"Peter Wiley" wrote
Vito wrote:

But most .. were either killed or imprisoned locally or freed - each after
some sort
of hearing .... It's implicite in their being there.

IOW, you made it up. Right.

Sure. Just like I made up my claim that the sun rose this AM. It's
axiomatic - obvious to the most casual observer. NOTHING happens without a
decision. Did Allah magically transport them there?

Hmmm. Those accounts I've read of you guys shipping people to Egypt to
be tortured are all false, then? If not, where's the record of the
hearing? Or do you mean that it's all being done on the whim of some
faceless person, unaccountable to anyone?

a) Probably. The only reason to send one off to torture would be to
intimidate others and the rumor would work as well as actually doing so.

b) Knowing military bureaucracy I'm sure we have some record of each/every
decision to send anybody to Gitmo - so sure I don't need to see them. If you
do ask under the freedom of information act.

c) Absolutely! That's how the "legal" system works over there! They got the
same "trial" as the women the Taliban shot for being literate. Don't like
it, don't go there.

Tell me, why did you guys bring in habeas corpus in the first place? Do
you think it only applies to citizens of the USA? Obviously not, now I
think of it, because you've been desperate to keep people off of US
territory so as to keep them away from the normal protections of the
courts.

Now you understand!! If Blimy convicts a criminal under English law, then
'loans' him to us, and he never touches US soil then he has no rights under
US law. Similarly, if an Afghan "court" convicts a Sudanese of trying to
overthrow their government then loans him to us .... Would England want us
re

That's not to mention the softer, *possibly* legally acceptable
methods
of sleep deprivation, humiliation, religious persecution, etc etc.

These are useful and acceptable methods of changing a person's outlook.

Ah. So you agree that the Chinese were correct, during the Korean War,
in doing just this sort of thing to US troops, and that in any future
conflict, you'll make no complaint about such methods being used on US
troops. Right?

US spies, sabateurs and insergents captured in civilian cloths - sure. US
(or other) uniformed troops - no.

Take
a typical terrorist. He's not stupid but he is worse than ignorant. He's
spent years in school studying not science, history, et al, but poring
over
the Koran, rocking back and forth while memorizing every verse. This
disinformation has led him to believe that there is only one God -
Allah -
and that Mohammad is his prophet. Worse Mohammad demands that everybody
accept this weird notion and if they do not it is his duty to kill them
(ie
us).

Simplistic. Wrong, and simplistic. This is the sort of dangerous
nonsense that got you *into* Iraq. You refuse to see that a person can
be extremely well educated, while being dedicated to a cause in
complete opposition to your own. By being so ignorant yourself, you
underestimate your enemy to your own disadvantage.

You are confused. First, there is no connection between the Iraq invasion
and the war on terror, nor is our understanding of radical Islam the reason
we invaded Iraq. Nobody knows why we invaded Iraq. As I said, had Roosevelt
been as stupid as Bush, he would have attacked England in response to Pearl
Harbor.

That said, I can well understand educated opposition, but that is NOT what
the western world is facing in the war on Muslim extremism nor are the folks
detained at Gitmo rational, educated foes. They are dedicated to converting
the world to their idiotic religion and killing any who fail to comply. It
is gentle folks like you who underestimate that enemy through ignorance of
their madness.

Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? The then South African government
thought so, and locked him away for 27 years.

Yes! How many fellow Africans did he murder by "necklessing" them, burning
them alive? Is So Africa better off now? Rhodesia?? Hardly.

A man wants to kill you because God says he should. He belongs to a
large
group who think likewise. They believe this so strongly that they will
gladly kill themselves to kill you. There are only two ways to combat
that - kill all of them first or re-educate them to give up thi idea.
Given
their level of madness the latter will enjoy limited success.

So - when are you going to neutron bomb the entire land area of Iran,
Saudi Arabia, big parts of Iraq, Turkey, Indonesia..........?

Why? Most Muslims are far less radical and have no desire to kill anyone
over religion. I believe in re-education. The foundations of Islam, like
Christianity and Judism, are easily refuted by fact and logic.

It was you guys who empowered them with money from oil .....

Us? Look in a mirror. How much oil does Europe produce vs consume? How much
mid-east oil goes to the USA vs Europe and Asia? How much US oil goes to
Asia? We're all guilty.


...... Stop trying to glue together people who want to be
apart - Sunnis, Shias and Kurds in Iraq, for example. It's likely not
going to work and you're only making it worse.

IIRC Britian established the current borders - which were working fine til
Bush attacked Saddam. Saddam knew how to deal with these "conflicts".

..... Unfortunately, your political leadership is plain stupid.

And dogmatic to boot. Sadly they reflect much of our voting population.

You've demonstrated that under certain circumstances, you're no better
than the bad guys. The point you're missing about holding captives
without trial and without access to external reviewing authorities (Red
Cross et al), and engaging in psy war techniques, is that you
demonstrate that there is no fundamental difference between you and
them, only power. .....

Trouble is there IS no difference when looking at leaders. Osama, et al,
strike the "great Satan" because God tells them to. Bush and Co invaded Iraq
for no better reason. If intelligent Americans were in charge Saddam would
still be running Iraq, Osama and company would be quietly enjoying Cuban
weather and the world would never have heard of Gitmo.