project. We'd all be our own green glowing night lights by now.

I suggest marden/aberdeenwriter/abe be put in charge of dealing with terrorists.

He'd confuse them to death with a deluge of completely non-sequitur, meaningless blather.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

Why would they want to prevent the system from locking these guys up or letting them go?

Any number of reasons.

1) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they want to be able to use torture and other "techniques" for extracting information that they wouldn't be able to use if a justice system were applied to them.

2) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they don't have any hard evidence linking these people to crimes and don't think they will be able to get it.

3) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they need more time to "interrogate" them than the law allows and because the best evidence they are likely to have is confessions extracted under duress.

3) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they don't want information about the circumstances under which they were arrested and the deeds they are accused of committing getting into the public domain and don't trust the Justice System to protect the public interest.

4) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they realise that most of these guys are foot soldiers at best and so valuable primarily as information sources. They don't want to put them in jail so much as get information out of them.

5) They don't want to hold them under the laws of war because those prevent them from interrogating the prisoners.

6) They don't want to hold them under the laws of war because then they would have to release them when the hostilities are over.

7) They don't want to hold them under the laws of war because then they would have to charge those they suspect of being terrorists with crimes and then the criminal law would apply.

So they don't want either the criminal law to apply or the laws of war to apply so what do they do? Say that there's a gap and have no apply in the gap.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll

Any number of reasons.

1) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they want to be able to use torture and other "techniques" for extracting information that they wouldn't be able to use if a justice system were applied to them.

2) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they don't have any hard evidence linking these people to crimes and don't think they will be able to get it.

3) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they need more time to "interrogate" them than the law allows and because the best evidence they are likely to have is confessions extracted under duress.

3) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they don't want information about the circumstances under which they were arrested and the deeds they are accused of committing getting into the public domain and don't trust the Justice System to protect the public interest.

4) They don't want to hold them under criminal laws because they realise that most of these guys are foot soldiers at best and so valuable primarily as information sources. They don't want to put them in jail so much as get information out of them.

5) They don't want to hold them under the laws of war because those prevent them from interrogating the prisoners.

6) They don't want to hold them under the laws of war because then they would have to release them when the hostilities are over.

7) They don't want to hold them under the laws of war because then they would have to charge those they suspect of being terrorists with crimes and then the criminal law would apply.

So they don't want either the criminal law to apply or the laws of war to apply so what do they do? Say that there's a gap and have no apply in the gap.

How about this...

They don't want to let them go because the fockers are dangerous criminals bent on killing Americans and Moderate Muslims and holding them is the only way to prevent their shedding more innocent blood?

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika

I suggest marden/aberdeenwriter/abe be put in charge of dealing with terrorists.

He'd confuse them to death with a deluge of completely non-sequitur, meaningless blather.

Other than the fact that you probably aren't a terrorist, how do you explain your immunity to my deluges?

(I'm only recognizing that you THINK I'm abe, ab or Mo. I'm not admitting to your identification, mind you.)

[BlackGriffen]

So when can we ship the freaks in power to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes? For a bonus, even some of the same war crimes the US accused Japan of in WWII! It may take a while, though, I don't think anyone would want to spring for anything more than ground/ocean shipping. We'd better make sure to puncture air holes in the lids of their jars or they might water board, I mean suffocate to death on the long trip there..

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden

How about this...

They don't want to let them go because the fockers are dangerous criminals bent on killing Americans and Moderate Muslims and holding them is the only way to prevent their shedding more innocent blood?

What a kindergarten response to a solid list of reasons.

If they were all dangerous fockers, they wouldn't have let so many of them free, now, would they?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden

Other than the fact that you probably aren't a terrorist, how do you explain your immunity to my deluges?

(I'm only recognizing that you THINK I'm abe, ab or Mo. I'm not admitting to your identification, mind you.)

Bla bla bla

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

They don't want to let them go because the fockers are dangerous criminals bent on killing Americans and Moderate Muslims and holding them is the only way to prevent their shedding more innocent blood?

As analogika said, no one has any idea whether any of them are dangerous criminals or not. In the absence of charges, it seems the Administration themselves aren't sure.

Every other country on the planet manages to deal with terrorism without resorting to barbary. Even the US managed for centuries.

P.S. Is this the same person that has uses Mojo, Mojo2, Aberdeenwriter and Abe as logins?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by marden

Yucca Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good thing you weren't in charge of the nuclear waste disposal project. We'd all be our own green glowing night lights by now.

Wha????

Am I just dense this morning? What does this have to do with anything at all in the rest of this thread?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by marden

How about this...

They don't want to let them go because the fockers are dangerous criminals bent on killing Americans and Moderate Muslims and holding them is the only way to prevent their shedding more innocent blood?

Then, they ought to be able to prove it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll

As analogika said, no one has any idea whether any of them are dangerous criminals or not. In the absence of charges, it seems the Administration themselves aren't sure.

Every other country on the planet manages to deal with terrorism without resorting to barbary. Even the US managed for centuries.

P.S. Is this the same person that has uses Mojo, Mojo2, Aberdeenwriter and Abe as logins?

No.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Wha????

Am I just dense this morning? What does this have to do with anything at all in the rest of this thread?

*Spent nuclear fuel is dangerous. Gitmos prisoners are dangerous.

*There was no safe way to permanently deal with the danger of spent nuclear fuel.

*There was no safe way to permanently deal with the dangerous Gitmo prisoners.

*After many years a safe method of permanently dealing with nuke fuel was agreed upon.

*After many fewer years there's still no safe method of dealing with the dangerous Gitmo prisoners.

Re: the dangerous Gitmo prisoners, the opposition wants to subject these prisoners to normal legal proceedings, which would not be a safe method of permanently dealing with them and would result in many dangerous terrorists being released to cause harm to the people of the world.

If the opposition posters would so eagerly release known dangerous prisoners upon the world, just think of what they would have done with regard to the known dangers of the spent nuke fuel before a safe method for dealing with it was determined. They might have just relied upon regulations which might or might not have been in the best interests of society and simply disposed of the dangers in a way certain to cause harm.

All because they were following the regulations.

Laws were written to serve mankind. A slavish obedience to laws which do not address new developments in culture, technology, society, warfare and the like, nor well serve mankind, is insanity.

These prisoners were taken from the hills, mountains, cities and villages of Afghanistan where common western methods of criminal investigation are stymied.

There are no phone records when there are no phones.
There are no eye witnesses when the rule of law in that region is tribal loyalty.
There are few crime scenes left intact when mostly illiterate people, many of whom are at least ambivalent toward the cause of anti-terror, know nothing about the importance of crime scene preservation.

Trying a legal case might well go this way:

Judge: Prosecutor, what evidence do you have linking this man to the attack on U.S. military forces?

Prosecutor: He was in the vicinity from where mortar attacks were launched against us. All other men, women or children were absent from the area.

Judge: Defense counsel, what say you?

Defense Attny: Your honor, my client came along just as he saw four men leaving the scene in a white Toyota pickup truck.

Judge: Prosecutor, do you have anything which nails the defendant to the actual mortar attack on the U.S. forces?

Prosecutor: No, your honor.

Judge: Case dismissed. Mr. Faqir, you are free to go.

(Faqir is told of his good fortune. His shackles are removed, his eyes get big. He screams, Allahu Akbar! And reaches to push a non-existent button on his belt. He realizes he has no suicide device and assaults the abomination of man's court and laws in the only way available. He spits at the judge, the prosecutor and his defense attorney. Then he walks away into the hillside, where sometime later there are heard cries of rejoicing. "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!" God is great.)

Multiply by several hundred.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

Gitmos prisoners are dangerous.

Your style of repeating dead points over and over is very reminscent of Aberdeen. As we've said umpteen times, how do you know that Gitmo prisoners are dangerous? And if they were all dangerous, why have some of them been released (years after being detained)? How come when non-US courts looked into their cases, they were invariably found innocent of all wrong-doing?

Originally Posted by marden

There was no safe way to permanently deal with the dangerous Gitmo prisoners.

Those who are GUILTY of crimes could be locked up for the rest of their lives. That's how the US and other countries have been dealing with terrorism for years and I'm not aware of such people ever becoming dangerous again thereafter.

Originally Posted by marden

Re: the dangerous Gitmo prisoners, the opposition wants to subject these prisoners to normal legal proceedings, which would not be a safe method of permanently dealing with them and would result in many dangerous terrorists being released to cause harm to the people of the world.

Why do you have so little faith in your Justice system that you believe that applying it to people you think are so clearly guilty, would result in them being freed? What are you fighting to protect yourselves against if not the threat to the systems that you so cherish like your Justice system? Without justice, how are we better than the terrorists?

Besides, if you've identified a problem with the "normal justice system" then is your solution not to improve the justice system for all rather than to simply delete the system altogether and put the tools of justice in the hands of the President alone?

Originally Posted by marden

If the opposition posters would so eagerly release known dangerous prisoners upon the world,

Nobody is saying that dangerous criminals should be released. All we're saying is that you should determine who the dangerous criminals are.

Originally Posted by marden

Laws were written to serve mankind. A slavish obedience to laws which do not address new developments in culture, technology, society, warfare and the like, nor well serve mankind, is insanity.

There is absolutely no point in having laws if people are free to break them when they think developments in culture, technology, society, warfare etc. render them irrelevant. Anyone could say, at any time, that x law is no longer relevant because the iPod has been invented etc. In a civilised society, you need certainty of law. In a civilised society, laws exist and have to be followed to the letter until they are repealed or replaced. As a society develops, it replaces irrelevant laws with new ones. There are processes for replacing or repealing laws that ensure that the populace is represented when laws are modified. If you think that you need new laws to deal with terrorism (which surprises me), then the correct way to go about that, is to engage Congress to make new laws - not for the President to simply ignore the law. There is a name for a system where that happens and it's not democracy.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll

Your style of repeating dead points over and over is very reminscent of Aberdeen. As we've said umpteen times, how do you know that Gitmo prisoners are dangerous? And if they were all dangerous, why have some of them been released (years after being detained)? How come when non-US courts looked into their cases, they were invariably found innocent of all wrong-doing?
Those who are GUILTY of crimes could be locked up for the rest of their lives. That's how the US and other countries have been dealing with terrorism for years and I'm not aware of such people ever becoming dangerous again thereafter.
Why do you have so little faith in your Justice system that you believe that applying it to people you think are so clearly guilty, would result in them being freed? What are you fighting to protect yourselves against if not the threat to the systems that you so cherish like your Justice system? Without justice, how are we better than the terrorists?

Besides, if you've identified a problem with the "normal justice system" then is your solution not to improve the justice system for all rather than to simply delete the system altogether and put the tools of justice in the hands of the President alone?
Nobody is saying that dangerous criminals should be released. All we're saying is that you should determine who the dangerous criminals are.
There is absolutely no point in having laws if people are free to break them when they think developments in culture, technology, society, warfare etc. render them irrelevant. Anyone could say, at any time, that x law is no longer relevant because the iPod has been invented etc. In a civilised society, you need certainty of law. In a civilised society, laws exist and have to be followed to the letter until they are repealed or replaced. As a society develops, it replaces irrelevant laws with new ones. There are processes for replacing or repealing laws that ensure that the populace is represented when laws are modified. If you think that you need new laws to deal with terrorism (which surprises me), then the correct way to go about that, is to engage Congress to make new laws - not for the President to simply ignore the law. There is a name for a system where that happens and it's not democracy.

You are just being argumentive for fun. You know I'm right. So just stop it, ok? I know you are smart. So just let it go. Ok?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden

You are just being argumentive for fun.

No actually, I'm very serious about this. I think that Gitmo and the illegal renditions that the US is engaging in are some of the most serious threats to human rights present in the world today. What makes it even worse is that this is happening in the country that has, for so many decades, been the beacon for human rights elsewhere.

But obviously we've exploded your brain resulting in your sandpit style, "You know I'm right," argument. Nice chatting.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Troll

What makes it even worse is that this is happening in the country that has, for so many decades, been the beacon for human rights elsewhere.

Well.. no not *so* many decades. Since about 1964-ish.

They were pretty louse in human rights before: Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or are you referring to Cuba

V

[Mark Larr]

I'm sure Montezuma would just love to give his side of Spain's humanitarian efforts.


Oh that's right, Spain committed the worst genocide that humanity has ever experienced.

[Sky Captain]

Is the continent of Africa free from racial inequality yet?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Is the continent of Africa free from racial inequality yet?

I don't really want to talk about the price of eggs, but no continent is free of racial inequality.

[Sky Captain]

I was more interested in Apartheid Law.
Has it really disappeared yet?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I was more interested in Apartheid Law.
Has it really disappeared yet?

How is this related to the topic?

I am not an expert on the national laws of all 54 countries on the continent of Africa but I would be very surprised if there were any apartheid laws on the books in any of those countries.

The only link I can see to the point is in relation to countries like South Africa and Nambia (who had apartheid laws) looking up to the United States of America during the dark days of apartheid. America was a beacon for supporters of human rights. A few months back, the CIA flew a plane into South Africa and picked up a guy who then disappeared into a Gitmo-esque prison in an undisclosed location somewhere in the world - without charge or trial of course (this is called illegal rendition). Someone found out and the SA government had to admit that this happened. How do you think this makes South Africans feel about the US? I don't mean to suggest that Africa can teach the US about human rights if that's your point. I'm merely saying that the US is no longer revered as it once was. Global public opinion used to be an area of massive soft power for the US. It no longer is.

[Sky Captain]

There was a post on America's past racial equality laws.
I merely pointed out that America is not the only country that had racial inequality and was not the last to do something about it.
But America seems to be a constant target.


And Apartheid Law was fashioned after Germany from what I research now.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

I'm sure Montezuma would just love to give his side of Spain's humanitarian efforts.

Oh that's right, Spain committed the worst genocide that humanity has ever experienced.

Oh, you must be of the retarded bunch, where a wrong in the past justifies a wrong in the present.. say no more, I know you're not intellectually capable to understand anything.

Don't bother straining. It's beoynd you.

V

[Mark Larr]

You need to stop confusing your arrogance with intelligence.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

There was a post on America's past racial equality laws.

Perhaps you could quote the post you're referring to because I don't see it.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I merely pointed out that America is not the only country that had racial inequality and was not the last to do something about it.
But America seems to be a constant target.

AFRICA is a continent not a country! You've flown planes there before so you should know. If you want to compare countries, pick one of the 54 on the African continent to compare with the US.

Besides, you made your point by asking if racial inequality had been eliminated on the continent of Africa. You don't think that's a little obtuse? I don't see what the hell your point that America gets more flack for racial inequality than African countries do (which I think is neither a valid comparison nor representative of reality) has to do with this topic?

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

And Apartheid Law was fashioned after Germany from what I research now.

Well your research is very, very, very wrong then.

[Sky Captain]

I re-read the articles, it compaired the South African Apertheid to Germany.

Yes I've flow the continent of Africa.
From Sudan to Angola.
Nothing I saw comapired to the US. Nothing. Horrible.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I re-read the articles, it compaired the South African Apertheid to Germany.

Yes I've flow the continent of Africa.
From Sudan to Angola.
Nothing I saw comapired to the US. Nothing. Horrible.

Yeah, you were flying relief missions into conflict zones, right. You don't think that maybe, just maybe, that gave you a bit of a skewed view of what Africa is about? I met some Italians the other night who'd been to the US to help in the wake of Katrina. They thought the US was the most backward place they'd ever been. Which it of course isn't.

Apartheid was invented by the Brits who introduced pass laws to the Cape Colony in the 19th century. It's not relevant to this discussion though. I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread if you like.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr

I'm sure Montezuma would just love to give his side of Spain's humanitarian efforts.


Oh that's right, Spain committed the worst genocide that humanity has ever experienced.

If the only way you can look good is to compare yourself to the Hitlers of history, then you probably have a serious problem.

If not, why are you stupid enough to draw the comparison?

[Mark Larr]

Wow, another who confuese their arrogance with intellect.

Sweet.

[analogika]

You're the one who thought placing yourself at a level with genocide-commiting colonialist historical monsters would constitute a good argument.

There's certainly no mistaking *that* for intellect.

[Mark Larr]

Just show me where I compared MYSELF to the Hitlers of History™, sparkey.

[analogika]

Yourself - "The United States of America and what currently passes for foreign policy."

Let it shine, brother.

[Mark Larr]

Kinda a stretch there, sparkey.

Jus keep drinkin yer liberal Koolade™.

[analogika]

Well, Brains,

Would you like to explain to the auditorium why you mentioned Montezuma and the Spaniards having "committed the worst genocide that humanity has ever experienced"?

Did it just feel like a collection of nice words to say?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Troll

Even if you're 78 and paralysed, the US will class you as a combatant.

Since when have age and physical fitness become the 2 primary factors in determining if one is an enemy or not?

Originally Posted by Troll

Gitmo is one of the human rights tragedies of this century but what's worse is the effect it's had on the most important battle in the struggle against terrorism - the battle for hearts and minds.

Read up on the actual conditions at Gitmo. It's a far cry from what you and the left portray.

The real tragedy is people like you who constantly label the US as the great evil while constantly supporting our enemies. You trust the words of a captured combatant over that of any US official every time. That is, unless the US official is an unnamed source who claims President Bush prays to Satan. Then you believe the official.

[Spliffdaddy]

5 years later and we're still waiting for a liberal to propose a plan for the war on terror.

Absolutely hilarious.


So far we have this:

"Strategic redeployment" (aka, cut & run)

&

"fight smarter" (aka, we don't really have a clue what it means but it sounds good)

[Troll]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Since when have age and physical fitness become the 2 primary factors in determining if one is an enemy or not?

I didn't say "enemy", I said "combatant". A combatant is someone involved in combat - carrying a weapon and firing upon you. It does indeed strike me as bizarre that a 78 year-old infirm man was classified as a combatant. But you'll see that under the Administration's interpretation, you can be a combatant by distant association. This guy was a combatant because he was accused of stockpiling weapons for a warlord who was accused of being part of Al Qaeda.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Read up on the actual conditions at Gitmo. It's a far cry from what you and the left portray.

Have you spoken to anyone who's been held there? I have and he wouldn't agree. Besides, the conditions they're being held in are irrelevant. The fact that they're being held at all is a tragedy of human rights.

Originally Posted by spacefreak

The real tragedy is people like you who constantly label the US as the great evil while constantly supporting our enemies. You trust the words of a captured combatant over that of any US official every time.

The US released him saying he had nothing to do with terrorism. It's their OWN words I'm trusting. The tragedy is that because there's no system, it took them years to work it out.