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 (7122)	2/20/2004 1:03:00 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Perhaps unilateralism creates a magic exemption from reading for comprehension, verifying assumptions and following the rules of logic. Hey, it's anything goes and rah-rah #1, right? ;<)

To: zonder who wrote (7122)	2/20/2004 10:10:01 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

YOU DO NOT KNOW GUANTANAMO DETAINEES ARE ALL AL-QAEDA<<< I'm confidant that almost all are, perhaps every single one is. And HOW exactly are you thus "confident"? What do you know that the rest of us don't? Well, I know our military is run by ordinary Americans like me who don't have an evil wish to hold innocent peasants prisoner. So I trust them. Loads were released after 1-2 years, since they were not Al-Qaeda. Others are said to be about to be released. Ergo, not all still imprisoned are Al-Qaeda. 80 (out of about 650) have been determined to not be AQ and released. And about the same number of new detainees have been brought to Gitmo leaving the total held at about 650. I see the fact that some have been cleared and released as an indication that the military is trying to clear and release the innocent even before tribunals have been held. Which confirms my previously stated belief and trust about our military personnel. 1) You maintain the GC's mean the US must give POW status to all the Gitmo detainees. No. To those captured while fighting in Afghanistan against US military. I said this very clearly before. Pay attention. Thank you for clarifying your position. I didn't see you make such a distinction before. Now I understand that you make an exception to your POW position for any detainees that weren't captured in Afghanistan. I wish I knew how many that is but I don't. 2) You agree that at least some of the detainees are AQ members. Probably. Although we will not know for sure until tribunals are held. I'm sure you will be happy to hear that the military has made preparations for military tribunals. The tribunals will consist of 3 - 7 officers based on something I read sometime ago. An Air Force colonel has been given a staff of 6 lawyers to serve as the counsel for the detainees. 3) You admit that AQ members are to be considered terrorists. Yes. You can be the member of a terrorist group but still a POW, if you are captured on the battlefield rather than in civil life plotting to blow up a mall. 4) You agree that POW status would prevent the US from interrogating POW's beyond the "name, rank, SSN" level. Yes. Still, you must realize that any info Americans could not get out of Guantanamo detainees in two years (1) does not exist or (2) will never be disclosed. I still have a problem with this, of course. If we had followed your POW status idea from day one then we would never have been able to question them about anything. And I think it is a major mistake to accept the premise that we will forego trying to interrogate terrorists because they were captured on what is generally thought of as a battlefield rather than in a city. Conclusion: You believe the GC should prevent the US from interrogating detained terrorists. Wrong. See above. For additional clarification, Google "Logical fallacies". I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand your answer to proposition 3 and 4. I stated: 4) You agree that POW status would prevent the US from interrogating POW's beyond the "name, rank, SSN" level. You answered: Yes. And to proposition 3 you said You can be the member of a terrorist group but still a POW if you are captured on the battlefield.. Thus your reply to my conclusion should have Yes, depending on where the terrorist was captured. For additional clarification, Google "Logical fallacies". For some reason, I am now mindful of a teaching of Jesus I was taught in Sunday school as a child. So I will close by saying, thank you for the advice.