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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (72425)	6/16/2008 8:19:58 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542192

What we do ordinarily is to put the rats into the witness protection program. Hiding in plain sight is not so easy for a non-English-speaking foreign terrorist in Des Moines. With growing enclaves of Arab-Americans in many states, it shouldn't be a problem at all, if you are referring to Arabs that speak some English (which is most involved in any kind of international terrorist action, I would assume). If an Arab family from Iraq was transplanted to Arlington, VA and given quiet jobs and identities, do you think there is some kind if universal Muslim network in the US that would immediately report them to Central Control? I doubt it myself. But we'll probably find out in coming years.

To: Lane3 who wrote (72425)	6/16/2008 8:22:19 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542192

Karen, You are taking the discussion of the Guantanamo decision down a path it doesn't need to go. The issue before the court was not how to handle battlefield prisoners but how to handle prisoners, however classified, that have been held several years at Guantanamo. Without any serious hearings as to whether they merited such a charge. For instance, as I understood the lead case, he was arrested in Bosnia after the Bosnia courts decided they had no case against him. Hardly a battlefield decision. I fail to see how the issue of prisoners held for many years without a hearing as to their status goes to the question of whether Afghanistan is best understood in terms of a war model or a criminal model. Moreover, Linda Greenhouse's commentary on the decision includes the following lines, lines showing how Kennedy meant to limit the scope of the decision to Guantanamo and to prisoners long held away from the battlefield. To the contrary, Justice Kennedy’s analysis made clear that the decision was limited to Guantánamo by the special nature of the American installation there as well as by the remoteness of the base from any zone of hostilities. nytimes.com