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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (190757)	7/3/2006 1:25:49 PM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 281500

They are illegal combatants who have been detained and suspected of involvement in terrorist organizations that have sworn attacks upon the US. Doesn't that sounds ridiculous to you? They are suspected of wanting to harm the US, and that's it? No proof of involvement in terrorist organizations, no explanation of what they are suspected of wanting to do to harm the US, just suspected of being bad guys. It's right out of a police state hell situation. When the US invaded Afghanistan, which people in Afghanistan were not suspected of involvement in terrorist organizations? I would surmise the invading US forces were instructed to assume everyone was Taliban or Al Qaeda unless proven otherwise, wouldn't you?? And how thoroughly do you think the invading US forces, who don't speak their language and have close to zero intelligence on the ground were in making their determination that the detainees were terrorists that want to harm the US? The invading US forces were strangers in a strange, new foreign land, are you sure that half the people (or more, who knows??) thrown into Gitmo weren't just Asians in the wrong place at the wrong time? What you might want to consider when you try and apply Geneva conventions to the issue of illegal combatants, it must be remembered that these accords were developed and signed as agreements between governments. They DID NOT include terrorist organizations with no soveriegn authority as legitimate combatant entities. I never mentioned the Geneva conventions. The US should act against them or release them because their current situation is unjust and unAmerican. It's shameful to have the land of freedom and the rule of law imprison people indefinitely because they are suspected of being bad guys. What if you were in there, or your friends, or anyone that matters to you? You would still agree that its best to keep them there because a 24 year old special forces guy caught Abdul in a roundup, and the 24 year old English speaking special forces guy can somehow tell Abdul wants to destroy the US? Thus, the belief that only democratic reform can create the legitimacy, rule of law, and governmental accountability required to moderate the intolerance in the region, and in the religion. This is off topic - I'm discussing the Gitmo detainees. For the vast majority of them if they were released to their home country, they would walk off the plane as normal citizens and do interviews describing how they were imprisoned by the US for having done nothing more than tended fields in Afghanistan. For some it would be a lie, but for some that story is probably true. Of course, since our government gives us no proof of how bad the detainees are, we have no way of knowing. If the US government knows that the detainees are a danger to the US, why in the world do you think they don't release their evidence as such? There can't be that much intelligence which would be revealed 3 years later. And if the US government doesn't have such evidence, we are back to the US treating these people like the police state hells that we are fighting against. You can't have it both ways.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (190757)	7/3/2006 4:02:38 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The "crime" is being perpetrated against the US and its people. In such, when international law does not prevent such attacks, or end support for declared enemies of the US (Al Qai'da declared war on the US years ago), members of the enemy's organization can be detained until the end of hostilities and final peace treaty. The article below from this week's Economist has a book by a Joe Marguiles, a lawyer representing some of the inmates at Gitmo, and he says no more than 8% of them are accused of being members of Al Qaeda and more than half of them are not alleged to have engaged in hostile acts to American or coalition forces. Presumably he knows more of the data than you or I. So most of the Gitmo detainees are not in Al Qaeda and half have not undertaken hostile acts against the US. If that is correct, do you still just give this overwhelming presumption that America is "doing the right thing" in indefinitely detaining without charge these people who are not Al Qaeda and have not taken hostile action against America? Your government won't tell you the specific reason why any of them are there (other than the 10 that have been charged), but you just assume they should be because.........there must be a good reason? Hell, Chevy Chase could accidentally be in there, we haven't heard much from him in the past 3-4 years! economist.com