Don’t Close Guantanamo Just Yet

We’ve got Christian terrorists, killing in the name of the Lord (on Sunday at Church no less), to round up, detain, waterboard, and deny due process to before Obama puts our national security at risk. There’s a fatwah against abortion, with scores of Pro-Life jihadists, not in caves but in the heartland calling for the deaths of the unholy doctors, and we need all the illegal interrogation tools Dick can fathom to prevent, God forbid, Christian assassins from getting their hands on nuclear weapons.

Advertisements

45 Comments

Filed under Essays

45 responses to “Don’t Close Guantanamo Just Yet

  1. what have you been smokin?

  2. Exactly how retarded am I, if I can’t understand the point of this blog entry?

  3. eric

    The anti-abortion dude who just killed the doctor. Isn’t that good old fashion ideological terrorism? I slightly amended to make it more clear.

  4. ReWrite

    Nice post.

    The problem is Bush (Trujillo-style) had warlords scoop up hundreds of people in Afghanistan for bounty- most of these guys were family/clan enemies of these bounty hunters.

    And most of them came from towns that make South Dakota seem like New York City. These guys re-define rural and not only never had any international plans in mind, but couldn’t find the US or even Europe on a well-labeled map (and I am not insulting their intelligence, I’m insulting ours- myself included, for allowing this shit to continue).

    The US gov’t (aka Barack ‘best PR that Corporations could’ve ever elected’ Obama) has no way to prosecute these guys… there is not a shred of evidence against probably all them (otherwise we would have fucking prosecuted them already in the faux military tribunals we created- where everybody involved was on the same team- judge, prosecutor, and even the faux ‘advocate’ for the defendant).

    And the detainees home countries won’t take them back, so now we’re are stuck w/ hundreds of people we can’t prosecute (b/c of the aforementioned lack of evidence) in any court, even faux court. So Obama has decided to detain these people, forever, w/out even charging them (after further thought Bush/Obama make Trujillo seem like Gandhi).

    Meanwhile, as Eric mentioned, what about the real terrorists ? Well the Christian-Fundamentalists may get prosecuted in the flawless (that was sarcasm) American Criminal Justice System.

    My new favorite is people chalking up the prosecution of Madoff as some sort of success story. He is like a Robinhood compared to the Principals of the banks and financial institutions that caused the current international economic crisis/depression.

    What did Madoff do (other than steal from rich folk) that those bankers didn’t do? He did nothing in comparison- those bankers stole from consumers the first time, taxpayers the second, taxpayers the third and probably taxpayers into perpetuity. And what have/do/will taxpayers receive in return- loss of home, jobs, weaker unions, less benefits, less Social Security, less money appropriated for Social Services (which in times of crisis is when such services should be increased), etc, etc.

    And what about these financial institutions previous PRs- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the ‘few bad apples’? And their current PR- Mr. Obama? No threat of prosecution of any of them.

    At some point ‘opposite day’ needs to end and we need to let the innocent people out of detention and put the guilty in prison.

    Holla

  5. Forrest

    From what I understand most of the Guantanamo detainees were captured on the battlefield fighting against US troops. They are not American citizens therefore do not get the same Constitutional benefits as we do. Personally, I say let them rot in Guantanamo.
    As for the guy that killed the abortion doctor, yeah abortion is wrong but you can’t just go around killing people because you disagree. He should go to jail and spend awhile. Although my guess is he will be treated well in prison.
    And the CEOs…yeah, most are only interested in their own welfare and couldn’t care less about taxpayers or really their shareholders even. But while capitalism isn’t perfect, I think it’s the best financial system available. There are a few bad apples, but for the most part the SEC keeps a good watch over the system. Hopefully the funds our government is borrowing will be used in an efficient manner (government efficient? there’s a good one), otherwise we will have a difficult time paying off the debt we’re going into. But if we can earn a higher return on those funds then the rate at which we borrowed, it could be a wise decision. It’s going to take some time to see how that plays out.

  6. eric

    Forrest,

    So you’re saying not justice for all but justice only for citizens. As there are absolutely no charges filed, no evidence and no trial against the detainees how will we ever know that these people were or were not found on the battle field? Heck, you could be walking down the street on vacation anywhere in the world and be kidnapped by the U.S. government. They could even allege that you were not really a U.S. citizen. Or they could just render you to a black site some place where no one would ever find you (this has already happened to a German citizen on vacation in Macedonia). You’d rot in jail, and someone with a total disregard for basic humanity and decency like yourself would say that you probably deserved to rot.

    The whole idea that we can hold people for now 7 years to eternity in cages without ever presenting evidence against them or charging them for a crime is so incredibly surreal that I can’t believe it is even being debated.

  7. Forrest

    So you think we just randomly stormed into people’s homes, took them out of their beds, and whisked them off to Guantanamo? Oh please. These people want you dead, me dead, all of us dead. And they’re willing to die to do it. Considering my lack of faith in the judicial process (I mean just look at OJ the first time), they’d probably let these people off and let them stay in the US to boot. Then when they kill another few thousand Americans will it have been worth it?

  8. And the detainees home countries won’t take them back[…]

    Hmmmmm. Now I wonder, I really do wonder, hmmm, hrmmm, just why would that be, if they are innocent victims, just brothers of the Arab peoples and peaceful children of Islam???

    Hmmmmm. (What’s that smell, did someone step in something?)

    The US gov’t (aka Barack ‘best PR that Corporations could’ve ever elected’ Obama)[…]

    ::snicker, snicker::

    ::chuckle::

    LMMFAOROTFLMMFAO … SCORE!!!

    Yea baby, that commentary was so sexy, it made me sweaty … whew.

    Hussein will give us what Bush was too spineless to admit to trying ~ slavery of the masses.

    70% taxes after the passing of VAT, anyone?

    lollercopters, all the way into the abyss.

  9. Forrest

    Yeah, it’s amazing how people think that the government is going to give us all “free” healthcare when the government will wind up raising taxes to do it. Somebody has to pay for it. The doctors aren’t just going to work for free, lol. I saw socialist healthcare first hand living in Europe for two years. No thanks!!!

  10. So you’re saying not justice for all but justice only for citizens.

    Ummmm, yes?

    Where in the Constitution does it say anywhere, infer anywhere that it’s Law extends to those who are foreign invaders, terrorists, or illegally/unlawfully in or trying to get in to a sovereign nation?

    Nowhere, it says that nowhere. It’s boundaries are our legal citizenry. Period. You aren’t legal/lawful, then you have the Geneva Conventions and International Law … not the Constitution.

  11. ReWrite

    Forrest,

    Yes the US gov’t did just randomly take people out of their homes and put them in Gitmo. This is well documented by the gov’t and even mainstream media. Over 90% of the people in Gitmo were picked up by bounty-hunters… these guys make the LAPD look like angels.

    The Constitution, regarding liberty interests, does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens. I won’t even go into the various international treaties we have rendering illegal everything that Gitmo stands for. My favorite part of the US hypocrisy is when we tell Cuba that they must let political prisoners free… at least these guys stood trial… meanwhile Gitmo (which is in Cuba) houses hundreds of people that aren’t even political prisoners.

    I don’t know where your socialized medicine rant came from, but who do you think pays for these baseless wars the US wages around the world? And what do you think is more expensive? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost have cost US taxpayers $870,000,000,000 to date. Both wars have been a total failure. The war in Iraq was flawed pre-execution and the war in Afghanistan, against what politicians (not the military) refer to as Al-Qaeda is really a war against rural people that have no international ambitions whatsoever.

    And this same gov’t thought it prudent to give the banks/financial institutions that caused the economic/social crisis $700 billion.

    The least they could do is give people fighting their wars or who have lost their jobs b/c of this crisis some free health care.

    The US is practicing what some would call socialism (just for the rich), I happen to call it fascism. The gov’t is clearly spending ridiculous taxpayer money (and Bush was the biggest spender in US history), they just aren’t spending it on the poor or middle class. They are giving the money to the defense industry, huge financial institutions and other corporate and special interests groups. The gov’t and media may call it capitalism, but Adam Smith would have nothing to do with any of the US taxpayer appropriations. Keynes might, but he wasn’t a capitalist. The bottomline is that the so called conservative Republicans (starting w/ Reagan) instituted a policy of spend heavily on Defense/waging wars, special interests and corporations; meanwhile reduce spending on social services. I agree that Clinton perpetuated this trend and Bush was the sinverguenza of spending.

    And don’t front, I was in Spain w/ you and Andalucia at that time had an unemployment rate of over 40%… and I sure didn’t notice poverty, inequality, crime or see a single homeless person. A day doesn’t go by where I see all 4 of these in the US.

    Spain (and Andalucia) have come a long way since the mid-90s. And despite the economic prosperity there is still virtually no socio-economic inequality, poverty, homelessness, crime etc, like exists in the US.

    I don’t think Spain is the ideal country in the world, but I am impressed by the lack of socio-economic inequality, crime and poverty that exists throughout much of Europe.

    Much of this can be attributed to a more socialized system of government. I appreciate a country that spends its taxpayer dollars on taxpayers.

    The interesting (its actually kind of a no brainer) thing about it is that when socio-economic inequality is reduced so is gov’t spending. In the US, although the gov’t does not adequately provide for the poor (either thru public benefits or health care) they spend significantly more money on incarcerating predominantly low-income individuals. There is one block in Brooklyn where the gov’t (aka taxpayers) pay over a million dollars per year incarcerating people from that neighborhood (for mostly nonviolent drug offenses). This trend is seen throughout communities of high concentrations of poverty. I did a study on two such neighborhoods in Baltimore. And here is a link to a PBS video on the million dollar block- http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/may-22-2009/communities-in-prison/3018/

    What the more socialized countries have figured out is that investing in its citizens upfront is not only better for its people, but more cost effective. The US believes in preemptive wars, why not preempt inequality in the same manner that many European and almost any other developed country has managed to do… via policies which you would label as ‘socialist’ in nature.

    Holla

  12. eric

    5th Amendment: “no person”, not “no citizen” and guess what? No person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

    6th Amendment: right to a speedy trial, right to an attorney, to be presented with the evidence against you, … these are rights of the “accused” not citizens.

    8th Amendment: cruel and unusual punishment refers to the actions of the government, not to whom it is cruelly and unusually punishing.

    To argue otherwise would be pure “judicial activism”.

  13. eric

    Forrest,

    Did we just break into their houses in the middle of the night? Well, as it stands, the government has not proved otherwise. To argue in favor of the government here is essentially to say two thing: first that we must just close our eyes and believe everything the government says, and second that there are absolutely no limits upon the government’s extraterritorial actions.

    Both to these are of course contrary to present law, and if the government does not want to comply with the law (be it the constitution, treaties or conventions) then it should amend or overturn those laws. Not break them.

  14. Forrest

    Wow…sounds like there are a bunch of kool-aid drinkers here. What reason would the US have to just randomly seize people from their homes? How is that benefitting us?

    I would hardly say that the Iraq/Afghanistan wars have been a failure. We eliminated two corrupt governments, established democracies, people are no longer being fed into meat grinders in Iraq and girls are actually able to go to school in Afghanistan and it’s people allowed to listen to music and laugh. Imagine that! As for the WMD’s, sure we were wrong about that. However it wasn’t just the US that was wrong. Several intelligence agencies throughout the world said Iraq had them. Just because we didn’t find WMD’s doesn’t mean it was a failure. Saddam broke 17 UN resolutions…something eventually had to be done. I’m glad to see Saddam and the Taliban out of power.

    As for taking care of our citizens, one of the things I like best about capitalism is that people reap the fruits of their labors. If you live in the US, you know that if you don’t get a college education you’re going to have a hard time making it. That’s a choice these people make. People make a choice to have babies at 16. It’s not right that people that have made good decisions and worked hard to be successful have to pay to take care of those people that made bad choices. If the wealthy wish to do that they can donate to charity. But it shouldn’t be forced on them. Individual responsibility is a good thing!

  15. eric

    That’s right, the government would never have a reason to not talk straight. when the police pull a guy over, the guy is ALWAYS guilty, and no one ever lies or covers anything up in the government. Wars are always in are national interest, and we have established democracy — our own holy ideology — in two countries because they begged us to. Why would the government tell us there were WMD if there weren’t?

    They say we are what we eat. The question is whether we eat everything the press and the government force feeds us…

    Recognize, though, for a second that you are promoting a common American hypocrisy. When other countries do it, it is wrong and they need democracy. When we do it, it is in the interest of democracy. Son, I am beating you for your own good. Do as I say and not as I do.

  16. Forrest

    So you think the people preferred living under the Baath or Taliban governments? Or did they do so out of fear of reprisal? The sad part about this is that we have Americans that want to tie our government’s hands so much that there’s no way we can defend ourselves against another terrorist attack. We’ve released some of the prisoners we were holding in Guantanamo, and guess what many of them have done? Gone right back to blowing up people.

    I’m glad that I live in a capitalist democratic republic. A person has more opportunity in the U.S. than in any other nation in the world. It’s that opportunity that makes people around the world want to come here. It’s the reason people get on rafts and risk death just for the chance of reaching our coast.

  17. eric

    Forrest,

    I would rather live under a democratic regime, even if it lies and violates its own laws, than say living in today’s Iraq.

    But listen to yourself. You sound exactly like Al Qaeda. You believe that your ideology is superior than any other and therefore is justified in invading and imposing that ideology on another person.

    Also, as the great majority of murders in the U.S. are perpetrated by Americans, not foreigners, do you think we should have preventative detention against potential murderers that fit a particular profile, say they own guns, are pro-life and live in the South?

  18. Forrest

    We didn’t invade Iraq or Afghanistan to bring democracy…at least that wasn’t the principal reason. It’s a good side effect. We invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban because they were harboring the people that planned the murder of 3,000 Americans.
    We took out the Iraqi government because they continued to spit in the face of the world community (not just the U.S). I mean, what good is the United Nations if we allow nations to continue to ignore the resolutions it gives? Sure we can impose sanctions, but they have proved ineffective over and over again. Finally Bush (rightly so) said enough’s enough and gave Saddam an ultimatum to leave.

  19. Forrest

    And I don’t think I would start with pro-life, gun-bearing southerners. I’d start with the gangs in our cities. That’s where a big portion of the problem is. So if you want to look into 16-25 year old young men growing up in inner cities….be my guest.

  20. i don’t think preventive detention of possible terrorists by the US is the same as preventive detention of those who own guns or pro life and born in the south.
    I’m sure that they probably have some type of connection to a terrorist organization…have hidden information, guns, etc…
    There should always be some kind of profiling when dealing with possible catastrophes….is it right morally? no. is it a good preventive method? yes.
    You can’t always rely on a legal system that has giant flaws of it own. how many guilty people walk free because we have tried to not deprive them of equal opportunity, life, liberty, justice?
    unfortunately neither of the extreme arguments here are 100 percent right, but more of a combination of both….and i’m pretty sure that system is what we have already.

  21. And ReWrite:

    I think that you’re a little clueless by making this statement:

    “And don’t front, I was in Spain w/ you and Andalucia at that time had an unemployment rate of over 40%… and I sure didn’t notice poverty, inequality, crime or see a single homeless person. A day doesn’t go by where I see all 4 of these in the US.

    Spain (and Andalucia) have come a long way since the mid-90s. And despite the economic prosperity there is still virtually no socio-economic inequality, poverty, homelessness, crime etc, like exists in the US.

    Much of this can be attributed to a more socialized system of government. I appreciate a country that spends its taxpayer dollars on taxpayers.”

    the reason why you didn’t see any of this is not because of the socialized system of government. It’s because Spain and the US have very different cultural and family values.

    As a matter of fact, one could say that there is more crime and poverty today in Spain with an even more socialized government system than ever. The reason: uncontrolled immigration, lenient judicial system and reverse discrimination.
    word

  22. eric

    Forrest,

    It is kind of absurd to keep up this discussion, considering that your basic position is that the U.S. government has the right to violate the law (when we sign a treaty it become domestic law btw) at will and intervene whenever and wherever it sees fits without limits. Heck that is BIG GOVERNMENT.

    But on you last point, come on. Israel has continuously defied countless UN resolutions to cease settlements, and I don’t see anyone in the U.S. saying we should invade Israel. And what good is the U.N. or international laws and treaties if the U.S. continuously fails to meet its obligations under them?

    You can’t have it all ways.

    Just say it, the U.S. should be able to do whatever it wants.

  23. 5th Amendment: “no person”, not “no citizen” and guess what? No person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

    6th Amendment: right to a speedy trial, right to an attorney, to be presented with the evidence against you, … these are rights of the “accused” not citizens.

    8th Amendment: cruel and unusual punishment refers to the actions of the government, not to whom it is cruelly and unusually punishing.

    To argue otherwise would be pure “judicial activism”.

    Ahem, allow me to retort:

    We the People of the United States, [established boundary, not only in physicality, but of personhood status] in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, [said boundary parameters reinforced as to limitation] do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    5th Amendment, the part you so skillfully omitted:

    except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

    6th Amendment has nothing to do with war time crime or issues of public danger; it implicitly has to do only with domestic parameters, verified by the inclusion of “State” and “district” in correlation to the specific crime occurring in those defined locales.

    8th Amendment is non sequitur in this case as limited by the aforementioned.

  24. ReWrite

    El Granola (haha)

    Spain and the US do have different cultural and family values. These values have lead to a society that is more collective/community oriented… as a result there is less inequality. I think where there is inequality there will be problems, whether that be local, domestic or even internationally. And at every level efforts should be made to narrow the inequality gap. Those societies (no matter how big or small) that curb inequality will be less violent and likely more socio-economically prosperous.

    I really cannot speak for Spain today. All I really know about Spain today I get from the Economist and my brother, both of which I take w/ a grain- hahaha.

    But my sense is that crime levels have risen in Spain… I attribute this (again) to socio-economic inequality.

    Any nation that wants to fight immigration needs to fight it internationally by curbing (once again) the socio-economic inequality that exists between that nation people are emigrating from and the nation they are immigrating to.

    So the US, for instance, needs to rework NAFTA so that farmers in Mexico are no longer put of out business by (NAFTA) law that make US farm products cheaper on the Mexican market. Otherwise, Mexican farmers are going to come to the US to work on US farms as their farmers are no longer marketable.

    The same notion exists for US (and multi-national) corporations that go into developing countries and either take natural resources and/or cheap labor and keep the profits for themselves.

    Such policies increase inequality and thus immigration.

    Forrest,

    Poor people in the inner city having babies at 16, is one of the most old school racist things I have heard in a long time. I believe the year is 2009 and in the US ‘welfare’ does not exist as you clearly believe it does… and it hasn’t for well over a decade. I know over a thousand people on welfare and not one of them wants to be on welfare b/c it doesn’t pay. I strongly believe that people should not even discuss welfare recipients or inner city women having babies w/out having to spoken to either. One can only receive welfare for 6 months prior be given a work assignment (which is a full time job and their money does not go up). In NYC, one of the most expensive places to live in the US… a welfare recipient will receive $215 per month (no matter how many children they have); $110 per month in food stamps (which are coupons that can only be used on certain food items) and $105 in ‘cash assistance’ which is money which can be spend freely. I have never seen a rent in NYC for less than $400 per month, and I doubt that anyone that reads this blog could live off $215 per month on food and other. And after 6 months one must begin working and the amount they receive does NOT increase. So I don’t know anyone that actually wants to be on welfare.

    Re: Iraq and Afghanistan. Last I checked the locals aren’t too happy about the presence of US or foreign troops. Like most people I have spoken to that have your views- I’m actually surprised that you have taken the view that we should be policing the world.

    The US did put Hussein and the Taliban in power, so maybe the US did have a responsibility to remove them, but knocking off leaders is one thing, destroying entire countries (and spending billions on doing it) and then spending billions more on rebuilding them makes no sense to me. The US has knocked off bad regimes and leaders since the end of the Cold War w/ relative ease, with the exception of Vietnam which everyone agrees handled poorly.

    And Hussein and the Taliban (as Eric alluded to) were neither the biggest terrorists (the Taliban were a domestic organization, not to be confused w/ the Al Qaeda who harbored w/in their borders), nor the biggest UN violators. N. Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Myanmar, Israel (and interestingly enough the US) were all bigger violators UN treaties. Currently, I think if the US is going to police a nation or region (which I do not think the US should be doing) they should be focused on the labor/death camps in North Korea; total chaos in Somalia, Myanmar- hundreds of thousands of people are dying of starvation; Sri Lanka hundreds of thousands of refugees; Israel- just pure evilness that should have been stopped over 40 years ago, etc.

    As I McCain admitted to me in 2002, Hussein and Iraq was weaker than ever. And Al Qaeda and WMD’s had nothing to do w/ Iraq. We could have saved billions of dollars by offer Hussein a couple of million to leave Iraq. And for those that believe that terrorists can be eliminated through warfare (I am of the school that things we should fight the inequality that leads to the terror), the US should have concentrated on Afghanistan from the getgo… and done so w/ local, regional and international support- and you may not recall, but after 9/11 the world supported the US in going after ‘terrorist.’ It was not until the US went into Iraq that we lost all international credibility.

    And if the US is so concerned about evil regimes how come the US did nothing regarding Rwanda; Sudan (Darfur); Mynamar; Sri Lanka; Israel (actually the US is, they are perpetuating this disgusting and ridiculous injustice); North Korea, etc. The answer… OIL.

    The US could give two shits about women in Afghanistan (who if you read any credible news source will learn that women are not better off than they were in 2001); people dying in Iraq (prior to the War in Iraq the US had killed over half a million innocent civilians in Iraq)… I am not aware of a single US military intervention that was based on any actual altruistic motive.

  25. ReWrite

    Kitapsiz,

    The right wing Supreme Court disagrees w/ your reading of the Constitution.

  26. Since when do I care what left or right think?

    Both are proven abject failures, and the only perspective that matters, is the “spirit and intent” of the Constitution.

    Prosticians fail to inspire or amuse; concisely, they are just the empirical actualisation of cosmic, epic fail …

    But by all means, continue to divide the argument by means/manner of media labels … really, it doesn’t certify that your mind is owned by the media; nay, not at all.

    It’s nice to dream of being a free thinker, all the while, one’s nose is firmly entrenched in the ass of the herd animal in front.

    Moo?

  27. Forrest

    I must say I don’t understand the liberal tendency to hate their own country. I think the US has done everything possible to make life better for its own citizens and for people around the world. Sure mistakes have been made, but it is impossible to do much good without making a few mistakes along the way.
    I’m glad Saddam and the Taliban are gone. The current citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq are probably tired of the fighting, but hopefully these fledgling democracies will flourish and their descendents will have more opportunities because of what we’ve done in the last few years.
    And as for Israel, I’m glad the US defends them. If it wasn’t for the US the Israelis would’ve been slaughtered years ago. Some sort of agreement is going to have to be reached, but the Palestinians don’t want a two-state agreement. They want Israel gone and its citizens dead. Thus the problem. I do hope the Arabs will stop trying to kill Jews.

  28. el gran huja

    i don’t get it ReWrite:

    in an earlier post you say that in spain:

    “there is still virtually no socio-economic inequality”

    and now you tell me”

    “crime levels have risen in Spain… I attribute this (again) to socio-economic inequality.”

    do we need to do a family intervention here?
    do we need to separate you from the magic dragon?

  29. ReWrite

    Forrest,

    I don’t speak for liberals, I speak for myself. I certainly do NOT hate US citizens. I have never once said anything negative about US citizens. I have critized the US gov’t. I was not the one that made racist and classist statements against minorities in the inner cities. What I am against is socio-economic inequality. I believe that many policies of the US gov’t perpetuate socio-economic inequality both w/in the US and internationally.

    I don’t know if killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people during the War in Iraq and half a million pre-war: A) count as a few mistakes or B) have left the country in a better place. The same goes for every country the US intervenes in. I cannot think of a country where the US has actually spread democracy.

    I gotta run, more later

  30. eric

    Forrest,

    I am a little bit confused. I thought you were against BIG GOVERNMENT and government intervention. Yet for some reason, you think that the federal government can do no right but the military can do no wrong. In one instance, criticizing the government’s domestic interventions is patriotic capitalism but criticizing the same government’s international interventions is unpatriotic self-loathing.

    I mean come on. You don’t trust the government when it act within our borders and is subject to U.S. laws, but you blindly trust it when it is acting outside of the U.S. and — as you have so eloquently argued, not subject to U.S. laws.

    Buddy, you got issues!

  31. Why are there reports coming out saying that the torture is not only continuing, but in some cases it may have worsened since Chairman Maobama took office … ?

    Investigations pending.

    I bet you guys will all wait to hear “the truth” …. you know you will.

    ::snicker::

    ::chuckle::

  32. Forrest

    Ok, just stating a fact that our inner cities have some major issues doesn’t make me racist. It’s just reality. If you don’t believe it look at the schools and crime rates in the cities. No way in heck I’d ever want my kid going to school there.

    Government has certain responsibilities. I’m not real keen on them babysitting citizens when it comes to their healthcare..that’s what insurance is for. Government does have a habit of being extremely inefficient and wasteful. However sometimes SOMETHING has to be done. And since the rest of the world won’t do anything, it’s pretty much left up to us. I’m not saying that what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone off without a hitch. Certainly it hasn’t. But show me a war that has. I don’t think there is such a thing. But saying we should just bury our heads in the sand and ignore the problem…I think that’d just lead to bigger problems down the road. Might as well nip it in the bud right here and now.

    I am not a fan of the government bailout of private corporations. They should’ve worked their way through bankruptcy without the investment (waste) of billions of taxpayer dollars. Sad it’s come to that, but the unions have basically bled the automakers dry.

  33. Forrest

    Maybe the Europeans are starting to wake up too…one can hope!

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525344,00.html

  34. Forrest

    ‘In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
    here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us,
    he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is
    an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed,
    or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s
    becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American….
    There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an
    American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have
    room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one
    language here, and that is the English language… and we have room
    for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.’

    Theodore Roosevelt 1907

  35. Nicely done Forrest, very nicely done.

    America has forgotten not only itself, but its history, and as the Great Depression generation, those who, more than any generation, defined what made this country something, pass into the quiet, few care to remember what it took to become great …

  36. eric

    Thank heavens Roosevelt was never on the Supreme Court. He would have definitely been a judicial activist, re-interpreting the constitution to profoundly distort its historical context.

  37. Forrest

    I think Roosevelt’s philosophy matches that of most Americans. I really wish we’d get back to our founding principles. If people want to come to the U.S. (legally of course) that’s great. But I’m tired of people coming here and expecting us to speak their language. When I went to Spain I didn’t expect them to speak English to me. If you want to come, come. But do so willing to become a part of our nation, not a separate people who just so happen to live within our borders.

  38. eric

    During the entire history of the United States of America the nation has never had an official language, something that I always proudly tell European xenophobes afraid that foreigners will enter their borders and try to convert them to some foreign religion.

    Two questions: (i) What founding principle are you talking about? (ii) what were you doing in Spain?

  39. Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    In due consideration of Amendment XIV:

    The Fourteenth Amendment does not provide any procedure for loss of United States citizenship. Under the Supreme Court precedent of Afroyim v. Rusk, loss of U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:[9]
    Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically this is not loss of citizenship, but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.

    Any activity by a possible immigrant, or the fact that an illegal alien has already defrauded the process and defied the sovereignty of the United States of America, logically ends; and with due consideration of the “spirit and intent” of the Constitution itself, with the “immigrant was never a U.S. citizen” and therefore no presumption of protection or rights under the Constitutional authority can or should be applied or inferred.

    First order error of logic.
    First order error of Constitutionality.

    The Laws governing over detainees, enemy combatants, insurgents, terrorists, etc. are in no way inferred or conferred by or through any Constitutional authority; they are the domain of the International body of Laws ~ unless you have information that I cannot find/access. I.e., the Geneva Conventions, N.A.T.O. or the (impotent) United Nations. The Patriot Act, is not only unpatriotic, it is an abomination against the spirit and intent of the Constitution; its framers should be hung from the neck until dead for acts of treason and sedition against the People. Benjamin Franklin succinctly covered this issue; as he is original framer, no argument against this position is valid.

    The only remaining issue that I can entertain would be one of State’s Rights ~ which Chairman Maobama insists upon dissolving with prejudice and malice towards the People.

  40. eric

    First of all the detainee are not immigrants. They’ve never entered the U.S. That’s the whole purpose of Guantanamo and black sites to make sure that the U.S. government does not have to comply with American laws and hopefully, in the case of Guantanamo, with any laws of any country. So the question is whether human beings held in custody outside of the U.S. deserve any rights whatsoever.

    Even the allegedly “illegal” immigrant must certainly have a right to a hearing that he is in fact illegal. Otherwise, like with Guantanamo, we could pretty much say that anyone in the world is an illegal immigrant and throw away the key.

    And if U.S. laws does not protect detainees, then what laws do? How about the local laws where they were detained or abducted? Even North Korea and Iran allow for trials, that’s better than Guantanamo.

  41. Even the allegedly “illegal” immigrant must certainly have a right to a hearing that he is in fact illegal. Otherwise, like with Guantanamo, we could pretty much say that anyone in the world is an illegal immigrant and throw away the key.

    Grossly in error of logic.

    First off, “illegal immigrant” is an oxymoron created out of the victims mentality; they are illegal aliens. The detainees are subjects of war, and as such, no immigration laws have anything to do with them, whatsoever. Again, there are an International body Laws to cover members of war ~ I think I’ve stated this clearly before, it’s called the Geneva Conventions. Try reading it, you might learn about the difference between “citizen/civilian”, “non-combatant” and “enemy combatant”. Of which, almost all of these detainees are likely in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which explicity states that making yourself appear to be a “non-combatant” or “civilian”, in a known war zone, ensures that you can be detained and tried as an international war criminal.

    Read the bolded portion again: defrauding the process constitutes having no right to the process.

    If one never started into the process, by intently and expressly attempting to circumvent said process, and adding insult to the situation by defying the sovereignty of the nation, one is not guaranteed any rights, nor should they be.

    To be human is no different than to be microbe; ubiquitous. Just because a “thing” exists, and if one has any discernment and can even mildly understand the natural order; “life” is not guaranteed.

    “Life” is an accident, a happenstance, a “yeah, okay, we’re here” … 7 billion of the variety homo sapien present on the Earth.

    Worth: just because you find yourself necessary, doesn’t mean you can be found to be important.

    Sum sic sum, end game.

  42. eric

    That’s right, I forgot guilty until proven innocent. Just make sure you have your ID on you at all times in case the police picks you up and thinks you are an illegal alien (which has happened). And definitely, under no circumstances, leave the borders because you too could then be subject to a foreign penal system that presumes your guilty and denies you a right to be heard.

    Regarding Guantanamo, it was in fact the position of the Bush Administration, and it appears that Obama will continue that position, that the U.S. can indefinitely detain terrorism suspects without trial. If the Geneva Convention applies, then why don’t we give these guys trials.

    And in terms of whether they are enemy combatants, shouldn’t there at least be a trial to prove that they are in fact enemy combatants because not all of the Guantanamo detainees were “captured” on the battlefield. Many were rendered, meaning kidnapped from one place, say Europe, and then taken to various black sites and finally to Guantanamo.

    Unless, of course, Americans believe that anyone outside of the U.S. or anyone inside the U.S. who does not have a U.S. passport on their person proving their nationality at the moment of questioning, has absolutely no due process rights whatsoever, not even to challenge the claims against them. That’s straight out of Kafka, and requires a huge leap of faith in the government’s good will. We mind as well live in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Even Iran and North Korea have trials for show.

  43. That’s right, I forgot guilty until proven innocent. Just make sure you have your ID on you at all times in case the police picks you up and thinks you are an illegal alien (which has happened). And definitely, under no circumstances, leave the borders because you too could then be subject to a foreign penal system that presumes your guilty and denies you a right to be heard.

    Eric, give me a break.

    There is no disguising illegal alien status/willful behavior. That’s just utter balderdash. Because they violate the first Law, sovereignty, there is no “after that” …

    The detainees, it will be agreed, are in a different status.

    Regarding Guantanamo, it was in fact the position of the Bush Administration, and it appears that Obama will continue that position, that the U.S. can indefinitely detain terrorism suspects without trial. If the Geneva Convention applies, then why don’t we give these guys trials.

    Bush = Village Idiot, destroyer of the Constitutional authority, betrayer of America.

    Obama = Articulate Islamosocialist, destroyer of the Constitutional authority, betrayer of America.

    I fail to see the difference. On the trial issue, I believe the Geneva Conventions only make applicable the use of military tribunals; which are, exactly, “trials for show” ~ regardless of the country they are exercised in.

    And in terms of whether they are enemy combatants, shouldn’t there at least be a trial to prove that they are in fact enemy combatants because not all of the Guantanamo detainees were “captured” on the battlefield. Many were rendered, meaning kidnapped from one place, say Europe, and then taken to various black sites and finally to Guantanamo.

    All that can be said here is, “I don’t know”. I find it highly dubious that we, the American public, have any real information on the nature of the circumstances surrounding the detainees. With them being Muslims, their believability is zero ~ their agenda is obvious, irrespective the facts. Facts, which no one outside the Bush Administration and/or the Maobama Administration will ever know.

    Unless, of course, Americans believe that anyone outside of the U.S. or anyone inside the U.S. who does not have a U.S. passport on their person proving their nationality at the moment of questioning, has absolutely no due process rights whatsoever, not even to challenge the claims against them. That’s straight out of Kafka, and requires a huge leap of faith in the government’s good will. We mind as well live in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Even Iran and North Korea have trials for show.

    Fair enough, now listen to my side of it, and put your agenda on the shelf for a minute.

    I have three friends from China, one from Japan, and two from Africa, one from India ~ ALL who came here, and duly followed the Law to become appreciated and useful citizens.

    It cost them YEARS of their lives, and THOUSANDS of dollars ~ just for a chance at the “American dream” (laff, ::snicker::).

    What about their rights? What about my rights? I’ve fucking paid taxes here since my first part time jobs, and what do I get for it? Raped? Sodomised? Violated? All with the unrepresentative actions of a group of self-serving elitists, (partisan affiliation means nothing, same operations), who gleefully put it to me without proper lubrication.

    Then, I have to look at these people I know, who have exponentially suffered more than you or I EVER will, just for a chance at a better life ~ and then they come here, after all the other inhumane violations, to be reviolated, (is that a word? hmmm), while you and the rest of the “special butterfly” ilk make the appeasement argument.

    Bottom line: you have to stop the BS somewhere. It has to stop with giving rights to people who not only aren’t here legally, or are actively engaging in illegal activity/ies to the detriment of the nation. No apologies.

    I should have you talk to Conghui, ask her what it was like trying to get here. She was beaten for wanting to leave China … I’ve seen the pictures. Why should she be made to suffer for those who don’t want to pay the price?

    Go ahead, give me your best shot on that one. I openly challenge you to find a logical explanation why she, or Vimal, (whose family was forced out of Kashmir under threat of death from Muslims, in the dead of night), or Popa who left Ghana under threats of death from tribal Warlords … go ahead. Show me your logic for telling them that suffered for nothing, just so some degenerate scumbag can violate a country they love more than most “natural born” Americans.

    Show me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s