They probably don't have people that love them. Even if they do these people probably taught them how to be a terrorist. Do you really want them with these people?

Too bad, they should have thought about what's best for them before they became a terrorist. And again, I didn't say they are better off in Guantanomo!!!

Maybe the people that love them got blown to pieces by a US bomb.

But on a more realistic note (maybe not more realistic, because Afghanistan has been a violent place for decades and their parents could very well be dead). To a certain extent I agree with The_Dude, if these kids are getting rehab... they can get rehab anywhere.... they dont need to be shipped thousands of kms away from their home. Also, I dont think these kids need THAT much rehab - they're children, with impressionable minds... The US can brainwash them as easily as the Taliban (or AL Quaeda or whatever) did originally. I mean, I dont think that these kids did these actions acting on their own judgement, so they're not really 100% to blame.

agreeing with killeryoda here ...


and on the being with people that love them ... i agree with that, but to me that doesn't mean their families because honestly i can't believe they got a whole lot of love at home. i think they just need to be treated with a bit more love, and being shown movies doesn't equal love. but love doesn't equal support groups with hand-holding and free teddy bears nessicarily, either. it just sounds like love isn't what they're getting and maybe they need some in their lives while they're still at least a <i>bit</i> young and impressionable.

They could get rehab anywhere, but they couldn't also be detained and questioned by the United States military in addition to their rehabilitation. They're our responsibility now.

Er... how would I be kidding. My statement was just a summary of the facts. During times of war, the US government does things to protect their country. It might imprison some of it's citizens in order to protect the rest, be this protection real or imagined.

Simple historic facts.

Good! Those are probably the same people who helped them become terrorists in the first place.

Comparing Guantanamo to the WWII internment camps isn't really fair. The internment camps held US citizens simply based on their race. These are non-citizen terrorists, some suspected and some admitted. This would only be a fair comparison if we began sending all Americans of Arab descent to Guantanamo.

As for the age of the detainees, as long as they're kept separate from the other inmates, and given food, water and shelter, I'm fine with it. It's no different from a gangbanger in juvenile hall, except for the fact that there is no trial, only an interrogation process. The relatively low number of prisoners hints to me that we're not just locking up every brown-skinned person we bump into over there.

What you dont realize is that the US bombs towns and villages full of innocent people because from a satellite's point of view a shanty town looks just like a terrorist camp.

And what you don't realize is that the US military doesn't just bomb any old village because a satellite picture makes it look like a terrorist camp (which is bullshit, by the way - satellites are quite a bit more advanced than you seem to think). They *check* the target first, using as many sources of information as possible.

I'm glad I have remarkable flame control because that justification...boggles the mind.
I'm sure you wouldn't be saying that if the US decided to march through the Netherlands tomorrow to protect us from an "imagined threat."

What the hell is your problem with my statement?

It is a FACT that the US government has the legal power (on a national level) to detain certain suspect individuals in times of war, and it is a FACT that it has used these powers in the past, whether it was justified or not. I was JUST STATING THE FACTS.

It is true that I support the internment of selected terrorist suspects, but that's quite irrelevant to this sub-discussion.

And your statement about the US marching into the Netherlands is also irrelevant, because that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You know full well that I wouldn't support that. You also know that this discussion is about the US imprisoning terror suspects, not about the US invading another country.

It was more a problem with your first statement that seemed to support the use of internment camps so that "the majority" are safe, even though the people imprisoned did no wrong. You're follow up statement, while apparently "FACT" did not say otherwise. So by saying "Nice that internment camps were mentioned" in the begining, you seem to hint at "Boy, I'm glad the US is looking out for their citizens by imprisoning people that look like the bad guys."
And my bad, we invade the Netherlands, then imprison you. I forgot the imprison part. Sorry.

everyone cool down for a sec.



ok, and how would you know this?

This is the Tilted Politics board, we're not supposed to.:D

yeah... look at the palestinians that want to blow up israelis... some of them are as young as 13.

and I'll get NIMBY on this one. You want to see how much 'love' they need... bring them up yourself. you feed them you house them you love them but not in my backyard.

it's not about just age it's about ideology.

ok, i for one have changed my views VERY RADICALLY (for teh better!) from when i was 13.

when i was 13, all i knew was what others had told me, i didnt really have an opinion of my own.

Can you prove me wrong? Nope. You can't. I trust that the US won't just throw every little innocent kid there. I'm 100% positive that there was enough evidence to do this. They are little monsters. Period. I could care less if we killed them. I don't think we should waste the time and money trying to help them. I guess it's a good thing I don't run the country huh? :D

then why dont they release some of this evidence?

and if they have all this evidence, why not a trial and convict them? if they have all this evidence, it should be easy to get a guilty verdict

It is pointless arguing with you Dude. I sometimes think you're a commie. Can you tell me 5 things that you like about our government.. Our country... The best and greatest country on the face of the planet. If you can't then I think it's obvious that you are a commie. Please prove me wrong, but I'm not sure if you can. You have NEVER said one positive thing about the US in all the things that I've ever read that came from you.

*waits anxiously*

neither of you can really prove the other wrong, and i think you're teetering on the flame line.

also, i could go on about communism for a while and how it's not a bad concept in its pure form, but that's completely off-topic. except i would have to ask - how is communism unpatriotic? communism doesn't equal anarchy or terrorism, it's just been corrupted every time its been used on a large enough people to be noticable. hahahaha.

ok, i know it's a figure of speech in a way, i just wanna be called a commie.

because a trial will set precedent, not to mention get some hoyty toyty lawyers and the ACLU to bog the system down

<img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/171808/flamewar.jpg" width=291 height=215>

First, nobody can prove a thing on this topic. It's all in what we believe as individuals. Second, I'm not flaming. I'm simply trying to understand him cause I don't understand him at all. We love to disagree with each other and I'm sure neither of us take anything we say personally. We just like going back and forth. It's really not a big deal. If The_Dude has a problem with anything I say then he can tell me.

I didn't see a flame war yet, I just looooooove my flame war logo.:D But we were getting kind of close with the old "commie" word floating around.

Well, you also seem to have forgotten about the part where the Netherlands is transformed into an Islamic (Christian?) fundamentalist state, hiding a known terror group, and refusing to hand the leader of that group over to the USA, even though he is responsible for the worst terror attack in known history, on a US landmark.

I'd say that if those things were true, I'd welcome the US invasion. I'm an atheist, and hate religious morons, and they'd hate me in such a situation...

As for the US imprisoning me: will never happen, but if it does, I'd rather be in a US prison camp in Guantanamo bay, than in a hypothetical prison in this fundy Dutch theocracy... Because that's where I would be because of my atheism and independent thought. That, or I'd be dead.

Can we drop this sub-sub-discussion now? It's irrelevant and (as you can see) pretty useless. :)

Lemme look at the checklist real quick for Iraq:
Islamic fundamentalist State? Not really.
Hiding a known terror group? Nope, might have some pesticides in the sand, though. Poor bugs.
Refusing to hand leader over to USA? Yeah. I don't know the legality of demanding a country's leader, though.
Responsible for worst terror attack in known history on US landmark? Nope, that was the other guy.
Did we invade? Yeah.
Now, an atheist in a Bush controlled Dutch prison... You do know who George W. Bush is right? Republican, conservative... <i>Christian</i> George W. Bush? Former governor from the state with the leading number of executions, Bush? Not to mention he's (sort of) a Texan, and anyone who knows anything about Texas's history with atheists...well, let's just say our most famous atheist (Madalyn Murray O'Hair) ain't available for interviews at the moment.
Oh, whoops, read that one last. Sure thing.:D

<i>You got to give me some credit, I'm informative and entertaining. And for anyone who doesn't know about the O'Hair thing, she got hacked up into little bits and buried cause she helped end prayer in school.</i>

no, not if the trial is held outside the jurisdiction of US courts.

and what's wrong w/ setting a precedent in something like this (although i doubt it will stand)

and sixrate, when did you become McCarthy Jr?

That was funny. I'm still waiting on the 5 things you like about our government, or do you need another day to think about it? That's OK, take your time. ;)

a lot of things

1) the bill of rights
2) judicial review
3) seperation of powers
4) independant judiciary w/ lifelong terms (federal)
5) the democratic party!

HAHA! You just had to throw in that last one huh? I'll go shut up and leave you alone now. :D

that was also meant to be funny!

yes yes it does. International courts can have a bearing. You act like these kids were boy scouts who were wrongly helping some old lady across the desert. Given the opportunity to kill you they probably would.

i meant that ACLU prolly cant file complaint against a court outside the US

No.. true they cannot, but there are other international bodies that probably could. But given todays climate I don't think that anyone wants to have that political albatross on their necks.

arent they doing that w/ milosovic?

so far, i havnet heard of any organizations protesting it/appealing it.

Okay, fun with statistics time...

In 2000 and 2002, Texas had the most executions out of any state.

In 2001, Texas had the second most executions out of any state.

According to the 2000 census, Texas has the second highest population out of any state.

Hmmmmmmmm, just coincidence that a state with more people in it than most states would execute more people than most states? California is #1 in population, but of course since California tends to be a very liberal state they don't execute many people.

If you count per-capita, which makes more sense to me from a mathematical point of view, Texas is still one of the higher on the list (#2 in 2000, #4 in 2001, and estimated #3 in 2002 but my data for 2002 is incomplete), but the per-capita rate really isn't significantly higher than the other states that have the death penalty. For the last three years, Oklahoma has been the #1 state for executions per-capita, and was very disproportiante in 2001, with a per-capita rate over 6 times higher than Texas.

So if you want to rip on states for killing their own citizens, pick Oklahoma, Delaware, or Missouri. They have less people to start with than Texas but they kill a higher percentage of them.

Check it out: http://www.dpio.org/executions/

You should use 1970, 1980, and 1990 census data--that's where the bulk of the executed are coming from. 2000 data will be relevant in ~10-20 years once their appeals are exhausted.

True, and I think New York was #2 on the population for a while but slipped recently. I believe New York has reinstated the death penalty but hasn't had it long enough for anybody to run out of appeals yet.

Personally, I'm still undecided as to whether I'm for or against the death penalty, I just like messing with numbers :)

"76% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

Wasn't "ripping" on Texas, just stating the fact that Bush supports the death penalty and hates atheists. Since Dragonlich and I were discussing the hypothetical situation where he was imprisoned by Bush's administration, statistics or not, he'd be fucked.