Mojo_PeiPei

It will fly, because we know Al Qaeda was involved in 9-11, OBL being the man behind it. The Taliban gave material aid and comfort to an enemy of America, that's why we were justified for going in there, they were party to an act of war against the United States of America. It's not about 9-11, I didn't try and make it be, I inferred 9-11 because it gives context to everything that happened after the fact. As for the 500 who weren't part of 9-11, which I don't argue, they were party to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, they were accessories, they are therefore culpable because of their actions after we were on the ground in Afghanistan, again nothing to do with 9-11.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pan6467

Mojo,

I believe all Dred Scott proved was that slaves were property. They were still afforded trials, as were free black men. Doesn't mean those trials were more than a prejudiced jury that was ready for a lynching, BUT they were allowed trials in most cases.

As for your arguments on terrorists, Luciano and Lansky were far far more dangerous and created far more havoc in the US during their day than any of those supposed "terrorists" we hold now. Hell, the Columbians, Russians and gangs are doing far worse things to our country today than any terrorist can dream of. Yet we afford those organized crime figures rights.

It's one thing to argue they are legally being held because of some war, it is another to prove it. Which our government is saying they do not have to do.

Therefore, the government can hold ANYONE they deem as a terrorist with no proof for as long as they like. I'm sorry that is wrong. If we are holding them because they are terrorists then where is our proof? OOO the same government that lied about why we went into Iraq and would change the lie every time the previous one was found to be a lie, says these people are terrorists and we should recognize our virtuous sinless all knowing always right government and have groups where these people can have rights.... but that group over there has no rights at all.

Why not just deport these people back to their home countries? Why are we going to spend millions of our tax dollars to house and feed these people for the rest of their lives. (Or until the Cubans decide they truly don't want us there and start a skirmish and free those hostages.)

Mojo, the argument you make, makes no justification for what we are and what we plan to do. Granted, we have not yet heard of any "US" citizen being held yet, but we have seen a party claim the other unpatriotic, and rile up enough right winged whacks to start movements against speaking out against Bush, peacefully demonstrating against the government, and so on. ALL RIGHTS GUARANTED TO US (CITIZENS ONLY, IF YOU LIKE) BY THE US CONSTITUTION. Hell, I have seen posts on this board that have said in perhaps different words but the meaning is very much the same: "if you disagree with the president and MY politics and our views, then you aid and comfort the terrorists and therefore you are guilty of treason"

It is just a matter of time before WE DO start throwing our innocent neighbors we grew up with in prisons, simply for speaking out and using the rights GUARANTEED THEM.

This is a slippery slope MOJO, once we start sliding down it, we end in the sewer. The madness has to end now, and the recognition that ALL MEN have equal rights needs to be preserved and upheld, or we become no better than the evil we fight.

Actually, we become worse than the evil we fight, because we are showing ourselves to be hypocritical.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Rekna

how do you know that though mojo? How do you know some of them wern't in the wrong place at the wrong time? Give them a trail is all i'm saying. Either you can prove they are an enemy or you can't if you can't then let them go.

Mojo_PeiPei

It takes more then unsubstantiated rhetoric and hypotheticals to convince me guys, sorry, I'm done with this "debate".

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

roachboy

i understand (but do not agree with) the arguments that you have put forward, mojo, but i confess that i am confused by the underlying position you work from.

i assume that you do not feel that the category of terrorist could at any point be turned on yourself or anyone close to you: which i assume means that you are not yourself a member of any of the groups that bushworld has designated (in pragmatic terms) a priori "suspect" not are connected to anyone who is--i can assure you that if your situation were otherwise, you would view this kind of move askance.

second, you seem to have a touching faith in the bush administration itself--that it is competent, that it is acting in the context of a "war on terror" and not simply using it as a pretext--i am myself totally unconvinced about the question of basic competence relative to this administration, and am not sure about motive. but i am predisposed to not trust george w bush. you do not lie to a country about war and then expect people to trust you. (no need for a rehash of arguments about the legitimacy of this absurd adventure in iraq: if you support it, you will not convince me to follow your lead--so this is little more than an indication of fundamental divergences of views)

i think this administration is dangerously fond of authoritarian-style actions. to do not think them authoritarian as yet--but i think the tendencies are evident and that they do not require a paranoia to be noted. again, check out the ways in which states of emergency have been used in the past to gut basic freedoms from the inside. usage of it is the primary legal avenue through which such regimes have emerged from within pseudo-democratic context like the american.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Rekna

Does anyone else feel like this discussion has hit a brick wall and no matter how much we talk about it we won't get anywhere? I feel like i'm banging my head against a brick wall and constantly repeating myself.

Willravel

I'm right there with ya, Rekna. Mojo, you believe that this is legal and moral. You have that right. As for basically the rest of us (the rest of those who have posted), we think this is wrong. Agree to dissagree?

Now, let's all go grab some McDonalds and talk about how much "Alexander" sucked.

Bodyhammer86

Wasn't "Alexander" already torn a new one on the entertainment board?

__________________
Pantera, Shadows Fall, Fear Factory, Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Dimmu Borgir, Watch Them Die, Motorhead, Beyond the Embrace, Himsa, Black Label Society, Machine Head, In Flames, Soilwork, Dark Tranquility, Children of Bodom, Norther, Nightrage, At the Gates, God Forbid, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, All That Remains, Anthrax, Mudvayne, Arch Enemy, and Old Man's Child \m/

tecoyah

I must admit......the entertainment value of this thread has been wonderful. I am equally impressed that we managed to remain civil and thoughtful through its entirety, Congratulations to all. Mojo was a lone wolf in this defense, and did an admirable job in presenting his case, as did his detractors. If only all debates transpired in this way, this politics board would benefit greatly.

Great Job Mojo...my hats off to you.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Willravel

Oddly enough, I started the Alexander thread, and was one of the first to tear it apart. A movie that bad can't have enough torn out of it.

Mojo_PeiPei

As far as Gitmo and the context of this thread goes no, maybe one day it could be turned on me, but again I'm not investing any merit in Orwellian conspiracy at this point. Again I don't think this discussion is merely about "terrorists", that's why I kept referencing "illegal combatants". Anyone that has been arrested state side and accused of links to terrorism has been given proper trials (Oregon, buffalo, Michigan?).

I have faith in my government, it's not blind faith by any means, I would like to consider myself one of the more educated people who support the Bush administration. I don't agree with everything this man or his administration does, but I would like to be able to trust my government for the most part, I don't know how much good it does questioning there every move. I think you should question there moves and motives, but again I have faith that they are looking out for me. I see where you are coming, and I know you know where I stand, so agreed I won't rehash any dead ponies.

This all could be true, I don't think it only comes down to the administration though, I think it is a depressing evolution of the country and politics in general. To be fair, everything has been ratified by congress, both republican and democrat, the blame can't be solely on Bush's shoulders, I would be equally angry that the Democrats are playing politics and trying to stay afloat by endorsing some of his more questionable actions. If anything as bad as all of you cats say comes to pass it won't be because Bush made it happen, it would be because the congress and the SCOTUS let it happen.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pan6467

Haven't seen Alexander, but am willing to go and talk of baseball and the awesome greatness of LeBron and the Cavaliers.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mojo_PeiPei

Talk about how the week I am facing the number one team in my fantasy league (me being second thanks to BronBron), a guy who has KG going 4 nights, Bron might only play 1 game, cruel fates.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Seaver

I've stopped posting on this thread because I forsaw a long time ago that no one would budge on it. But this quote is just retarded. Sure, send them home, hell while you're at it give them their guns back so we can fight them tomarrow. I no time in history has any army been required to put to trial every person captured in battle, why would you expect that now?

roachboy

well this is interesting: in what way is this "war on terror" really a war? it does not involve conflict between nation states---there is no entity against which to declare war--because there is no discrete state/entity against which war can be declared, it follows that there can be no "front" really (between what and what?)--so it seems that the analogy of suspending basic legal rights in teh context of a conventional military conflict does not apply here.
it is also obvious that the administration is more than willing to stretch to meaninglessness the notion of the "war on terror" to include places like iraq--so obviously they feel little bound by the rules that might have obtained in a conventional war in the present context.

what kind of war is this then?
and if you cannot define the war in any conventional sense, how do you define a combattant?
i mean, if nothing is clear, really--not the parties, not the theater, not the status of actor within it, etc,--how do you do it?
it seems what the bush people want to do is simply make a declaration and not be bothered by proof.
given that the old-school notion of war is tangential here at best, why would it follow that it would be ok for this administration to arrogate this power to itself?
you already know that they are kinda arbitrary in application of their own notion...
you already know that the administration has a strange understanding of evidence (witness the "case" they tried to make for the iraq war)
you already know that they have shown themselves willing to create and fill legal black holes (gitmo, say) and to use these black holes as spaces within which most of the other rules of war do not apply (like restrictions on torture, or on outsourcing torture--cant remember the quaint cia term for it--relegation or something like that...)

it seems that another way to see the problems with the article at the outset of the thread lay here. mojo was talking mostly about questions of whether the notion was formally legal or not--to do this he had to stick to a very narrow understanding of what was at stake--but now other questions are on the table, yes?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

And in what "battle" were these people being held in Guantanamo Bay captured in? I seem to have missed the "Great US vs Terrorist" battle where they took up guns and started shooting at us.

Why is deportation so out of the question? We deported Luciano, we deported Lansky.... I truly believe those 2 had far more resources and connections to cause major trouble (unions, the MAFIA, politicos they bought, etc.) than some suspected terrorists we have no proof against and have only been told that they are terrorists, by a government that lied about why they went to Iraq.

If Clinton had been doing this the GOP would have been all over him. Just as they condemned his actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco. 2 situations he inherited from Bush I, who had refused to do anything. But I digress. I was against Ruby Ridge and Waco and I am against the actions Bush is taking now.

See, it isn't necessarily what Bush is doing now, the question is how far is he, the next president and every president that follows going to go. Once precedent is set, the limits get tested. And this is a case where when the limits get tested it could all be over.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

mike059

Just because Lincoln did it, does not make it right...

Seaver

You're kidding right? What do you think we've been doing in Afghanistan for the past 3 years? Who do you think have been on the other side of gunfights throughout that region? We dont just charge into random homes and drag their sons out for no reason.

Rekna

Seaver wouldn't these people fighting in afganastan be considered prisoners of war if they were captured in battle?

Seaver

Al Quaeda fighters in Afghanistan fall under the same category as the Werewolves in Germany after WWII. They fight in civilian cloths, and under the Geneva Convention are illegal combatants. Thus, just like the werewolves, we are 100% legally able to shoot them on sight... sitting in prison is a little bit better than that, yet we still have people complaining that each individual deserves a trail with a lawyer?

Rekna

I agree that those who are guilty can legally be shot. BUT we need to prove that they are guilty first!

Seaver

Well, chances are that if they're firing at our troops they're guilty.

sob

Don't forget that he allowed US citizens to be executed without a trial, and intentionally burned houses and crops so women, children, and the elderly would freeze to death or starve.

He's the only US president that I know of who made war against women and children.

sob

This post will be archived for the next thread on abortion.

Mephisto2

Good for you.

But I hope you're not implying you know my position with regards to abortion.

Mr Mephisto

Dragonlich

Just to add a little philosophy to this thread... I'd say a lot of the discussion centers on one fundamental problem:

<b>should potential terrorists be picked up *before* they do their work, or should they only be arrested *afterwards*?</b>

Normally, there's no problem: someone plans to commit a crime, the police discover their plans, arrest them, and everyone is happy. If they don't find out about the plans beforehand, the criminal will do their thing, and something is stolen, or someone is murdered. All in all, the results are usually acceptable.

In the case of terrorism, there is a lot of secrecy and abuse of the laws to further the terrorist's cause. Terrorists aren't be easily found, and their plans are very difficult to disrupt, even if one of them is captured. Furthermore, terrorists typically target large groups of people, important buildings, or high-level officials; the results of their actions are usually *unacceptable*.

Given these differences, and the fundamental problem I mentioned, you're either going to say that everyone is equal, and there should be no difference between terrorists and normal criminals; or, you're going to say that the danger posed by terrorists is such, that they must be stopped at all cost, including the cost of less (human) rights and occasional mistakes.

To illustrate my point: willravel, the "war on terror" has moved beyond 9/11. People in Guantanamo bay generally don't have anything to do with that. They're suspected of being members of Al Qaida, which means they'd do *other* nasty things if not stopped. They're suspected of planning more 9/11-style attacks. Suppose the US hadn't arrested them... Some of them might have blown up the White house, or bombed downtown LA. Should the US have waited for that to happen?

What would *you* have done with Al Qaida members discovered in Afghanistan???

Pacifier

Do you really think it is OK to arrest someone before he commited a crime just because he thought about maybe commiting one? Minority Report?

Sorry, but to arrest someone, detain him "for ever" without trial because you just suspect him to be a member of some terrorgroup just isn't. That violates human rights. If he has done something (and AFAIK the membership in a terroristic organisation is "something") bring him up in front of a trial

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

dksuddeth

Many thoughts on this from many people but I'll try to make the points brief and well explained.

The War on Terror, maybe people don't really understand what this is yet. It's not even about 9/11 anymore although that certainly was the proverbial straw. There is a growing movement out there (mainly Al Qeada) with charismatic leaders, like Bin Laden, who are distorting and perverting the peaceful teachings of Islam to turn America into the great satan. It's their way of trying to place the blame on us for the oppression they are under instead of looking at the truth of the mullah's and supposed religious leaders thirst for power and control. These misguided and evil people want us dead, any way they can possibly attain that goal is irrelevant to them. The War on Terror is more of a war on a false ideal that the only way we can truly defeat it is to show these people what freedom is all about.

Gitmo, Personally I think its being abused through the legal, and not so legal, findings and arguments, but I think that its much better to have potential homicide bombers behind those prison walls than out shooting at our troops or detonating bombs in our cities. Permanent detention shouldn't even be an issue though and it's a serious breach in trust, judgement, and a serious confidence breaker in the government.

The US Constitution, this is an extremely depressing revelation for me to see that so many people are now using the constitution to restrict and limit rights instead of using it to protect them. What the hell is wrong with our education system?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

It's called conspiracy usually, but in todays world the possibilities of mass murder on an extremely large scale can not be underestimated. This is where we have to decide on rights and freedoms or security. Would you feel this passionately about an individuals rights and freedoms if your childs school had just been blown up by a truck bomb?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Dragonlich

dksuddeth already touched on this, but I'll expand.

I *knew* someone would bring up that movie, simply because I was thinking about it myself when writing my post...

It's a big dilemma, isn't it? Do you prevent crime by picking up the likely suspects, or do you wait for the crime to happen before picking them up? As I already said: you may want to assume "normal" criminals are innocent, because the consequences aren't that bad. However, in a world where terrorists have made it clear they want to acquire WMDs, the consequences of not arresting these people before they act often are unacceptable.

These days, with all that's going on in the world, I do think it's okay to lock up/deport potential terrorists before they strike, even IF there's not enough evidence to convict them in a court of law. That's simply because it's so hard to prove conspiracies, especially those thought up by well-organized groups like Al Qaida. I do believe there should - at the very least - be a periodic review of the evidence and circumstances of the prisoners, to make sure their imprisonment is still warranted.

I do not fear my government, at least not as much as I fear terrorist nutjobs.

roachboy

but how do you define a potential "terrorist"?
seriously--can "potential" ever be other than arbitrary?
conspiracy devolves straight away onto questions of intent...the situations in which intent can be proven are quite small, as the problems attending proof are extreme.

every day, i have the potential to eat red meat.
every day, i implicitly make a decision that either includes or excludes red meat.
i am a vegetarian. but i am also a potential omnivore.
at the level of intent, am i am omnivore or am i a vegetarian?
if being an omnivore was to become illegal, could i be arrested for the potential act of eating omniverously?
how would you establish guilt?

what if this is the motivation behind the denial of due process--that the charges are absurd, the question of proof impossible--futher there is no theater of operations, no way to be caught in flagrante delecto--so "potential terrorist" is and remains a wholly arbitrary category--and the entire process incoherent, except as theater, as providing the illusion of action, of direction....

say you were a young arab male who accumulates radical literature as something of a hobby. given the above, is there anything--anything at all--that would prevent your arrest and unlimited detention? why is this acceptable?
i assume that the question of ruining someones life for the greater good does not concern supporters of the bush administration becuase they approach the problem already sure that the life being ruined would not be their own as a simple function of race maybe or of the kind of political literature you keep around your house maybe....so it is easy--easier than you could imagine--to support this kind of legal balck hole because at stake is always already someone else's.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I've been mentioned twice this week!! This is good times (growing reputation, perhaps?). Okay, war on terror...grown beyond 9/11..m hmm...alright. Sounds good.

Here we have some more prolems. Yes, the members of the al-Qaeda are *suspected* of planning "more 9/11-style attacks". What should we do with people suspected of acting illegally? We should arrest them, then investigate them. After we gather evidence, we should put them on trial. If found guiilty, they should be punished.

The problem I have with this is that people *suspected* of being connected with terrorist activity are just thrown in prison. There is no trial or sentencing process. We just hear about them, grab them, put them in a prison, and interrogate them; possibly until the day they die. Now we all know that information about terrorists is inconsistant to say the least (we found out that 4 of the 12 of the people that were supposedly on the planes that attacked were noteven aboard, for example), so why are we condeming people to life sentences when "the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts"? The fact that they can't convict means that these people are more likely to be innocent.

What would I have done? Well I'm not qualified, but I would have investigated all of them, and put all of them on trial. If they were found guilty, they would be sentenced. If they were found innocent, I would put them on probation (call in or check in every week). I'm making this up as I go, but you can see how there are alternatives to imprisoning the possibly innocent.

roachboy

the lack of due process in the proposals floating about in bushland are far more damaging to the american cause politically than would be parallel kinds of moves that included due process.
for example, the lack of due process shoots any connection between american actions and meaningful democracy to hell because--well, the reasons should be obvious.
if you combine an internal disregard for due process with anything like an analysis of the iraq war--which would lead you straight to a disconnect between that war and any coherent action against "terrorism"----then the political situation gets even worse.
what the two seem to converge on is the kind of arrogance that is proper to only the most uninformed, inept exercize of power.
i do not understand what information the administration is looking at that enables it to understand its cause being advanced by this kind of thing.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Dragonlich

I think a lot of people don't understand what happens when suspected terrorists go on trial. We had a few of these trials in the Netherlands over the past few years. As far as I know, all the suspects were acquitted and set free. Why? Because the evidence gathered by the secret service was either inadmissible (can't be verified), or too secret to present to the court.

You see, putting people on trial means you run the risk that they are acquitted, even if "everyone knows" they're guilty. Even if the government has lots of evidence to prove that they're guilty. Hell, even OJ got acquitted, so why wouldn't a suspected terrorist? If the suspects are acquitted, and if our legal history is anything to go by, they will... they're free to do as they please. So there's none of that "probation", willravel; that'd be in violation of their constitutional and human rights... Also, if the suspects are acquitted, they're free to go where they want, and do what they want; they might (will) even go back to their old job, perhaps training a new generation of terrorists, who now know even better how to abuse the judicial system.

See, that's the downside of the "official route".

FYI, in the Netherlands, the secret service supposedly has a list of 150 people that are suspected of having (at the very least) links to terror groups. A few of them have been on trial and acquitted, and some are currently on trial. Furthermore, a few of them are known to have met the murderer of Theo van Gogh. The murderer himself was investigated for a while, but there wasn't enough evidence to do anything about him, so they lost track of him. The result: one dead VIP.

With the laws we have right now, and the history we have with terrorism trials, nobody can touch those 150 people until they do something stupid and get caught. As long as they walk free, they're spreading their message of hate, encouraging other people to fight the Dutch state.

Now, should we just wait and see what they do? Should we put them on trial, only to have them acquitted for lack of evidence or because they weren't breaking the law? (Free speech, remember?)

Many people say we should lock these people up to make sure they can't attack us, and can't inspire others to do the same. Is that such a bad idea? Should we really let them go free because they cannot be convicted in a court of law, and we would be in violation of their human rights if we lock them up? Where do their rights stop, and the rights of the rest of us (safety) start?

smooth

for your own edification, dragonlich, I haven't ever heard of rightwing politics speaking about a right of safety as secured by the constitution.

most of their politics hinges on the rhetoric of personal responsibility; so goes with one's safety. witness weapons control debates, work environment legislation, and even speech/expression limitation debates, among others.


rights debates are a slippery animal in the states--especially for rightwing rhetoric since its politics has a contradictory stance in regards to capital and populism.


I reject out of hand your comparison between court proceedings against suspected terrorists and the OJ Simpson murder trial. I attribute your comments in that reference as hyperbole; I think that if that's your level of analysis of our judicial processes then you are employing a very crude method, to say the least.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Manx

Well said.

jorgelito

This is out of control. I'm surprised that so many "seemingly" conservatives/Bush supporters would actually support this kind of gross violation of Constitutional rights.

We can't just arbitrarily arrest people and throw them in jail without due process. That's just nuts. We'll be tossing everyone in jail.

All teenagers wearing trenchcoats and "look" like Colombine types, lock'em up forever.

All Pro-life supporters cause' you know, they blow up clinics. (domestic terrorism)

Hmmm...oh yes, all white males with crew cuts, shaved heads and have military experience. Oklahoma you know, can't be too safe. We would rather save lives than let these people running loose with their meetings and websites plotting against the government. Now who's left? (domestic terrorism)

Oh yeah, all white males with long hair, drive VW buses, vegetarians cause they're eco-terrorists. Gotta have order now. Can't have a bunch of hippie-liberal-environmentalists running around blowing up SUVs and stuff. (eco-terrorism)

Let's see....yes, cigarettes kill more people a year than all the terrorists combined. Whoa!! And we know where and who they are. Done deal, lock em up! (coprorate terrorism)

You know, the people in Afghanistan don't have uniforms, that's why they are in civilian clothes. Kinda like the Viet Cong. If they're shooting at you, then obviously they're the enemy. Catch them, they're P.O.W. We didn't have unis in the Revolutionary War either. We were farmer joes and what not. we didn't get unis til later.

As for Abe Lincoln being the only president making war on women and children, try every president that's ever made war. Women and children get hurt in every war. Especially, Johnson, Nixon, Vietnam era.

Just let the Feds do their job: collect evidence, go to trial ASAP. If they're guilty, lock'em up, if they're innocent, apologize and let them on their way.

We're the USA, We cannot, not stoop to such low standards. If we start acting that way, then THEY'VE won.

Once we talk about losing or taking away rights, then we've lost. I lost a family member in 9/11, I wouldn't want her death to be in vain. If we as Americans give in to this level of fear and irrationality, then they would have all died in vain.

As a person who spent 5 days in jail with no due-process (this is LA) just because I "looked" like someone else and was in the "wrong place at the wrong time"(unacceptable), I am alarmed by calls for further reduction of civil liberties.

I'm a good sport, I still love my country and believe in her ideals. I still have faith in government despite the flaws: it might not be perfect, but it's pretty damn good (pardon my language). I wake up every morning thanking God I am an American and that I wasn;t born in Mexico or China where they DO throw people in prison for no reason.

We're better than that (or so I thought).

Mephisto2

Manx, off topic I know, but is that Malcolm X in your avatar?


Mr Mephisto

Manx

A young Thelonius Monk.

But the X in the screen name is in honor of Malcolm.

Mephisto2

Aha... a man of taste when it comes to music!

Malcolm X was an interesting figure. There's a whole thread there on militant Islam, the renunciation of violence and political hypocracy just waiting to be started...


Mr Mephisto