Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (7064)	2/19/2004 9:30:34 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

Is anyone else puzzled by the idea that we are engaged in a "war on terrorism" but the terrorists aren't party to the conflict for legal purposes? Can't get my head wrapped around that particular absurd contradiction.

To: zonder who wrote (7064)	2/19/2004 8:46:49 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

Hi Zonder, One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. The rational argument that you are presenting to Brumar is a case in point. Well over a year ago, I attempted to break through and help him see the light. To no avail. I've had him on "ignore" ever since then, and I can see from the selected text that you've copied from his post that he is making very much the same disingenuous, childish and deceitful arguments he was making one year ago. He has an incapacity to grow. When you tire of beating you head against the wall and realize that debating Brumar is a completely pointless waste of your fine intellect and energy, you will have achieved a new level of enlightenment. Salaams, Ray :) PS: The Brumar Syndrome is well described by the quip from the late Senator Daniel P. Moynihan: "Sir, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."

To: zonder who wrote (7064)	2/19/2004 9:04:31 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

A "no" reply is not an evasion. Guess you have a problem taking no for an answer. Please don't evade the question. Again, YOU DO NOT KNOW GUANTANAMO DETAINEES ARE ALL AL-QAEDA! I'm confidant that almost all are, perhaps every single one is. Of course, you do not know that the Guantanamo detaines aren't all Al Qaeda. See below article on nationality of detainees: 25% of Guantanamo detainees said to be Saudis February 5, 2004 BY JOHN C. K. DALY Advertisement WASHINGTON -- At least 160 of the 650 detainees acknowledged by the Pentagon as being held at the United States military base at Guantanamo, Cuba -- almost a quarter of the total -- are from Saudi Arabia, a special UPI survey reveals. In a detailed breakdown of the detainees, some arrested far from the 2001 battlefield of Afghanistan, the other top nations represented are Yemen with 85, Pakistan with 82, Jordan and Egypt, each with 30. The survey concludes that people from 38 countries are represented at the military detention center. Afghans are the fourth-largest nationality with 80 detainees. The survey established the homelands of 95 percent of the prisoners. One member of the Bahraini royal family is among those detained, said his lawyer, Najeeb al-Nauimi of Qatar, who was that country's justice minister in 1995-97 and has power of attorney from the parents of about 70 prisoners. The Pentagon's own list of nationalities detained at Guantanamo may be flawed. Yemeni officials have told UPI they fear more than twice as many of their citizens are held as the Pentagon count. France and Bahrain each has seven of their nationals at Guantanamo. Highlighting the problems of identification, France only recently discovered its seventh national at Camp Delta. Bangladesh, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Mauritania, Qatar, Spain and Sweden each has one citizen there. The Pentagon has kept a tight lid on material about the detainees; only the identities of those who choose to correspond via the Red Cross are known. The Defense Department has repeatedly declined to provide a breakdown of detainees by nationality. Sources close to the Pentagon have admitted to UPI that "sensitive diplomatic considerations" were behind the decision to keep the nationalities secret. The UPI survey was conducted by compilation and analysis of media reports from countries all around the world and interviews with foreign government officials. United Press International suntimes.com Here is a new way of looking at this discussion. Maybe it will make some headway: 1) You maintain the GC's mean the US must give POW status to all the Gitmo detainees. 2) You agree that at least some of the detainees are AQ members. 3) You admit that AQ members are to be considered terrorists. 4) You agree that POW status would prevent the US from interrogating POW's beyond the "name, rank, SSN" level. Conclusion: You believe the GC should prevent the US from interrogating detained terrorists. There's another problem with POW status for terror detainees. POW's are to be repatriated once hostilities cease. I have no doubt the persons now demanding POW status for the detainees would, if that status were granted, soon begin claiming that hostilities had ceased using the argument that no more attacks have been made on the US. As time passed the argument would strengthen. Of course, the absence of attacks doesn't mean the will and intention of AQ has changed. It may mean that US security measures have been strengthened enough to prevent followup attacks. Furthermore, followup attacks may not have occurred because a bunch of AQ's manpower is detained at Gitmo. And much of the AQ manpower not detained may be tied up in fighting Americans in Iraq.