USVI-On-Line

DELETED

SJfromNJ wrote:John Murtha said he'll take them in his district in Pa. What a problem solver.

Except that, I don't believe Murtha has a maximum security prison in his district, nor a military prison...Again, I could be wrong...So that's problematic.

Maybe O can put them up in his new digs.

many of these folks were picked up with VERY Obscureand or tenuous connections to terrorist groups--they have been denied due process and have been tortured in some cases--if we are to hold ourselves up as the paragon of morality and rights, we need to undo that. and the whole Geneva conv. thing--we could argue that for ages...

quote="soxfan22"]Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I have no doubt someone will correct me)...But weren't most of these guys people fighting on the battlefield NOT wearing any State/Nation military uniform? If that is the case, then I don't believe the Geneva Convention applies to them.

As an aside...A story -

This morning, Laura Ingraham had on a woman who's husband was killed in the USS Cole Bombing. She mentioned that Bill Clinton always promised them "justice"...The man who was the mastermind of that attack was due to be tried at the end of January for his horiffic act of terorrism...They were all (the victims families) anticipating his trial...Well, now she is heartbroken with the moretorium now placed on all military tribiunals at Gitmo.

story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01 ... es-trials/[/quote]

Loria, I appreciate your passion for us to be the moral authority in the world (I really do, please don't think this is more of my sarcasm)...But I really don't think any of us know for sure how, when, where, and why these prisoners were picked up by our armed forces.

And you know, I'm not even sure that we need to know. I think we know too much about what our government does in the name of security.

It seems pretty inarguable however that these are bad people. It's safe to say these prisoners were not up to anything constructive when they were captured. And as SJfromNJ mentioned the other day, many of these folks were released, and they all returned to the battlefield to continue killing our troops and those of our allies.

I don't know...If something were to happen (God forbid), there will be questions for Obama to answer.

DELETED

If the perpetrator of the Yemeni attack on the USS Cole (in 2000 right?) has been at Gitmo all this time why haven't they held the tribunal? How long as he been in custody? Why did the the Bush Administration not bring him to justice?

A moratorium doesn't mean these people will never be tried, just that there first needs to be a procedure in place to try them.

Many have been there for over 6 years. Is it preferred that they just rot there forever? I am not sure what the preferred course of action is, but it doesn't seem that Bush was on a particularly speedy path to bringing them to justice. Please correct me if I am wrong, I may be. But 6 years is a long time to be in the process of coming up with charges and holding someone accountable.

Believe it or not, I am not such a bleeding heart liberal that I don't think those responsible for planning and executing terrorist attacks on the US should not be punished. I do. Whole-heartedly. I just don't think our basic fundamental principles should be ignored in the process.

If there is proof that the detainees have terrorist connections then by all means put them on trial and punish them to the full extent of the law, US or International. Put them to death. I am all for it.

My problem is the holding of them, without charges and apparently with no inclination to charge or try them. 98% may be guilty. What about the 2% who are not? Is that an acceptable sacrifice? To some it is. Others would say that it is not. I am not here to argue that point.

Maybe I am naive, but I don't think so, I live less than 10 miles from the Pentagon. I witnessed, first hand, 9/11. As I left my office building that day, after waiting there for hours for traffic to clear, I could smell the smoke hanging in the air. I had no idea if my family and friends were all ok. It was tragic to all in this country, but NYC and DC bore an excruciatingly high price. Still, even in light of the fact that I or someone close to me could have been murdered or maimed on that day, still I believe to my core that our nation should stand for the basic fundamental human rights of all, even those who may have perpetrated heinous crimes. Not their freedom, not their comfort, but their right to stand trial. Their right to due process.

This is why, since our founding, we have been THE democracy to be emulated. For better or worse, and I am not judging Bush here, but for better or worse, it goes without argument that diplomatically bridges have been burned. Many alliances are weak or completely broken. Those who had a distaste for the US and our way of life before, now hate us even more. We are, in many cases, rightfully seen as having at least partial responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the name of defending ourselves. To put that in perspective the 9/11 attacks killed just under 3000 and we have lost a little over 4000 troops. 100,000s of lives lost in the crossfire. Can we even imagine something like that? Some may think that is an acceptable price to pay. I am not arguing that point, we've argued it before, but can we not get outside of our own perspective to see the perspective of others? To try on the shoes of others. I think that is the fundamental difference in this and many arguments. That and some believe things are black and white, others see the world in shades of grey. Some say our safety is worth any price. Others believe there are fundamental principles that must never be sacrificed.

I, personally, in my own very humble opinion, do not feel that alientating the world is in our best interest - short or longterm, financial or in terms of our safety. To be so alienated from former allies and to stoke the hate of so many potential foes is not helping.

Our nation is strong and powerful, but even a nation as strong as ours, if the entire world – or even a large portion of the world – turns against us, will be in big trouble. It wouldn't be the first empire to fall. Our memories are terribly short.

When we subvert the very freedoms our military is fighting and dying to defend, I think we defeat the purpose. If we no longer extend basic human rights to people who may or more importantly MAY NOT have been involved in terrorist activity, then they have won. When we choose closure vs. openness, suspicion over good faith, then our way of life, the fundamental tenants on which this country was founded, have been lost. We become what it is we deplore.

I fully understand that there are those who will always hate us. Hate what we stand for. But we should not stoop. We should never give anyone the ability to make an argument that we are as morally bankrupt as they are. As was included in his speech on Tuesday, we should "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." We can be safe and we can uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded.

It is ok if we disagree on this. It is ok if others think that there is no price too high to pay. Just as many have felt more secure with Bush in office for the last 8 years, I feel tremendous relief to have a man in office who does believe that there are fundamental principles that make this nation what it is and that those principles are unwavering and nonnegotiable.

True dat Flip...nicely done

Okay, I was going to hound on bashing,...but then read Flip's version.

Very well said. You did your homework.

You are America working together!

Terry wrote:Okay, I was going to hound on bashing,...but then read Flip's version.

Very well said. You did your homework.

You are America working together!

Black and white is so much easier than nuance. Knee jerk is much easier than deliberation. Criticism so much easier than consensus. Sometimes you need an iron fist and sometimes you need a gentle nudge. I think it is a very rare person (and I am NOT that person) who can rise above all the time.

It isn't a big secret that my inclinations don't allign with our recently departed president, but I have truly tried to not outright bash him. As someone else said, it serves no purpose. I truly believe that he in his heart of hearts thought he was doing the right thing. I also fundamentally believe he was doing at least as much harm as good. It is time to move forward and stop beating that dead horse.

I am currently reading David Gergen's book, Eyewitness to Power, and he is so gracious, both when offering criticism and when offering praise, in his assessment of the 4 past presidents he served. Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. I am just getting into Reagan now, I can't wait to see what he says about Clinton I was a baby when Nixon was impeached so my impression of him was very 1 dimensional. It's amazing how much more open I am to a differing layered opinion of him now that I have read the words about him from the mouth of someone I respect very much. I am trying to emulate that kind of openminded graciousness from here on out. We'll see how that works out!

Chicago - Bill Ayers can show them how to have fun with explosives.

Leave me out of this please.

bayer40601 wrote:

Chicago - Bill Ayers can show them how to have fun with explosives.

Leave me out of this please.

I knew it, I just knew it...you are that Bill Ayers. That whole "humble lawyer from the Bluegrass state" was just a front. Come out into the light of day and renounce your terrorist ways.

Terry wrote:Okay, I was going to hound on bashing,...but then read Flip's version.

Very well said. You did your homework.

You are America working together!

Flip's posts are always well thought out, that is never in question. But to say she "did her homework"? I read this most recent post, and it is a strong arguement based in her opinion. I am NOT saying she is not well read, firm in her beliefs, etc. But when it comes down to it, we are all voicing our opinions which are soaked in our individual values and ideals.

To be honest, there probably isn't much more use debating these foreign policy issues here. Obama has been busy signing exec. order after exec. order, and with a large democratic majority in Congress behind him, he will face very little opposition. And he certainly will not get any from the media.

So, it seems best to just sit back and see where the strokes of his pen take us.

The only thing I will ask in response to Flip's post is this...Did Bill Clinton not reach out to the world? Even today, there is no public personality more universally loved in the world community than William Jefferson Clinton. Even in the wake of the Obama love-fest, Clinton is still the Democrat Party's biggest drawing card in terms of the ability to raise funds and build coalitions.

Yet on his watch we endured quite a few terrorist attacks both at home and abroad. Everyone who wants to discount W's tactics in the War on Terror out of hand can never answer why Bill Clinton, with all of his worldwide admiration, wasn't able to ever stem the violence against our interests home and abroad?

Ahab, I don't know what your white whale is, but it clearly torments you.

DELETED