See above statement, the siginicance comes in to play that they could not be proven guilty, not that they were innocent.
Those would be WMD’s, the delivery method was still in play (they had some FROGS and SCUDS left that could launch them, though I WOULD agree that they would be worthless against a city target (as they were not accurate enough as modified)); and that was the report from every major intelligence agency. The rest of that statement is an opinion piece, not a bad one; but by his admission he believed they still had the weapons.
They aren’t in jail, nor prision; though it looks the same. A better example would be an interment camp (which again; i’m against). Yes I know the difference, my point was that just because we have not SEEN the evidence (publicly published) does not mean there is NO evidence. I think Gitmo is the wrong way to handle things, but if we are to be truthful we don’t KNOW all of the information. Does that mean we can’t believe it is wrong? Of course not; BUT we can’t pretend we have a fully informed view.
That is speculation, though common enough. We don’t know WHY these people are there, nor any evidence against most of them.
See you are just being dishonest with yourself, we don’t KNOW that; some ASSUME that is the case. There is certainly a difference between knowledge and speculation, even ‘strong’ speculation or ‘founded’ speculation.
Seemed to me that you were saying before, basically, “They couldn’t be proven innocent. Therefore, we need to be safe and keep them detained indefinitely”.
I was pointing out sementics; mainly that release does not equal innocence. You can’t prove that someone is innocent merely because you can’t prove guilt. That does NOT make the situtation any better, but it also doesn’t ‘prove’ those that have been released were held for ‘no reason’ nor that they were ‘innocent’.
Personally, I believe holding someone without enough proof to prove guilt is as bad as holding someone that IS innocent; but one does not prove the other.
There is a reason the term ‘not guilty’ is used in trial (as opposed to innocent), the determination of guilt has nothing to do with actual guilt, but rather proof beyond a reseasonable doubt. Not Guilty is the default, not innocent; you can’t prove a negative, you can fail to prove a positive.
Please go up a few posts, and read where I said I believe that holding people in such a manner is JUST AS BAD as holding innocent people. I also compared this to an interment camp, which I thought would be a pretty clear indication that I am against holding these people without trial.
Nothing so complex. Not Guilty reflects a failure by the prosecution to make an argument. Given the failure of that argument the person remains innocent. Just as each and every captive at Guantanamo Bay remains innocent.
If we are defining innocent as lack of legal guilt; then there is no arguement between us. If we are defining innocent as in lacking guilt (in an ethical or moral sense) then there is no proof to that (nor anyway TO prove it).
There are many cases of people being ‘not guilty’ after trail, where they were guilty of the crime for which they were being tried. Release from custody does not equate to not commiting the act, but rather not being able to prove they were guilty of the act.
IMHO holding someone you can not prove is guilt is wrong and evil, yet releasing someone (that unto itself) does not prove they did not commit the act of which they are accused.
Well - I guess I don’t believe the USA as manifested today is either freedom-loving or a democracy in substance. It has the forms but it’s just a hollowed out shell that would have the Founders spinning like dervishes in their graves.
Call me an idealist but getting to choose between Kang and Kodos isn’t a democracy. Plutocracy - maybe.
As for 20/21st century foreign policy … It speaks for itself as to ‘freedom-loving’.
…how many people have had a trial? Can you explain what the Badr Brothers were charged with? The process to get to “not proven guilty” seems to miss a step, don’t you think? Like evidence? Like a charge? Like a trial? Your semantic quibling have no basis in reality. I see no reason why guilt should stain the reputation of the Badr Brothers because of your semantic games: they are innocent, unless the US want to present some evidence to say otherwise. I accuse EEMan of crimes against humanity. Are you innocent of those crimes, or have you just not been proven guilty?
You talk about tbe evidence that hasn’t been released, the so called “secret evidence.” Its such a shame that people have to go around with the stigma of “not proven guilty” on the basis of evidence that they could never confront or disprove. We know in one particular case, that of the German national detainee Murat Kurnaz, that secret evidence was accidentally released. What did that evidence show?
The “secret” evidence is this:
…the judge said this:
…so the secret evidence against Murat is a short memo in his file that says he is a bad guy. And, despite nearly overwhelming evidence of “not being proven guilty”, Murat is still locked up.
The Guardian today has an article about Sabah Sunnoqrot.
He went to the Gambia in 2002 to set up a peanut processing plant. The Americans took him from there first to Afghanistan, then Guantanamo, where he remains to this day.
Apparently the plant was a ‘terrorist training camp’. Naturally no evidence has ever been produced. Sabah’s youngest child is three. She has never seen her father.
Don’t you feel ashamed to bandy words around?
Don’t you feel ashamed to be an American?
What would you say to his family?
You provide no cites for your ranting about ‘every intelligence agency knew’.
What is it you know? I’m quoting the UK Foreign Minister, who had seen the intelligence documents.
He resigned before the war even started. He knew.
And of course Saddam used to have weapons. The US sold them to him, remember?
Are you saying Bush wouldn’t look like a desperate despot if innnocent people were held for years without a trial, or ever being allowed to see their family - then were released without charge?
As for being dishonest - when you, without any cites, make wild claims it’s:
“my point was that just because we have not SEEN the evidence (publicly published) does not mean there is NO evidence.”
But you’re not speculating?!
Take the forest out of your own eye, please.
Don’t you feel ashamed to bandy words around?
Don’t you feel ashamed to be an American?
What would you say to his family?
these people have no shame. They have no morals. They have no heart. They are as beasts, rooting for decayed flesh in the graveyard of a once proud nation.
