Nobody's bashing the US here. Dissent does not equal bashing, it equals disagreement.

I've seen enough twisted logic and name-calling to put it into the "bashing" category. Read the thread again....

Nobody's bashing the US here. Dissent does not equal bashing, it equals disagreement.

I've seen enough twisted logic and name-calling to put it into the "bashing" category. Read the thread again....

Why don't you point it out if it's so obvious?

Why don't you point it out if it's so obvious?

Sorry, you're not going to entice me into the gutter with you. If you flunked Logic 101, or never progressed beyond the name-calling of the primary schoolyard, you won't get it.

But, just to leave you with one example:

That is just the Imperial Japanese Army thought of the Allied POWS, funny eh?

To equate the Japanese treatment of PoWs in WW2 to American treatment of the Gitmo slugs is completely ignorant or completely moronic. Take your pick. It's just so off the wall as to barely be worthy of a response.

I tend to side with the last six words of the last-quoted poster...

You need to calm down, I don't go to the gutter. People brought up some legitimate questions that many Americans themselves are asking of their government. They don't hate America, nor do I. We're simply pointing out some hypocracies in US forgien policy. That's not gutter talk, that's a debate between grown adults.

For the record, I have some problems with Canadian laws on this too. Fortunately the supreme court dealt with much of it today.

Have you ever noticed the parallels between America-bashing and penis envy?

No, is it something you are very knowlegable of? How about a statistic or a link.

Why don't you point it out if it's so obvious?

Sorry, you're not going to entice me into the gutter with you. If you flunked Logic 101, or never progressed beyond the name-calling of the primary schoolyard, you won't get it.

But, just to leave you with one example:

That is just the Imperial Japanese Army thought of the Allied POWS, funny eh?

To equate the Japanese treatment of PoWs in WW2 to American treatment of the Gitmo slugs is completely ignorant or completely moronic. Take your pick. It's just so off the wall as to barely be worthy of a response.

I tend to side with the last six words of the last-quoted poster...

I think if you're going to quote anyone to show where your allegience

and what your grasp of the situation is,

you may want to choose more carefully than Spee.

As for saying 'you won't get it', get what?

Have you anything to add apart from schoolboy histronics?

Would any of you right wingers like to give us a reasoned opinion of your own

as a counter argument to this discussion?

You need to calm down, I don't go to the gutter....

Gutter = metaphor for dragging someone down to your own level. I think of "gutter talk" as an entirely different metaphor. Don't extrapolate things too far & don't get too upset.

Would any of you right wingers like to give us a reasoned opinion of your own

as a counter argument to this discussion?

As for saying 'you won't get it', get what?

Get the meaning of my point that both logic and appellations on this thread have gone seriously wanting. Geez, do I have to spell EVERYTHING out to you, dude?

Would any of you right wingers like to give us a reasoned opinion of your own

as a counter argument to this discussion?

So does that mean if one counters your argument in any legitimate way, we still get the label? Does this post hint at the gawd-awful possibility that you are...uh...a LEFT WINGER?

Why don't we leave the "wings" and labels out of it, and just have a decent tete-a-tete?

Would any of you right wingers like to give us a reasoned opinion of your own

as a counter argument to this discussion?

So does that mean if one counters your argument in any legitimate way, we still get the label? Does this post hint at the gawd-awful possibility that you are...uh...a LEFT WINGER?

Why don't we leave the "wings" and labels out of it, and just have a decent tete-a-tete?

Are you capable of a decent tete-a-tete, would you like me to re-phrase the question for you

or would you like to actually give us a reasoned personal opinion, that we could use for discussion?

Here is the question for you all again re-phrased so as not to upset the Guantanamo lynch mob.

Would any member like to give us a reasoned opinion of their own, that could highlight the benefits of the Guantanamo inmates having no legal or human rights, as a counter argument to this discussion?

Are you capable of a decent tete-a-tete....?

...not to upset the Guantanamo lynch mob.

Hey CDNVIC!!! There's a couple of good on-going examples, if you needed more evidence of my observations about the undignified lows* the posters are stooping to... It's all there in one post (how convenient), ad hominem attack and name-calling. Thanks Robski!

*lows--akin to the inflammatory metaphor "gutter."

Well here's my way of looking at it. These are either POWs, or they're terrorists. Either way, there are laws designed to deal with them. By making up a new designation you should not be able to duck these laws. Also, there's a measure of hypocracy when you keep them in another country to avoid having to give them certain human rights, especially as you are embargoing that same country and often citing human rights as a reason.

Then there is the issue of having the right to hear the charges against you. A cornerstone of the justice system in the US, Canada, the UK, and in fact just about any civilized nation. This should never be denied as it allows a government to simply lock up anyone at any time and not have to answer for it. Oddly enough this is very much out of step with most conservative philosophy which decries government infringment on personal liberties.

Well here's my way of looking at it. These are either POWs, or they're terrorists. Either way, there are laws designed to deal with them. By making up a new designation you should not be able to duck these laws. Also, there's a measure of hypocracy when you keep them in another country to avoid having to give them certain human rights, especially as you are embargoing that same country and often citing human rights as a reason.

Then there is the issue of having the right to hear the charges against you. A cornerstone of the justice system in the US, Canada, the UK, and in fact just about any civilized nation. This should never be denied as it allows a government to simply lock up anyone at any time and not have to answer for it. Oddly enough this is very much out of step with most conservative philosophy which decries government infringment on personal liberties.

odly enough they have had to change laws to charge a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

the septics have taken 5 years to , well what have they actually done

bad , bad , bad , seppos boon me how can you defend that sort of injustice, spee you are included

Well here's my way of looking at it. These are either POWs, or they're terrorists. Either way, there are laws designed to deal with them. By making up a new designation you should not be able to duck these laws. Also, there's a measure of hypocracy when you keep them in another country to avoid having to give them certain human rights, especially as you are embargoing that same country and often citing human rights as a reason.

Then there is the issue of having the right to hear the charges against you. A cornerstone of the justice system in the US, Canada, the UK, and in fact just about any civilized nation. This should never be denied as it allows a government to simply lock up anyone at any time and not have to answer for it. Oddly enough this is very much out of step with most conservative philosophy which decries government infringment on personal liberties.

odly enough they have had to change laws to charge a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

the septics have taken 5 years to , well what have they actually done

bad , bad , bad , seppos, boon me how can you defend that sort of injustice, spee you are included

Never said it was ok, but it happens and part of most govt(s) inner workings.

Ah, but you say the gitmo decision is a good one. How can you then support two opposing sides of an issue?

The 'boys' in Gitmo wouldn't be there if they were not 'bad boys'...

O.K, Boon Mee....your sitting on an airplane, minding your own business.

An old woman sitting next to you suddenly starts screaming and pointing at you, saying you threatened to blow up the plane, and says you have been talking on your cell phone about bombs.

You are arrested.

You are not allowed to defend yourself.

No lawyer.

No excuses.

You are taken to Cuba.

Still singing praises for the good ol' boys?

I am annoyed that the septics can do what they like, David should have been charged 5 years ago, why couldnt that happen, his crime is unproven, the charges are unclear

boonie and spee defend your justice system and does it apply equally to all

....your sitting on an airplane, minding your own business.

An old woman sitting next to you suddenly starts screaming and pointing at you, saying you threatened to blow up the plane, and says you have been talking on your cell phone about bombs.

You are arrested...You are taken to Cuba.

Wow, that's all it takes to become an "Enemy Combatant?" Application process that idiot-simple? Then thrown into the same category as bearded rifle-slinging thugs plucked from the caves of Afghanistan?

Free room and board just that easy?

....your sitting on an airplane, minding your own business.

An old woman sitting next to you suddenly starts screaming and pointing at you, saying you threatened to blow up the plane, and says you have been talking on your cell phone about bombs.

You are arrested...You are taken to Cuba.

Wow, that's all it takes to become an "Enemy Combatant?" Application process that idiot-simple? Then thrown into the same category as bearded rifle-slinging thugs from the caves of Afghanistan?

Free room and board just that easy?

Who are you going to argue your point with?

You have no rights, once deemed a terrorist.

Yes, a senile old woman could put you away.

Yes, a senile old woman could put you away.

So, in this over-simplified scenario you've painted, your point is...uh...stay away from old senile women?

I think beyond the hyperbole, the point is that there is no legal protection against it if you can be classified in such a way, and taken to such a place where your rights cease to exist.

Yes, a senile old woman could put you away.

So, in this over-simplified scenario you've painted, your point is...uh...stay away from old senile women?

What's over simplified?

Tell me how this couldn't happen, under the current law.

You wouldn't be allowed to argue your point.

You would be arrested and allowed no legal representation.

....your sitting on an airplane, minding your own business.

An old woman sitting next to you suddenly starts screaming and pointing at you, saying you threatened to blow up the plane, and says you have been talking on your cell phone about bombs.

You are arrested...You are taken to Cuba.

Wow, that's all it takes to become an "Enemy Combatant?" Application process that idiot-simple? Then thrown into the same category as bearded rifle-slinging thugs plucked from the caves of Afghanistan?

Free room and board just that easy?

Bearded rifle slinging thugs are not the only kind of people being held in Cuba.

Yes, a senile old woman could put you away.

So, in this over-simplified scenario you've painted, your point is...uh...stay away from old senile women?

What's over simplified?

Tell me how this couldn't happen, under the current law.

You wouldn't be allowed to argue your point.

You would be arrested and allowed no legal representation.

as has happend for the last 5 years, the septics have to make new laws to charge him

Bearded rifle slinging thugs are not the only kind of people being held in Cuba.

Tell us about 'em, Pump Boy. How many ended up there because of a senile old woman's accusations do you think? It's more like they had a gun up some coalition-force soldier's bum, or had bomb-making equipment stuffed among the radical Islamic pamphlets in their New York apartment. I agree with CDNVIC, we should get beyond the hyperbole to make this a more sane discussion. Point well-taken, CDNVIC.

Bearded rifle slinging thugs are not the only kind of people being held in Cuba.

Tell us about 'em, Pump Boy. How many ended up there because of a senile old woman's accusations do you think? It's more like they had a gun up some coalition-force soldier's bum, or had bomb-making equipment stuffed among the radical Islamic pamphlets in their New York apartment. I agree with CDNVIC, we should get beyond the hyperbole to make this a more sane discussion. Point well-taken, CDNVIC.

absolutly the yanks are wrong here

...the point is that there is no legal protection against it if you can be classified in such a way, and taken to such a place where your rights cease to exist.

Ewwwww. Kinda reminds me of us farangs in Thailand if, god-help-us, we should ever get arrested! I know, I know.

Or maybe not...didn't you have to make some personal compromises about your "human rights" by just moving here as living as an expat? Didn't personal necessity overrule your own sense of your personal rights?

The thought comes to mind that this unfortunate circumstance is present in many situations throughout the world, often as an unfortunate result of extraordinary emergency or necessity. Think of a battlefield, and then think of the multitude of human rights irregularities that go on there. Sad, but true and part of the fabric of war. The stuff of a lot of war movie scripts.

Look at the American resettlement camps for Japanese and Germans in WW2. Bleeding-heart liberals call these "concentration camps" despite the fact that they were self-administered by the residents and had adequate food, clothing, and shelter. In peace time, 50 years later, we can show our sorrow and repentance for the alleged violation of human rights of these people. But a different mentality takes over in war when the existence of a country or society is threatened. Any one else who criticizes such a country/society, and is not involved as a threatened member of that society is simply an armchair pontificator who is seriously short-sighted about the greater issues at stake--such as physical survival.

In case you have forgotten, it's a declared war you're wringing your hands over.

...the point is that there is no legal protection against it if you can be classified in such a way, and taken to such a place where your rights cease to exist.

Ewwwww. Kinda reminds me of us farangs in Thailand if, god-help-us, we should ever get arrested! I know, I know. Or maybe not...

The thought comes to mind that this unfortunate circumstance is present in many situations throughout the world, often as an unfortunate result of extraordinary emergency or necessity. Think of a battlefield, and then think of the multitude of human rights irregularities that go on there. Sad, but true and part of the fabric of war. The stuff of a lot of war movie scripts.

In case you have forgotten, it's a declared war you're wringing your hands over.

Then why aren't they being treated as POWs?

Bearded rifle slinging thugs are not the only kind of people being held in Cuba.

Tell us about 'em, Pump Boy. How many ended up there because of a senile old woman's accusations do you think? It's more like they had a gun up some coalition-force soldier's bum, or had bomb-making equipment stuffed among the radical Islamic pamphlets in their New York apartment. I agree with CDNVIC, we should get beyond the hyperbole to make this a more sane discussion. Point well-taken, CDNVIC.

You can't get sent to Gitmo if you are in your New York apartment with bombmaking equipment - there are already terrorist-laws in the US that applies!

It all boils down top this: If everyone at Gitmo are guitly, why are so many being released?

Only after several years, without excuse and they have to sign a apaper saying that they will never be hostile to the US...

Btw, several of the prisoners was also taken from Pakistan in the religious schools (no guns or bombs [yet]) - that is bordering on "you will perhaps commit something in the future so we better lock you up for 2-3 years before you get sent home".

I would like to ask the question: Of al of those that have been released without charges, but been osilated for several years, how many will 'love' America in the future? I would say that if they were borderline-cases to begin with, that treatment will surely send them over the line...

But that is another debate...

But you cannot just say "But this situation is special" and that the rules don't apply. That makes the rule of law useless.

Heat of the moment battlefield decisions are not analogous to this situation as there has been plenty of time to make rational decisions here, and there were laws that could have been applied. Still, they chose to avoid the rule of law.

...the point is that there is no legal protection against it if you can be classified in such a way, and taken to such a place where your rights cease to exist.

Ewwwww. Kinda reminds me of us farangs in Thailand if, god-help-us, we should ever get arrested! I know, I know. Or maybe not...

The thought comes to mind that this unfortunate circumstance is present in many situations throughout the world, often as an unfortunate result of extraordinary emergency or necessity. Think of a battlefield, and then think of the multitude of human rights irregularities that go on there. Sad, but true and part of the fabric of war. The stuff of a lot of war movie scripts.

In case you have forgotten, it's a declared war you're wringing your hands over.

Then why aren't they being treated as POWs?

Somehow you've missed the reality that this is not a conventional war. Some think that in the heat of battle, all well-oiled machines of justice and human rights should just keep perking along without a hitch. Get real. Yours is a Pollyanna view of reality.