FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY !!!! PER-MSNBC-- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Gitmo detainees rights to appeal to American Civil Courts, to challenge their indefinate imprisonment without charges under bush. Justice Kennedy (for the majority decision) stated that "the laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times" !!!! For the decenting judges, Scallia said the decision "will make the war harder on us, it will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" (HE SOUNDS LIKE A BUSH PARROT) The vote was 5 for, and 4 against !!! Bush has stated that he is with the decenters, and that he will consider trying to get a law passed against this ruling. MEN !!! THIS BATTLE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ALL WHO COME IN CONTACT/CONFLICT WITH OUR GOVERNMENT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY !!! This is why it is so important to vote for OBAMA, the Candidate who will abide by his oath to uphold the constitution, BACKING AWAY FROM THE LAW BREAKING PRECIDENTS OF THIS BUSH ADMINISTRATION !!!! WE DARE NOT RISK A VOTE FOR McCAIN WHO PARROTS MUCH OF WHAT BUSH HAS DONE TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY's FREEDOMS BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS TO PRE HABEAUS CORPUS TIMES!!!! FOR OUR COUNTRY's DEMOCRACY's SAKE WE MUST HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN THE PRESIDENCY WHEN IT COMES TIME TO APPOINT ANY MORE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS VOTE SHOULD BE A WARNING TO US ALL!!!! We should never allow our government to treat anyone in a way that we don't want to be treated ourselves, if we do we put ourselves at eventual risk of the same treatment.

I personally think it's a good ruling, and one that may in some ways help American credibility abroad -- not a reason for ruling a certain and there are, I think, definitely merits in the arguments against the ruling (Scalia's comments, however, are full of hot air, as he's asked to decide based on what is or isn't constitutional and not what may or may not save American lives -- important for sure, but not his role.)

Honestly one of our issues internationally is that we say one thing, but do another. You can't promote human rights and democracy with any credibility while at the same time acting in opposite ways, no matter who is involved, at least not now and in this age when information is all too available as it is seen all to easily as hypocrasy.

But honestly I wouldn't assume too much by the ruling. The Supreme Court does what it does, and sometimes throws up a surprise or two, and sometimes not -- but is overall a rather independant body. It's neither neutral or unbiased, but it does provide a check to the other parts of government -- as it's designed to do. Rightly or wrongly and you may disagree with the decision of the court, but it's business as usual and neither activist nor not, and there's more than one way of seeing things, but business as usual in a democracy involves differences of view, and limits on one person or one branch's power.

Of course I think it's a seriously stupid ruling, Anthony Scalia agrees with me.

The American people didn't win out, Al Qaeda and the Taliban did.

So, let the chips fall where they may. If this helps the gitmo terrorists attack us, so be it.

The war with the terrorists is unlike previous wars and our Constitution is inadequate in handling it. Just like it was inadequate in 1861. Unlike the Confederates though, the terrorists use our Constitution as a weapon against us.

How many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice for your unbending view of the Constitution?

I recommend the Court's decision and accompanying concurring and dissenting opinions to you. This is a decision the Court made only after people were detained in Gitmo with no end in sight. The War on Terror is not a typical war, and the Court found unacceptable the idea that people could be indefinitely detained without having a neutral judge review the confinement. The scheme that Congress set up to replace habeas corpus was found to violate the Suspension Clause, and the Court announced that foreign places under the de facto control of the US government are subject to the Constitution.

What this decision means is that the prisoners can have petitions heard by federal judges. No one is guaranteed a release or the rights of a criminal defendant. But there will be some form of meaningful review, which the petitioners in this case never got. If they are dangerous, it will not be difficult for the military to show upon what evidence they are detained.

Justice Scalia in dissent makes the point that some of those released will likely kill again. Perhaps so, but there is room for doubt. If the government has a case for detaining a prisoner, what judge would free him? Judges are highly deferential to the military. All the case does is tell the government that it cannot lawfully detain foreign nationals on suspicion of terrorism indefinitely without some form of judicial review.

That seems to me to be a civilized and measured response to Gitmo, and a victory for the separation of powers. I highly doubt that any terrorists are celebrating.

The president of the United States is set by the constitution as commander-in-chief of the millitary. Every one of these people in Gitmo were captured on the battlefield. None of them were in uniform and as such, should not be protected under the Geneva convention. The millitary tribunals that were set up were done by the US congress. Congress is the sole arbitor of court juristiction in the United States. It can make the court system in whatever fashion it chooses to make. It can even limit what type of cases it hears.

The Supreme Court has stepped WELL out of it's powers. They have essentally given constitutional rights to unlawful enemy combatats. This would mean that we have to give Miranda rights to enemys captured on the ground. This also means that if we released anybody, they can then sue the US government for false imprisonment. The 5 left wing justices left the scope of the ruling purposly vauge. This way, the courts will review all the issues that come as a fallout of this ruling.

Liberals with all their hate have focused it all on George Bush. You all try to destroy him at any cost, even if the cost is your own country (which isn't too hard to believe because you hate this country as it presently is). Most of yo don't know this, but what you believe in an ideology of based on Marxism, ideals that while under the guise of helping the least of us, are responsible for the death of hundreds of millions around the world.

You see this as another black eye to the president who has not let a single terrorist attack happen on American soil in 7 years. What it truly is, is an attempt to curtail the US influence which you see as moraly repugnant and to quote Michelle Obama "downright mean". So enjoy your victory against your own country now, because it will bite you all in the ass one day.

Although I have not read the case, and I probably wouldn’t understand it anyway: having no experience with American Constitutional Law, I’d like to add my two pence.

The coalition justify their draconian actions to combat the ‘new threat’ posed by ‘international terrorism’ and this is necessary to win the ‘War on Terror’ (WOT). The WOT has been used by states to campaign against who they decide to be an enemy, with innocents being caught in the metaphorical crossfire. (1) States and regimes which stand against the liberal and democratic values which the coalition is ‘fighting’ for have jumped onto this international bandwagon to justify their actions. Russia uses the WOT as its reason d’être in Chechnya,(2) as such regimes now ‘[fear] less critical scrutiny’ from bodies like the UN which are dominated by states in the coalition. This WOT eludes definition, this ambiguity allows politicians to reserve the right to bleat the phrase adapting it to. It is a war which conceived to have an end: ‘there is no territory contested; no peace talks conceivable…’ it continues as long as there is fear the ‘enemy’ will strike. The danger is no longer Al-Qa’ida or any other organisation, even with their destruction, their ideology will live on in those who have been radicalised by draconian and imperialist actions of states.



The detention at Guantánamo Bay, much the same as internment under Margaret Thatcher, has the potential to antagonise an entire community. The Muslim community feels marginalised and believe the anti-terror laws are directed at them. This is perpetuated by incidents such as the Forest Gate raids which show that preventative tactics do not always work and may snare innocents. The harsher the methods, the more isolated a community will become. This is why the approach in criminal law is to prosecute after the offence. For terrorism this is not an option as the physical and political damage is already done. This is one of the fundamental issues surrounding terror legislation, and governments should cease seeing security and liberty as standing in tension.

With the onset of ‘international terrorism’ and the WOT, states have subjected principles of domestic law which would have been previously understood as ‘fundamental’ to severe scrutiny. Following attacks there is an understandable temptation for politicians to act quickly and to be perceived to be in control of the situation, especially in a political system like the US. To a certain extent curtailment of Civil Liberties are effective, but there needs to be a point which states cannot cross. Some human rights should be seen as fundamental, and should be respected.

Guantánamo has been described as the ‘vanishing point of the law’(4) where ‘bad people’(5) are sent by the US government using extra-judicial means. This totally disregards habeas corpus; the cornerstone of the rule of law.(6) The US does have ‘exclusive [executive] control’(7) over the territory, and their disregard to the rule of law makes great case for a change in the international legal order with regards to terrorists. There is a need for the rule of law whenever someone’s liberty is at stake; Lord Bingham judged that it even applied in a ‘terrorist situation.’ It is submitted however that this principle should be taken further in a terrorist situation; the presence of the rule of law is paramount. In response to terrorism the state often overreacts, and the judiciary needs to scrutinise such actions. It would be a ‘familiar tool of tyranny’( for the executive to remove liberty without proving the guilt of the accused. People often postulate the question, ‘would you rather detain 100 innocents or let one terrorist through the net?’ in a civilised society which believes in freedom and the equality of all people the answer must be the latter, acting in any other way to clamp down on suspected terrorists will only jeopardise the society the state is attempting to protect, marginalising the very communities which are needed to combat terrorism.

It is common knowledge that the ‘guests’ in Guantánamo are subjected to torture, and the reality is, not all detainees are involved in terrorism. Some the ‘bad guys’ have been released with no charges sought, such as with the Tipton Three. Regardless of their ‘guilt,’ international conventions(9) are categorical, torture is never permitted, attaining the status of jus cogens.(10) All governments of democratic states must respect human rights,(11) even if the result is democracy needing to fight ‘one hand behind its back.’(12) This is the price one pays for democracy, and this is what separates people with democratic values and those who are attempting to destroy it. People are fundamentally flawed in asserting that in ‘exceptional moments’ a civilised society can sacrifice the rights afforded by jus cogens. If a state deviates from a jus cogens such as torture it will potentially unravel the social, political and legal fabric of the very society and people it aims to protect. The stated disregard of the law and due process shows that even the states which have been founded on freedom and democracy sometimes cannot cope with the threat of terrorism.

Personally I generally fall down on the security side of the debate, however I see some Civil Liberties and Human Rights as sacrosanct and this is why I agree with the outcome of the case.


----------------------------------------------

(1) For example the Forest Gate Raids

(2) J. Russell, Chechnya: Russia’s “War on Terrorism” First Edition, (Oxford; Routledge, 2007)

(3) Cannot find where I quoted that from

(4) Marine Colonel William Lietzau, quoted in Rose, Guantanamo, 23

(5) President Bush, White House Press Conference, 17th July 2003

(6) P. Sands, Lawless World, First Edition (London; Penguin, 2005) page 144

(7) R (Abassi) v. Sec. of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 para 67

( A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 54 para 226

(9) Such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture 1987

(10) Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, 21 July 2000

(11) People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India 2003 SOL Case No 840

(12) Public Committee Against Torture v. Israel, May 26, 1999 at page 845

I certainly hope that in the future the US military will not make the same serious mistake of taking terrorists prisoner. Gutting the bastards like fish on the battlefield will do nicely.

philadelphiabound>>>Your exactly right !!! Bush is the commander in chief!!! His not however set up as the "DICTATOR" IN CHIEF !!!!! We have a constitution that guarantees that our government from top to bottom cannot incarcerate anyone without the right to a hearing. That right is granted to all who come in contact with our government under any and every circumstance. THIS RIGHT IS FOR YOUR BENEFIT AS WELL AS ANYONE ELSE INCLUDING A TERRORIST !!! Don't be so foolish as to ignore the worlds history of governments jailing people they claim to be in the wrong. Hundreds of years ago Habeaus Corpus came about to protect all humans from government leaders run amuck such as this bush "KING GEORGE" WANNABE !!! don't forget that our soldiers have fought for more than 200 years to guarantee freedoms such as habeaus corpus, so that no-one woule have their freedom taken away without his right to his day in court to prove his innosence. If you have any smarts, you do not want to live under a dictorship where he (in this case bush) can claim someone to be an enemy combatant for any reason he deems appropriate, therefore placing that person beyond the reach of fair and reasonable laws. Allowing such ignorance as bush/cheneys to stand would potentially mean that I since I disagree could be deemed an enemby combatant. IT IS STUPID AND IGNORANT TO GRANT SUCH POWER TO ANY LEADER !!!! THINK !!!!!!!

John43620 saidHow many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice for your unbending view of the Constitution?

As many as it takes, including myself. It's called having the integrity to stand up for principles.
How many foreigners are you willing to kill out of petty arrogance?

Philadelphiabound said
You see this as another black eye to the president who has not let a single terrorist attack happen on American soil in 7 years. What it truly is, is an attempt to curtail the US influence which you see as moraly repugnant and to quote Michelle Obama "downright mean". So enjoy your victory against your own country now, because it will bite you all in the ass one day.

Would that include terrorist acts committed by nationals as well or do you make special distinctions just for Islamics?

JOHN !!! you said !!!

The American people didn't win out, Al Qaeda and the Taliban did.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>About 70 to 80 percent of the American public se right through bush bullshit and agree with the supreme court majority, AMERICANS HEREBY RETAIN THE RIGHT TO CLAIM A DEMOCRACY WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT DICTATORS JaILING ANYONE CONFRONTED BY THEIR GOVERNMENT WITHOUT THEIR RIGHT TO A DAY IN COURT TO PROVE INNOCENSE !!!

So, let the chips fall where they may. If this helps the gitmo terrorists attack us, so be it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I were held as those prisoners at gitmo were and are being held, YOU CAN DAMN BET THAT I WOULD KILL THE ASSHOLE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING MY RIGHTS AWAY !!!! So now that I have said that, under bush enemy combatant mindset, I could now be put away, and have no right to question "KING GEORGE" !!!!! I DO NOT THINK SO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



How many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice for your unbending view of the Constitution? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this happens, place the blame squarely where it belongs on bush/cheney despotic policies, we have laws that even they are not above, that is why this is called a democracy here in the US !!!! DON'T BE STUPID ENOUGH TO ALLOW ANY LEADER SUCH POWER AS BUSH WANTED TO CLAIM !!!!!! He IS a DAMN FOOL and HIS C-GRADE STATUS IN COLLEGE SURE SHOWED UP ON THIS ISSUE !!! WHAT A LOSER HE IS, AND THE ENTIRE WORLD SEES HIM AS SUCH !!!! WAKE UP !!!!!!!!

JustJohn said[quote][cite]John43620 said[/cite]How many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice for your unbending view of the Constitution?

As many as it takes, including myself. It's called having the integrity to stand up for principles.
How many foreigners are you willing to kill out of petty arrogance?[/quote]

This debate is wrong-headed.

First of all, any student of Constitutional law knows that the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Note that the Constitution grants the right to SUSPEND habeas corpus, but only in certain circumstances. The concern for civil liberties must always be balanced against the right of the people to protect themselves.

The Court found that in the War on Terror, noncitizens detained at Gitmo have the right to some form of judicial review of their detention. I will say it again. Terrorists should not be celebrating.

We are not talking about having judges review decisions to capture combatants in the first instance, nor are we even talking about granting enemy combatants aything like a speedy right to review of their status. We are saying that at some point in this endless war (think of the Cold War -- what if the government had just detained Communists indefinitely because they were a threat -- and they were -- to US safety?), the government may have to justified the continued detention of one. It is not enough to say that the person is an enemy combatant, and the federal courts will have the authority to hear petitions from detainees.

This is a victory for anyone who is afraid of arbitrary government in the name of public safety. What is the justification for a gulag? No American lives need be lost because of any principle. If the military has a reason for detaining a suspect, then it will do so. And the Court held that federal judges can be trusted with information that the military may deem secret. I am sure that Congress or the military will fashion a way of keeping sensitive information out of the hands of our enemies while ensuring that the right of habeas corpus is preserved.

This was like a Duh ruling...
it doesn't take a law degree to see that The Bush Criminals went against everything in the constitution
when they made up this crazy scheme in Gitmo

There are 270 detainees left there
and only 87 of them have crimes that can be brought against them right now
The Bush Administration has ALREADY relaeased 600 over the last 4 years
Some of them can be released right now because they know they did nothing wrong but their countries won't take them
AND WE'VE HELD THEM FOR 7 YEARS!!!!
so ya think these guys might be a WEE bit radicalized right now?
What a friggin' mess

The Supreme Court made an excellent move with this ruling for the Gitmo Bay prisoners. All the torture and other harsh treatments of these foreign prisoners is dead wrong and violates the US Constitution. Bush was wrong from day one on this issue and the supreme court handed his administration a well deserved defeat. The point is whether the constitution is adequate or not is irrelevant, it is still the supreme law of the land in the USA. This court ruling will greatly help the USA repair its seriously damaged credibility with the rest of the world. As for you guys screaming about these prisoners being terrorists, stop being so damn paranoid. If our country would change its foreign policy especially concerning the Middle East and quit siding with Isreal all the time, we would not have to worry about terrorist attacks. You there are two sides to every story. It is time for America to consider the Arab viewpoint and not just the goddamned troublemaking Isrealis.

If they made that ruling in 1942 the Nazi and Jap POWs would have had a day in court. The Supreme court seriously overstepped it's bounds on this one.

I think it was HILTER who engaged in wrongful imprisonment too

Torture is Torture
Unequal access to Justice is Criminal

And we expect third world countries to treat people in a human fashion?

Consequences of this violation of Human Rights - will have a reaction.

Just keep the cycle of violence going George- that will bring PEACE to the world

John43620 saidSo, let the chips fall where they may. If this helps the gitmo terrorists attack us, so be it.

That's just it though, isn't it? Some of them might not even be terrorists, and all of them should be able to be tried fairly.

John43620 saidIf they made that ruling in 1942 the Nazi and Jap POWs would have had a day in court. The Supreme court seriously overstepped it's bounds on this one.

Sorry John...

Can't have your cake and eat it too
One of the MAIN reasons the Bush Criminals made their case for detaining these men in the FIRST place was because they weren't fighting for a foreign government

The Geneva conventions, which Bush and cronies stated were antiquated states how you detain and treat POW's

Psst... remember the Nuremberg trials and the Commissions in Manila after the War

NNJfitandbi said[quote][cite]JustJohn said[/cite][quote][cite]John43620 said[/cite]How many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice for your unbending view of the Constitution?

As many as it takes, including myself. It's called having the integrity to stand up for principles.
How many foreigners are you willing to kill out of petty arrogance?[/quote]

This debate is wrong-headed.

[/quote]

That comment wasn't really intended as a thoughtful addition to this debate. It was strictly for the educated-by-soundbite crowd.
I do have a strong human rights leaning and think Gitmo is a relative disaster. At the very least, the US should treat all captives as legitemate POWs. We did, after all, declare a "war" on "terror." I believe our current treatment of captured non-combatants essentially negates any moral example we may have previously set and puts us on the same human rights footing as the Middle East, China, cold-war Russia, and the rest of their ilk.

"There in lies the rub". Our enemies know that they can't defeat us on a battlefield with conventional means so they use guerrilla tactics and our own Constitution as a weapon against us.

So, are we going to allow the barbarians to defeat us by being inflexible or is our civilization worth preserving even if we have to temporarily depart from "normal" conventions?

I can only offer a vote and an opinion, as most of us are so limited.

I vote Republican and support any means to destroy those who use terrorist and guerrilla tactics. Any means.

John43620I vote Republican and support any means to destroy those who use terrorist and guerrilla tactics. Any means.

Absolutes like this scare me a bit, man. I can easily imagine a situation of someone saying what you said but in this manner:

I vote Republican and support any means to destroy those who destroy family values and promote the homosexual agenda. Any means.

You can insert any issue in the italics; isn't that mindset dangerous? Looking at why people are behaving a certain way and addressing that issue is certainly a more enlightened approach, promotes understanding and mutual respect, and will definitely save lives. Right?

John43620 said
So, are we going to allow the barbarians to defeat us by being inflexible or is our civilization worth preserving even if we have to temporarily depart from "normal" conventions?

I can only offer a vote and an opinion, as most of us are so limited.

I vote Republican and support any means to destroy those who use terrorist and guerrilla tactics. Any means.

But you see.... the "Dark side... if you will" quoting from the master criminal of them all

really hasn't worked has it?
For every "barbarian" as you call them
... and that's another issue about your way of thinking for another time
but for every Barbarian captured your war criminal buds make another dozen

Remember - this is a PR campaign *Remember hearts and minds
You think your winning hearts and minds when you kill innocent muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan?
You think you win hearts and minds when there's 60% unemployment in Bagdadh
...when your occupation displaced over 2 million people?
...when you set off a holy civil war?

Think of it this way...
Your a downtrodden Iraqi
you hate Saddam ... given
but then we come in and "Shock and Awe" Your Aunt Uncle and two cousins twice removed to death
do ya THINK that might radicalize a few people???

DO YA THINK??

GQjock: Great to know that someone actually understands something about the MIDDLE EAST and N. America's impact on it.

When the U.S. wrongfully detains(some innocent) POW - the message to the rest of the world is - then we don't have to follow the rules either - the cycle of abuse and power and control is then ampified, and rationalized as just!

I have many friends in the Middle East(M.E.) and their lives are HELL - the PEOPLE do not want war, some of the dictators(GOVS.) do. The PEOPLE want the same as us, STABLITY and PEACE, not to mention reliable electricity and tele-communications.

Being gay in some parts of the M.E. is a death sentence and a distorted rationalization to abuse gay people.

SAILMAK/MWAAH and OPTUM

This is one case where the principals of democracy have won out over those of tyrrany. So, shove it up your ass Dubya.

Well, maybe now we can release "low level taliban-grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals" and even some of our own allies imprisoned with false evidence.

A review of 66 former detainees reveals that most of them were not the high level terrorists the Bush administration has said Guantanamo was created for.

Read about the review here.

Well no matter how you slice it, it's apparent few Americans actually trust President Bush, his administration and his supporters. There is far too much doubt and mistrust to actually believe his motives and actions are not driven by a personal agenda on some level.

In the matter of the Supreme Court rulings. President Bush has often labeled any judge who has corrected his policies as an "activist judge" or "legislating from the bench" and he is not alone. Many people and organizations who have had a disagreement with a judge on matters of law and constitutionality instantly labels these judges with those titles while failing to remember that the judicial system is not in place to support any political agendas of certain parties or organizations. It is not there to represent anyone's special interest. The Judicial Branch is in place to support and enforce and push the agenda of the U.S. Constitution as it is the Supreme Law of the Land from which everything is derived.

What we as Americans have to believe is that although our judicial systems is not perfect, it tries its best to be fair, impartial, unbiased, just, and working in the best interest of the living document known as the U.S. Constitution.

The question was raised earlier as to how many American lives would you sacrifice in order to uphold the liberties, rights of persons and policies of the U.S. Constitution, one respondent stated "as many as necessary including my own".

I hope you realize that while the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, every serviceman swears with his or her life to defend one thing above all, from all enemies foreign and domestic... the U.S. Constitution, not the President or any U.S. Citizen. That is the same oath that any newly sworn in American makes and many do not realize that as they are Americans by the virtue of being born an American.

If we waiver in anyway on the principles of our Constitution, then where will we waiver next? It is for without a doubt in the best interests of the nation at large that we allow no compromises on matters of constitutionality.

While many may disagree with the recent ruling, the ruling did not direct the immediate release of the prisoners but merely means that We the People, must find a better way that does what must be done in order to safe guard our nation but also uphold the principles of freedom, liberty and justice as represented and provided by the U.S. Constitution.

Being right and honorable is never easy but for the truly righteous, the challenges must be met and overcome for the sake of the integrity of the American people and the "Idea" of what America really is.

Remember "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice" -Movie Quote, "Air Force One".


-James R., Veteran

PhiladelphiaBoundEvery one of these people in Gitmo were captured on the battlefield.

Where in the world did you get that idea?

This started out as a CIA can of worms. They wanted information. I didn't think these fanatics would have anything useful to say, just that allah akbar crap. It was stupid to take them prisoner in the first place.

Their bones should be bleaching in the Afghan countryside, not wasting time and money at GITMO.

I hope the military recognizes the futility of taking further prisoners and stop that. Shooting the bastards on the spot would do nicely.

For those under the assumption that the detainees we had in Gitmo were actual terrorists

we had about 600 or so at the peak
and we kept them there for maybe a few years
hooded and shackled maybe waterboarded
who knows

Guess how many we released?

No charges
no surveillance...just a sorry...
Oops...we made a mistake
tell your friends we didn't mean it

500!!!!
That's right 500 men
Who right now just LOVE us
Bet their making their GO USA banners right now

There are about 80 who Maybe MAYBE we can bring actual charges against

and the remainder 30 or so we have no charges for
we know they didn't do anything but their country won't take them so we have them like a political hot potato

so take you phoney we're number one America crap and peddle it somewhere else because this country f**ked up royally and there's no way else to explain it

Another thread jumped into this topic, and I'm glad 'dad brought this to its own.

You know, like John90210, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to stop the terrorists. Except break the law. Except sweep and scoop missions with torture prisons and no habeas corpus. I'm pretty sure anyone who thinks breaking the law to preserve our way of life never understood they were a citizen of the United States.

Here's what I think stops terrorists: implement a foreign policy that doesn't rape and ruin third-world or second-world countries. Stop arming and training rebel forces who have questionable allegiances to us. Use intelligence gathering and police force to root out terrorists. Stop bombing civilians. Stop detaining suspects without due process. Stay focused on perpetrators of the crime and stop widening the focus to the wrong country or an entire geographic region.

Detaining people without due process? How stupid is that? I'm so glad the Supreme Court got it right.

John43620 saidThis started out as a CIA can of worms. They wanted information. I didn't think these fanatics would have anything useful to say, just that allah akbar crap. It was stupid to take them prisoner in the first place.

Their bones should be bleaching in the Afghan countryside, not wasting time and money at GITMO.

I hope the military recognizes the futility of taking further prisoners and stop that. Shooting the bastards on the spot would do nicely.

Then why don't you re-enlist?

LOL... Great one JJ

Officer reporting for duty Sir

Bagram Airforce Base Yessiree Bob!

John43620This started out as a CIA can of worms. They wanted information. I didn't think these fanatics would have anything useful to say, just that allah akbar crap. It was stupid to take them prisoner in the first place.

Their bones should be bleaching in the Afghan countryside, not wasting time and money at GITMO.

I hope the military recognizes the futility of taking further prisoners and stop that. Shooting the bastards on the spot would do nicely.

mickeytopogigioHere's what I think stops terrorists: implement a foreign policy that doesn't rape and ruin third-world or second-world countries. Stop arming and training rebel forces who have questionable allegiances to us. Use intelligence gathering and police force to root out terrorists. Stop bombing civilians. Stop detaining suspects without due process. Stay focused on perpetrators of the crime and stop widening the focus to the wrong country or an entire geographic region

To John43620:

In the quest to gain information, do you know what you get when you fire a bullet, missile, drop a bomb? You not only kill the target but you kill the information as well. You create a dead end on the path of taking information and creating intelligence thereby making our job harder than it already is. And since you said you” didn’t think these fanatics would have anything useful to say…” you just said it all.. You didn’t think. And besides, how do you know these people didn’t have anything useful to protect our nation with? Do you work in the intelligence business?


To mickeytopogigio:

While there are many different kind of terrorists, the one we find the most at the present time is the Islamic extremist. While our policies do create waves in the world, it is important for you and everyone else to know that if we Americans never went to or imposed our policies in the Middle East, we would still face these terrorists but we would find them on our soil.

The reason is simple. We are a largely a Christian nation and not a Muslim one. These terrorists are trying to impose their faith upon us, they have no moderate stance and will, if they can, kill us as we are infidels and are worth less than dirt in their eyes. If we do not convert to Islam, we would die by their hands so policy or not, we would have to deal with them eventually. You should read up on their goal of re-establishing the Caliphate. Ultimately they would have their Caliphate established globally and then you would be subjected to their rule as imposed by the Taliban and similarly like minded ideologies and keep in mind, that we as gay men, would be executed without question or hesitation.

So the question I pose to you is, do you prefer being stoned to death or beheaded?

Don’t be so quick to blame U.S. policy for creating terrorists!


-James R., Veteran

StigmataWhile our policies do create waves in the world, it is important for you and everyone else to know that if we Americans never went to or imposed our policies in the Middle East, we would still face these terrorists but we would find them on our soil.

The reason is simple. We are a largely a Christian nation and not a Muslim one. These terrorists are trying to impose their faith upon us, they have no moderate stance and will, if they can, kill us as we are infidels and are worth less than dirt in their eyes.

We've heard this repeatedly from the administration but I do not follow the logic.

How does our invading Iraq or maintaining any kind of presence in the Middle East keep jihadists from coming to America?

You say the reason they want to come here is to impose Islam on Americans. How is this desire frustrated by serving up 4,000 Americans to death in Iraq?

Does al Qaeda discuss detonating a suitcase nuke in Washington and then someone raises their hand and says, "We can't do that right now, because we're busy butchering Americans outside Baghdad. We just can't spare the 7 men it would take to blow up the Washington Mall."

Seriously, explain the logic to me.

obscenewishWe've heard this repeatedly from the administration but I do not follow the logic.

How does our invading Iraq or maintaining any kind of presence in the Middle East keep jihadists from coming to America?

You say the reason they want to come here is to impose Islam on Americans. How is this desire frustrated by serving up 4,000 Americans to death in Iraq?

Does al Qaeda discuss detonating a suitcase nuke in Washington and then someone raises their hand and says, "We can't do that right now, because we're busy butchering Americans outside Baghdad. We just can't spare the 7 men it would take to blow up the Washington Mall."

Seriously, explain the logic to me.

Ask and ye shall receive...

This discussion is getting off the subject at hand but I'll entertain it.

I cannot justify our invasion of Iraq and nor do I agree with the answers given as to why we are here by our current president. Having said that, our presence in the Middle East does reduce the likelihood of an attack on our soil as our forces are in their backyard and by no means am I likening our servicemen, my brothers and sisters, to cannon fodder.

The extremists' desire to impose their faith and extreme practice of it is not limited to the United States, they wish to impose their ideologies on a global scale. We are dealing with extremists who have no tolerance or acceptance of people of different faiths, not moderates.

I'm not sure what you mean by this desire frustrated by serving up 4,000 Americans to their death.

While every life is precious and invaluable, the number of casualties is relatively low. How many were lost in WW I, WW II, Korean War, Vietnam? What were they fighting then? I am not heartless but our casualties are significantly less than in previous wars aside from Desert Storm.

But come to think of it, is your argument also applicable to Afghanistan? Should we allow those women to be slaughtered like dogs because they tried to learn how to read, want to go to school or get a job? Should we allow our fellow gay brothers and sisters to be slaughtered for being gay? How about the regular Joe who gets tortured because he decided not to grow a beard?

While Iraq appears to be about oil and money (and I am not disputing that), Afghanistan, whether is serves our purpose or not, was in the best interest of not only America but the Afghans as well as every person desiring liberty. And if 4,000 people, or perhaps 10,000 people who volunteer to defend these liberties die defending the principles of freedom, liberty and justice die, they do so honorably and are owed our deepest gratitude. These are volunteers not draftees.

Remember, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice" -movie quote, "Air Force one"

-James R., Veteran

Remember, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice" -movie quote, "Air Force one"

A rather appropriate or ironic quote given the topic.

But really the motivations for the jihadists (terrorists or whatever you want to call them) are more than merely wanting to impose their religious will -- and certainly not isolated from the politics of the time and place. A variety of factors have come together to create them -- some based on local conditions, and then also results or perceived slights of outsiders policies also play into the mix. At any rate the current batch of jidahists are a relatively recent phenomenon, and in the larger historical term Islam has dealt fairly tolerantly with the other religions that have always coexisted in it's area of influence.

Wrerick, you are very right. Jihadis are created by multiple reasons but are fueled by their ideologies and among those is the chief reason to kill infidels.

In my view and experience, the overwhelming number of jihadis are ill educated if at all and the make up the ranks of the extremists by far.

The best weapon against them is education which none of the leaders of jihadist cause allow except for what they determine. Reading is discouraged for if the large following did know how to read, they could read the Qur'an and make their own interpretations and would be less likely (although not immune) to follow the leaders of these terrorist organizations. And these leaders know that and for that very reason limit education.

I'm persuaded that there are two things that we will never fully agree on... perhaps more, haha, but for the sake of this thread, I'll just focus on two...

Politics and Religion.

The great thing is that regardless of which side you stand on, in America, we each have the opportunity to voice our opinion.

I've heard many things about freedom growing up, but the one that sticks with me the most is this:

"Freedom is not about the ability to do whatever you want, it's about the opportunity to do what's right."

I cannot recall who coined that phrase, but it implies alot. Perhaps in a perfect world, all of us could do whatever we want and never be concerned about the consequences. But the simple fact is that we live in an imperfect world, which means we all have choices to make. The key is knowing that each of us has a part to play in keeping the peace and supporting the growth and stability of our own communities. There is more to this life than our own personal agenda. And knowing that, is part of the road to maturity.

I also believe there is a time for everything. I believe where diplomacy can prevail, it should, but our history is also full of examples where talk was not enough.

I have had the privilege to serve in my countries military. Does that mean I think everything the military does is right? Well, the military is guided by men and women who... guess what? Have to make decisions, and some are good and some are bad.

There is not ONE decision that ANY individual makes that isn't subject to hind site, which is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing in that we can learn from our mistakes, it's a curse in that we can spend too much time arguing and criticizing over what should have been done rather than focusing that energy on making positive changes today.

Regarding the prisoners and the troubles in the middle east, I'll share some personal insite. Why would you be interested? Because I've lived in the middle east for a time. Does that make me an expert? No, it just gives me a perspective most American's don't have. So, take this with a grain of salt...

The first thought is regarding how most Americans make their judgments regarding issues in the middle east. In my experience, most individuals in the US look to the middle east and judge the situation based on the only standard of living they know... their own.

This is not a bad thing and it's understandable. Our standard of living, the traditions we have, and the tenets of our religions are different than in the middle east. There are similarities of course but the differences are what make us unique in this world.

That being said, how can we make judgments of the situations in the middle east using our own perspectives? If you've ever had an argument, and the other person just wasn't hearing you, think back, it's probably because each of you were coming from a different perspective. I'm sure you've heard it before, and there is a grain of truth to it... "You can't take things out of context". Context is almost as equally important as action.

The second thought is about terrorism. I'll share an experience to illustrate my point...

When I was in the middle east, I had the opportunity to work with local business men. While I was waiting on tickets from a travel agent, I was watching the news on CNN and observed that the Israelis and the Palestinians had another terroristic conflict. I shook my head and looked at the businessman behind the counter and told him that I just didn't understand it. ...I will never forget his response...

He looked at me and told me that, "That has been going on since I was a kid". And then his simple statement hit me and I understood... The conflict was personal.

...I know that sounds utterly simplistic and perhaps very blond of me (maybe even stupid), but read it again and slow down to think about it for a moment...

If someone attacked and killed members of your family randomly, wouldn't you want to retaliate? I'm not talking right or wrong (that's another topic). I'd think, if you had any love for your family you would. Or would you be strong enough to "turn the other cheek"?

The point is this, terrorism is dangerous because it's it's not fought on a battle field where we expect to see casualties, its fought in peoples homes, work places, and gathering places.

Now let's go back a bit... The military AND our government have to make what? Choices. Some may turn out great, some may turn out bad. But think on this for a moment... terrorism blurs the line of "traditional war" and individuals have to make judgments on who may be guilty and who may be innocent.

Do you feel qualified to make those judgment calls?

I don't because I'm not in the field. Do I expect mistakes to be made? Yes. On the flip side, how many American citizens have been falsely convicted of wrong doing in our own court systems?

My point is that none of us are perfect. I buy into the old adage to "judge not" so that I'm not judged.

I know that "judgment calls" are a part of life, but I'm persuaded the that the best policy is to be slow to speak and quick to study.

Do I care what the rest of the world thinks of America? Of course I do, but I don't expect them to approve of everything we do. And then there's that darn context thing again. haha

Are the citizens of the middle east any worse than us? No. Are they any better than us? No. We are similar, yet we are different.

Bottom line, if you can't tell by now, I have my feelings and opinions, but I also respect everyones right to form a different opinion. Because, at heart, I'm a peace keeper. ;)

obscenewish said[quote][cite]Stigmata[/cite]While our policies do create waves in the world, it is important for you and everyone else to know that if we Americans never went to or imposed our policies in the Middle East, we would still face these terrorists but we would find them on our soil.

The reason is simple. We are a largely a Christian nation and not a Muslim one. These terrorists are trying to impose their faith upon us, they have no moderate stance and will, if they can, kill us as we are infidels and are worth less than dirt in their eyes.

We've heard this repeatedly from the administration but I do not follow the logic.

How does our invading Iraq or maintaining any kind of presence in the Middle East keep jihadists from coming to America?

You say the reason they want to come here is to impose Islam on Americans. How is this desire frustrated by serving up 4,000 Americans to death in Iraq?

Does al Qaeda discuss detonating a suitcase nuke in Washington and then someone raises their hand and says, "We can't do that right now, because we're busy butchering Americans outside Baghdad. We just can't spare the 7 men it would take to blow up the Washington Mall."

Seriously, explain the logic to me.




[/quote]

You're first incorrectly assuming a much deeper amount of organization and forethought than that which comes from a religious extremist group. They inspire and control through exploiting the ignorance of their followers and inciting their most base extrinsic motivations.

You can't organize an attack on the most heavily defended country in the world while you're busy putting out fires in your homeland. While I also do not agree with our motivations for invading Iraq, we have these fanatics trying to patch up their own networks at home instead of trying to infiltrate ours. That is entirely due to the sacrifices made by our US Armed Forces. Most of the soldiers I've spoken to do not support our tyrant President, but do understand the necessity of our presence in the nest of religious zeal that is the present date Middle East.

I'm so tired of listening to this dribble from people who have yet to serve this country in any capacity whatsoever. Go fight a fire, join a branch of the service, teach our schools, or volunteer... or anything... then get back to me.

Stigmata said...we would still face these terrorists but we would find them on our soil...The reason is simple. We are a largely a Christian nation and not a Muslim one. These terrorists are trying to impose their faith upon us, they have no moderate stance and will...

This proves nothing, and still doesn't answer why being there will have any impact on what they do to us here. I've heard this sort of rhetoric before: we must fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. This is not rational. It's bad math. And only Neo-Cons believe it.

Seriously...they can't afford a plane ticket for ONE guy? EVERYONE is busy fending us off in Iraq? Wow...Sean Hannity would be proud of you and your bullshit logic.

I have no doubt the terrorists are bad people. Nobody is disputing that, but since you put so much effort into explaining why I should be so afraid, let me tell you, I'm not.

That doesn't mean I think that terrorists won't conduct a successful attack against the US in the future, perhaps many times. What I believe is that the intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies are going to do everything in their power to thwart it from happening. And it's unlikely to affect my daily life more than a flood or a tornado or hurricane.

What is happening, however, is that our beloved leaders are using this fear to suspend our Constitution, and rape us and the rest of the world. I won't stand for it. I won't let this fear drive me to allow you to take away my country. I won't let fear shepherd me to hand over my money to Cheney's Halliburton or Bush's Blackwater.

It's not the Islamo-terrorists who are going to end my way of life; it's you, from within my own country, telling me to trust my dear leaders to do the right thing while they shred my Constitution. It's you, telling me to push the button, because if I don't do it, they will.

Don't tell me to hate. Don't tell me to feed their hatred. I'm not your sheep. My programming was incomplete.

....

So, the other topic: they hate us because we're Christian, and they're Muslim. Hmmm. So, it has nothing to do with our foreign policy, right? I'll let the argument as to whether we're a Christian nation slide to answer your bigger math problem: we're not the only "Christian" nation. But, we stand for all of them, right? Spain had a minor hit (but not related to its involvement in the Iraq war, right?), and Britain (also nothing to do with their involvement, right?), but all other Christian nations have been ignored (oh, except the Dutch, who draw cartoons). Not France, not Italy, not Poland, not Canada, not Switzerland.

In fact, the list of "Christian" nations that have not been hit is pretty long. The short list is a dirty list, and you have to concede that.

Our foreign policy goes back many decades. Our foreign policy trained and armed Osama bin Laden AND Saddam Hussein, and you have the balls to say they hate us because we're Christian? That sounds so much like Bush saying, "They hate us for our freedoms." Again, the only people who believe that bullshit are Limbaugh and Hannity audiences.

You ended your post with your signature, Veteran. Consider another signature: American Citizen. And please uphold the Constitution you swore to defend.

rhino81 saidI'm so tired of listening to this dribble from people who have yet to serve this country in any capacity whatsoever. Go fight a fire, join a branch of the service, teach our schools, or volunteer... or anything... then get back to me.

Wait...I have to have served in the armed forces to be as smart as you? Get off it. Really, get off it.

Let me turn that back on you: go, go to college. Read a book, learn about life that isn't at the point of a gun. Then, get back to me.

John43620 saidIf they made that ruling in 1942 the Nazi and Jap POWs would have had a day in court. The Supreme court seriously overstepped it's bounds on this one.

Tell me, what's it like living there? Those guys did have their day in court, back when things were conducted multi-laterally. Remember Nuremberg, or is historical accuracy too much to ask?

JustJohn said...Remember Nuremberg, or is historical accuracy too much to ask?

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

So strange...the latest meme coming from the Neo-Cons is that our emasculating justice system wants the terrorists to win. Pure bullshit offered up by Project for a New American Century and then echoed for months by Fox News, Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly, Gibson, Malkin and Coulter. And now John McCain.

George Will doesn't seem to think the Court was entirely out of line. Read his editorial on point in today's Washington Post.

I will make this point again, especially because the thread has gone off track. Just because the Gitmo detainees now, after all this time, have the right to have their detention reviewed by a judge does not mean that they will be released. Nor does it mean that they will be accorded any of the rights that American citizens get in criminal proceedings.

If the question is, how much "evidence" does the military need to detain a foreign person on suspicion of being an enemy combatant, what do you think the courts will require -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't think so. But the government will need to come up with some articulable reason, some facts, and the detainee will be able to make his case.

It is alarmist, and a misreading of the court's opinion, to think that we are talking about having criminal trials here. What we are talking about is giving people who have been detained for years and years as part of a war with no end in sight the opportunity to have a judge review the circumstances of their detention.

I doubt that the majority of the justices underestimated the threat of terrorism when they recognized that the most rudimentary principle of ordered liberty -- that you can't be held forever without a reason -- applies even in Guantanamo Bay.

mickeytopogigio said[quote][cite]rhino81 said[/cite]I'm so tired of listening to this dribble from people who have yet to serve this country in any capacity whatsoever. Go fight a fire, join a branch of the service, teach our schools, or volunteer... or anything... then get back to me.

Wait...I have to have served in the armed forces to be as smart as you? Get off it. Really, get off it.

Let me turn that back on you: go, go to college. Read a book, learn about life that isn't at the point of a gun. Then, get back to me.[/quote]

I never served in the forces. I taught, an equally honorable profession, and will be going back into the profession as soon as I get my doctorate.

College? Did that, and happened to do my civ/honors history classes with a professor whose doctoral focus and life's work was the culture of the middle east and its theologies.

The radical Islamists have hated us since the crusades, and to a degree, rightfully so. We Christians destroyed their culture in the name of spreading the gospel, and now they see our successful, bloated, over-consuming nation as an abomination. That will not change until the young are educated to read and to turn away from hate as motivation.

Why do they focus on the US and not those other Christian nations? Simple. We're the greatest threat, we have the most chance of putting them down.

mickeytopogigio said

Seriously...they can't afford a plane ticket for ONE guy? EVERYONE is busy fending us off in Iraq? Wow...Sean Hannity would be proud of you and your bullshit logic.

I have no doubt the terrorists are bad people. Nobody is disputing that, but since you put so much effort into explaining why I should be so afraid, let me tell you, I'm not.

That doesn't mean I think that terrorists won't conduct a successful attack against the US in the future, perhaps many times.

What is happening, however, is that our beloved leaders are using this fear to suspend our Constitution, and rape us and the rest of the world. I won't stand for it. I won't let this fear drive me to allow you to take away my country. I won't let fear shepherd me to hand over my money to Cheney's Halliburton or Bush's Blackwater.

It's not the Islamo-terrorists who are going to end my way of life; it's you, from within my own country, telling me to trust my dear leaders to do the right thing while they shred my Constitution. It's you, telling me to push the button, because if I don't do it, they will.

You ended your post with your signature, Veteran. Consider another signature: American Citizen. And please uphold the Constitution you swore to defend.

If you are going to be defensive then I must have struck a nerve. And so I reply with this:

1st of all DAMN RIGHT I end my posts with my signature and my Veteran status! I earned the right to do so!

Furthermore, Where in any of my posts did I say you should be afraid? Survey says NOWHERE! As long as there are brave volunteers serving in our military, intelligence services or law enforcement agencies, you need not worry, Starbucks will still be there in the morning because even Starbucks is a target.

AND TELL ME WHERE IN ANY OF MY POSTS have I defended President Bush or his cronies or advocated the destruction of the Constitution? NOWHERE! Don't be selective and choose my wording to fit your liberal stance. And no, I am not a conservative! I'm a moderate! Liberalism is just as bad as conservatism. Extremism of any kind is dangerous. "Balance must desired and achieved for in the realm of balance, lies truth, for there you find the whole answer."

If you read all of my blogs in their entirety, you'll have noticed I applauded the U.S. Supreme Court for doing their job by upholding the Constitution and I do not side with anyone who slanders the Judicial Branch!

YOU DARE tell me to defend the Constitution? My good Sir, I most certainly have! I've defended it in the uniform of a United States Marine for 8 and 1/2 years, I've been deployed to Iraq 3 times and write you here and now from Iraq. DO NOT LECTURE ME NOR IMPUNE MY HONOR!

I've picked up a rifle and done my duty. In all honestly I would still be serving in uniform but because my sexual orientation was made public, I could do so no longer. So I'm here in a manner that allows me to continue to do my job without having to worry about being fired for being gay!

Defend the Constitution? I most certainly do with every breathe I draw! Do not lecture me while you are in the comfort of your home under the very protection I have helped provide you while you frolic around your city enjoying your latte!

Your liberalism and ignorance mirrors the ultra conservatives and together will be the damnation of our nation.

-James R., Veteran

PS: Rhino81 is a civilian, not a serviceman or veteran. If he can be this smart having never served, I'm sure anyone else can be as well.

mickeytopogigio said but all other Christian nations have been ignored (oh, except the Dutch, who draw cartoons). Not France, not Italy, not Poland, not Canada, not Switzerland.

I never said the United States was a Christian nation, I said it was largely a Christian nation, meaning followers of other faiths also live here.

Here is a short version of terrorist attacks:



France: Sept 2001: Paris embassy attack plot foiled.

Morocco, May 16 2003 : Casablanca Attacks by twelve bombers on five "Western and Jewish" targets in Casablanca leave 41 dead and over 100 injured. Attack attributed to a Moroccan al-Qaeda-linked group.

Netherlands, November 2 2004 : Theo Van Gogh is murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri in Amsterdam for his criticism of Islam.

Philippines: February 3, 2006 On the Island of Jolo, "Muslim extremists raided the farm over night in Patikul township, killing six Christians, including a nine-month infant girl, said Brigadier General Alexander Aleo, the island's military chief, who also confirmed that five other people were seriously wounded, among them a three-year old boy. The gunmen appeared to be from the Abu Sayyaf (Bearers of the Sword) Group, a Muslim extremist organisation believed to be al-Qaeda-linked." -Asianews.it

Norway, September 19 2006: A person fire with an automatic weapon on a synagoge in Oslo at night. On March 25, 2008, the trial against Arfan Bhatti (29), of Pakistani origin, and two others (one Norwegian and one of Turkish origin) will begin, accused for the responsibility for the attack and for plots to attack the U.S. Israeli embassies in Oslo

Denmark, September 4, 2007: Eight men with alleged links to leading senior Al Qaeda terrorists are arrested, the country's intelligence service said, claiming to have thwarted a bomb plot. The arrests occur without incident in raids on eleven locations in and around Copenhagen. The suspects are of Afghan, Pakistani, Somali, and Turkish origin.

Netherlands, October 14, 2007: In a suicide attack on a police station of the Amsterdam district Slotervaart, Bilal Bajaka, a 22-year-old Amsterdammer of Moroccan origin, severely injures two Dutch police officers by stabbing them eight times before he is shot dead by an injured policewoman. Bajaka was in contact with the Hofstad terrorist group and had been visited by Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh (film director). According to media reports, Bajaka's brother Abdullah was investigated in 2005 for planning a terrorist attack on an El-Al Boeing at Schiphol airport. On the day after Bajaka's death, a group of youths throw stones at a Slotervaart police station and set cars on fire

Mauritania, December 24, 2007: Four French tourists are gunned down in Aleg, Mauritania; the family's father survives, but with serious injuries. Mauritanian police say two of the three suspects are affiliated with a salafist group close to Al-Qaeda.



The list goes on, tell me, did I miss something?

-Sources were found on Wikipedia and links were found to the news reports to the specific attacks.

Keep in mind, terrorist attacks aren't always on a grand scale.


-James R., Veteran

One final note on why we must deal with the terrorists:


Keep in mind, this is not Christianity vs. Islam in the eyes of the Muslim extremists. These extremists also target scores of their fellow Muslims because they do not practice their extreme version of the religion.

They target anyone who is not conforming to the extreme ideology whether their victims be Christian, Hebrew, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or any other faith.

In all sense of their purpose, it's their way or the highway.


Too often there is a terrorist attack in the name of Jihad, or a plot foiled by the nation of which their cell is in. Just because it didn't make the news doesn't mean in never occured.

Governments must do what they have to in order to safegaurd their people but they must do so lawfully and honorably. It's not an easy path but it is the only path.


-James R., Veteran

Stigmata saidGovernments must do what they have to in order to safeguard their people but they must do so lawfully and honorably. It's not an easy path but it is the only path.

Agreed. And thank you for clarifying your stance on Iraq.

My position was already clear but none-the-less, you are welcome. I'll attribute this sprirted debate to your misunderstanding.

I'm mortified I got off on the wrong foot with you and went all ranty. However, my initial reaction to one of your statements hasn't changed. In it, your position was not clear. You'd stated, as I read, some belief that our presence in the Middle East was contributing to our security at home. If that's not your stated opinion, I apologize. If it is your stated opinion, I'm flabbergasted. And I'm referring to, specifically, Iraq.

If you meant, intelligence and diplomatic presence, I'll agree with you. If it's military presence, you and I are on different pages altogether.

To the issue of signing your posts with James, Veteran: I understand your pride in your service...I'd feel the same. However, I couldn't see the relevance. Does being a veteran accord you specific knowledge unavailable to a non-service member? Perspective, yes; foreign policy, no...unless your service was specifically in foreign policy.

It's the issue I would take if you'd signed your posts (about, let's say, gray-haired men vs bald men) with James, "MD." As if a medical degree had relevance to the conversation. This is not about disrespecting your service; I found it patronizing to ours, the citizens.

So, on a different foot...

OK, the Supreme Court ruled, stop taking prisoners, shoot them like the rabid dogs they are, problem solved.

John43620 saidOK, the Supreme Court ruled, stop taking prisoners, shoot them like the rabid dogs they are, problem solved.

Problem not solved. If we did that and only that, we'd only create more enemies. Besides, you can't kill an ideology with a bullet (and to prevent childish responses, nor a nuclear warhead).

When will that be realized?

stigmata said; "Problem not solved. If we did that and only that, we'd only create more enemies. Besides, you can't kill an ideology with a bullet (and to prevent childish responses, nor a nuclear warhead).

When will that be realized?"

Then what do you suggest?

Educating them. Specifically teaching them to read. Doing that will lessen their ignorance and the hold of the radical leaders over the people.

John43620 saidThen what do you suggest?

Come on! Somewhere in your long life you had to learn more than just kill or be killed! Somewhere! Shit, for you, ordering a drink has got to be absolute murder.

Stigmata, thank you; you have more patience with John (or me) than anyone deserves.

[quote]
You're first incorrectly assuming a much deeper amount of organization and forethought than that which comes from a religious extremist group. They inspire and control through exploiting the ignorance of their followers and inciting their most base extrinsic motivations.

You can't organize an attack on the most heavily defended country in the world while you're busy putting out fires in your homeland. While I also do not agree with our motivations for invading Iraq, we have these fanatics trying to patch up their own networks at home instead of trying to infiltrate ours. That is entirely due to the sacrifices made by our US Armed Forces. Most of the soldiers I've spoken to do not support our tyrant President, but do understand the necessity of our presence in the nest of religious zeal that is the present date Middle East.

[/quote]

But what I don't understand is why you think our presence
in Iraq has ANYTHING to do with the jihadists you attacked our country?

How many of the 9/11 attackers were Iraqi again?
The countries these men came from were Saudi Arabia and Egypt...
Do you see any work being done in those countries?

We are a lightning rod for recruitment over there in Iraq and Afghanistan
There was NEVER an organization called Al Queda in Iraq until we got there...this group has no affiliation with the original Al Queda but now reflects there aim
This is progress?
Killing thousands of Iraqis
Sending 2 million into exile into other middle eastern countries is going to give us anything but a black eye?

We are doing everything we can right now to have people over there hate and despise us
and winning hearts and minds certainly ain't gonna be won this way
You wanna be safer? Then stop killing people over there
and being the poster child for everything that Al Queda wants us to be

....and as far as your rant that "unless you've served in the US service your opinion doesn't mean much?"
I can say the same thing
I'd lost loved one on 9/11 so I can say the same thing

Everyone has a voice..everyone

I was just reading about some Chinese inmates at GITMO. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Cool, send them back to China, the Chinese communists will shoot them.

Perhaps there's wisdom in the Supreme Court's ruling after all.

I don't know. I like to think that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights...

Seems to me that our nation was founded on something like that.

I'd like to think that if someone accused me of something I'd have a chance to a right and proper defense.

I believe it is morally right to protect EVERY person from tyranny and unjustice - and that includes those who seek to destroy justice.

The court ruling was morally correct. Every human being anywhere around the world deserves the right to contest their imprisonment. And as NNJFit has stated so well... if there is sufficient evidence, a proper court will move to continue their imprisonment with a move towards a rightful trial.

Why can't we rejoice for an innocent person being freed? Why is it so horrible to seek justice, especially for those who have been unjustly held?

I believe that the foundations this country was built upon go beyond nationalism to embrace all of mankind. When patriotic nationalism is sewn into the concept of basic human rights we are all at risk of losing them.

skotjockmi, Although I support the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were some mistakes made, like taking the GITMO inmates prisoner in the first place. Their bones should be spread over Afghanistan, not tying up our courts.

John43620 saidskotjockmi, Although I support the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were some mistakes made, like taking the GITMO inmates prisoner in the first place. Their bones should be spread over Afghanistan, not tying up our courts.

You know John... It's really sad that you haven't taken anything in from this on going semi educated forum.

If we fail to apply justice, then there will never be justice and therefore no peace.

Your gross ignorance and harshness is the same as those who hate gay people and if we didn't have justice in place in some measure, would have our bones strewn throughout.

-James R., a veteran