But you defend Bush’s refusal to do anything to resolve it.
You’ve been asked multiple times, how do you know that? It would help your credibility to start with such a basic point. In truth you don’t know that. You can’t. To state it as fact is to give a support so unquestioningly faithful that it’s quasi-religious to people who clearly aren’t worthy of it.
It has exactly the same effect in practice, if there are no limits or checks on the government’s use of that power. What has happened has been totally indistinguishable.
And you claim that I’m *misrepresenting * you?
Then act that way. Stop trying to hide behind wordplay. What you’re so strenuously supporting has exactly that effect. You know torture is happening. You know who’s doing it. You refuse to allow those on the receiving end any recourse. You are therefore not against torture.
Now, since misrepresentation is allegedly such a sore subject with you, try this:
No. The commonness of the attitudes you hold, and the eagerness of so many, including the administration itself, to put them into practice is a large part of the reason that so many people fear and even hate us. Is that so hard to understand?
Well, to counter my own argument, it very well may appear that it would.
If SSM is legalized, then society takes another step towards accepting homosexuality as acceptable; this in turn means that more people could consider coming out more easily, which may very well result in an apparent increase in homosexuality. But that is a false correlation : causation. They would be gay to begin with, the difference is the society that accepts them for who they are, or the one that punishes them to fit into the mold of “normal”.
Before we go off on another tangent - what about the poor suckers in Gitmo? What do we do with them?
The way I see it:
We won’t release them, because that would mean admitting we made a mistake in capturing them and holding them in the first place, as obviously that is something that this administration cannot do (admit a mistake)
We can’t charge them as there’s nothing to be charged for. There is no crime on the US statutes for fighting against US interests unless you’re a US citizen
Maybe we don’t wanna release them, as even if they are not guilty of a crime under US law, they are likely not nice folks and would definitely be willing to fight against the US again in future
Just let 'em go, as soon as we’ve pulled out of Afghanistan, which can happen as soon as Bush starts to take the Osama hunt seriously and gets the job done, then all those Afghans can be sent back. Who are they gonna hurt, seriously? There’s not enough of them to make that much difference either way in the subsequent developments in that country.
They can get international sympathy (to the extent they weren’t actually fighters, that is), even sue for damages (using one lesson America has taught the world), but they wouldn’t be hard to stonewall and ignore.
Simple. We turn them over to their local authorities (which would mostly find lack of evidence and release them). That, or we participate in the ICC and give them their day in international court (which would mostly find lack of evidence and release them).
In many given modern conflicts, there are good guys, and there are bad guys. The good guys are restrained by sets of rules to treat people humanely and minimize the cost of warfare and ease post-war rebuilding and tensions. That is why they are the “good guys”. The “bad guys” are the ones who have no mercy and make mass arrests with no charges, or lay siege to a populated city and shell it day and night. Good guys make sacrifices to protect the lives of others, even enemies. Bad guys treat the enemy like animals that need to be exterminated.
We aren’t playing as good guys right now, which is very disturbing, at least to me, and definitely to most of the rest of the civilized world.
Most of the time. For example, in a battle, there are no guarantees of “basic human rights.” If you can blow someone up or chop their arm off or whatever, then your concern for their “basic human rights” shouldn’t stop you from doing so. And if you broke into my house and tried to harm my family, then I’m not going to be entirely too concerned for your “basic human rights.”
But in the context of the detainees, the Geneva Conventions don’t guarantee “basic human rights.” They guarantee something greater than that.
Well, first I’d curse my neighbor for being involved in such a silly and loaded hypothetical.
Then, I’d ask myself if my neighbor is innocent. If I believe he’s a terrorist and/or would do bad things if freed, then I probably would do nothing. If I believe he is innocent of wrongdoing, then I’d probably do whatever I could to get him freed, including pressuring politicians.
The question shouldn’t be whether I’d feel bad if there are innocent people that get caught up in this crap. (I would.) It should be what powers the US government should have to collect intelligence and wage wars.
And I feel confident the government has been detaining people as captured combatants and for purposes of interrogation for a lot longer than the last 4 years.
But once again, the question isn’t how I’d feel, it’s about what powers the Executive needs to have to do his/her job.
As long as we’re playing the silly, loaded hypothetical game: “What if the only way to save your sister or brother, along with 999,999 other innocent civilians (and a few hundred puppies and kittens), was to detain one hardcore, high-ranking terrorist without trial?”
[Keanu Reeves voice]: “What do you do, hotshot? What . . . do you . . . do?”[/KRv]
Does this ability to ignore “basic human rights” by being able to blow someone up or chop off their arm or whatever extend to chopping off their heads off of people who invaded your country (“broke into your house”) and killed 150,000 people (“tried to harm my family”) and mailing the video back to CNN?
Well, that depends. Do you have evidence that this person will kill 1,000,000 people? If you do, then you wouldn’t be holding him without trial or evidence, now would you?
First of all, ElvisL1ves, thank you for responding to what I’ve actually written. It makes it much easier to debate when we’re responding to each other’s points, instead of correcting each other.
No, I don’t. I defend Bush’s decision not to submit every detainee to a trial. I defend Bush’s use of a power possessed by every President – and indeed every government – in history.
Just because I don’t agree with your method of resolving the matter doesn’t mean that I think it shouldn’t be resolved.
And I’ve answered this multiple times. But since you’re apparently wary of admitting that I’ve answered your question on multiple occasions, I’ll repeat myself (again):
I don’t know. But I’m not asserting that I need to know. I’m asserting that those are the limits of the President’s power (as opposed to the limitless power you suggested that I was arguing in favor of).
A couple of things:
First, the mere fact that Bush refuses to submit the detainees for trials does not mean that there are no checks on his power. There is Congressional oversight and control over the purse strings. There are elections. There is the military code of conduct and chain of command.
Second, I’ll need a cite for your proposition that “What has happened has been totally indistinguishable.” Because unless I’ve missed it, there haven’t been any cites to anything demonstrating that the Admin’s power has ever been used in areas other than the fight against terrorism.
Third, even if there weren’t any checks on the Executive’s power here, I don’t think it necessarily follows that the power has been abused. Just because Bush has refused to submit to judicial oversight doesn’t mean that he’s done something wrong.
You were misrepresenting me. Or can you point to anywhere that I supported torture? Or where I supported a limitless power that can be used on “anybody we want to, for as long as we want to, without giving a damn whether or not they’ve done anything?”
I never said those things, and I have a feeling you know it. Otherwise, you would have quoted them here.
You say that I don’t give the tortured sufficient recourse, so my opposition to torture is actually support for torture? And I’m the one using wordplay?
I don’t know that torture is going on. I’m aware of Abu Ghraib, and I’m also aware that the government is punishing those responsible. I’m aware of a few allegations of torture, but I’m not aware of any evidence supporting those allegations.
If you know that torture is going on, by all means, let us in on how you know.
Your statement isn’t, but the sentiment is.
The “attitudes I hold” are not just common in the US. They appear to be the preferred and common practice in governments throughout the world and throughout history. Why is the fear and hatred reserved for the US?
And if it’s because the US holds itself out as the best hope for freedom and democracy in the world, then why should I care about the standard that the rest of the world wants for us, but doesn’t want for themselves? How am I supposed to tell the difference between an “honest” double standard, and a desire to limit the US’s global hegemony? And why should I care if there is a difference?
Maybe this is the crux of our difference of opinion. Because after Sept. 11th, and with suicide bombers in Israel and Iraq, and with the possibility of chemical/biological/nuclear terrorism, I’m under the impression that a single person can make a huge difference. And I believe you’re talking about the release of over a hundred individuals.
And I strongly doubt that Afghanistan would think we were doing them any favors if we just released the detainees back into their new democracy.
The evidence comes from a number of perfectly reliable sources, including illegal wiretaps, and from the personal testimony of people that are buried deep within aQ, and from terrorists kept in prison in foreign countries that won’t extradite those terrorists for trial in the US, and from a bunch of documents that have been misplaced in a warehouse somewhere.
So you’ve got lots of evidence, but none of it is admissible in court.
Murderers walk the street (or go golfing) every day because something in the system screwed up and they got off.
Though if you had evidence and knowledge of his plot, foiling the plot by police action would suffice. The individual coming to prosecution or not, you still stop the attack.
Now you’re just drucking into a legal quagmire, and I suggest that you back out of this hypothetical.
Well, gosh darn it, there’s another six billion individuals out there that could cause the same amount of damage. How’re they going to lock them all up?
For suicide bombers to attack the US they have to be in the US. So suspects could just be refused entry into the US. (Well they can also attack Americans in Iraq, but that is a lot harder to do… and that is preventable by the US getting out of Iraq)
The Sept 11 attacks involved many people on each flight and there were also other people helping them… US security has probably made it so that a large scale Sept 11 style attack won’t happen again.
An interesting thing about this was mentioned in the F911 movie. Michael Moore said something like - how many were killed by terrorists in America in 2000? 0 2001? 3000. 2002? 0 2003? 0 2004? 0. (something like that) There were the Bali bombings, but Indonesia handled that quite well…
Remember that America has about 300 million people and more people die because of guns or traffic accidents or other partly preventable things.
I guess if one of the detainees could turn into a suicide bomber now if they’re released, the same thing could happen in 20 years so perhaps you think they might as well be locked up forever.
BTW, if someone is attacking Americans in Iraq and they’re captured, and fighting dies down in Iraq, do you think they should be locked up forever? (I mean when the prisoner is released there is a high risk they’d do it again) What if someone was friends with the attacker and he seemed capable of attacking Americans but hadn’t been caught doing it? Should the friend be locked up forever?
If Afghanistan doesn’t want them to be free than Afghanistan can detain them forever. Then that country can be demonized instead of the US.
He isn’t subjecting any detainee to a trial. Try again.
Then you need to propose how it should, IYHO, be resolved. You haven’t except to belligerently endorse Bush’s actions. What are we to make of that?
You have, several times, asserted as fact that each and every one of these detainees is an enemy combatant, terrorist, or at least potential terrorist. Now you’re backing into reality, and congratulation.
You’re inconsistent there. If only the President’s power matters, then it’s limitless.
Congress and elections are real powers, but note Bush’s refusal to acknowledge that they limit him in anyway. The military is under the orders of the Commander in Chief, ya know.
You already acknowledged that you don’t know. Further, you resist even finding out.
Ibid.
Every place you’ve refused to allow any practical limits on Bush’s power, or to take seriously the detainees right to a fair and speedy trial. It’s inseparable - you want to avoid those messy complications, but give them lip service anyway.
Indeed you are. If you refuse to allow a problem to be fixed, or even investigated, that is support.
First, “those responsible” for Abu Ghraib are the government. Surely you’re not oblivious to all the news that has come out anyway?
First, yes, that stuff has always gone on, but it’s also always been recognized and contemptible. Why us? Because we’ve always claimed to be above it, even to the point of excusing what we’re doing on the basis that we’re liberating Iraq from it, and mostly * because we’re now doing it.* Is that so hard?
“The rest of the world”, you say? If your views are that isolationist and caricatured, perhaps we have been wasting our time with you.
Are you satisfied with making so many people mad at us that they’ll bomb us any way they can? Wouldn’t you rather be, and be seen as, a little more responsible than that?
Yep, gotta lock the whole “rest of the world” then - they all hate us, right? :rolleyes:
If you seriously doubt that the Afghan detainees’ families would like to see them again, I’d have to ask where you get the idea that those people are somehow different from us in that regard.