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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (121490)	6/22/2005 1:23:47 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793717

I still haven't seen ANYone speak to that question. I'll bite. We either have to get rid of it or we have to defend what it is. As long as it exists in this limbo it's going to be a problem. We still haven't dealt with the question of what it means to be a prisoner of war in the war on terror, how that relates to our judicial system, how that relates to the Geneva convention, etc. We have a new paradigm but the administration hasn't articulated it definitively. The administration should either lay it out for us and for the world or shut the place down and place the prisoners in some existing paradigm, whatever that might be.

To: KLP who wrote (121490)	6/22/2005 1:24:11 PM
From: MichaelSkyy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793717

or kill them before we think about putting them in prison? or turning them back to the country of their origin? I like both of these....

To: KLP who wrote (121490)	6/22/2005 1:46:19 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793717

KLP, regarding Gitmo you write: "I think things are OK there, and in fact, from the looks of things, better than most any prison in the world." Does that mean you're OK with the idea of keeping uncharged, unrepresented and unconvicted foreign nationals incarcerated for years or even lifetimes? As far as I'm concerned they could make that a country club and I'd be against it given the current procedural safeguards. Think about how a month of separation from your life, your family, your future and your children would feel. Think about how long a year is, or three years. Think about the fact that not all of them are guilty of anything serious. Think about the people we "let go" because they were no threat, but only after years of imprisonment. I don't want to be a part of doing that to any innocent people and therefor I'd like to see some standards established to delineate what does, and does not, justify incarceration there, and I'd like to see some quality procedural protections to be sure we have the right people imprisoned. Because you can say as often as you'd like that "we wouldn't be holding them if they were innocent" but the fact is that petty bureaucrats get things really, really wrong all the time. And of course the world is watching us and assessing "American justice" not just by our words but by our actions. So far we aren't doing too well in the eyes of most people in the world. By the way, when the Bush people claimed that they'd imprisoned the right people because some of them later engaged in anti-American violence following their release, am I the only one that found that a stretch? If you'd been held for years thousands of miles from home in a desolate prison, kept in fear and possibly been subjected to "pressures," do you think you might be violently anti-American when you finally got out? Might you join with those who were determined to harm America, even if you hadn't felt that way before your incarceration? If you say "no," then you're far different in temperment than I am. Ed