More Sylvans Pages
Wikidweb - the free, open, instant web directory
How to do your civic duty or
get out of jury duty.
Calendar
|
November '18 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Quicksearch
Sunday, February 11. 2007
Getting Political...
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
America is the best country in the history of the planet. The nation is filled with people from all walks of life, all religious believes, and all political persuasions. Then to make things even better, our bill of rights gives every one of them an opportunity to state their opinion. In fact, it is documented in our bill of rights that we even have the right to over throw our government if we so choose. Wow, what an amazing right--not only can we speak in disagreement with our nation, but we can also take military action against it.
As a self proclaimed politically astute individual I feel protests against in-humane treatment of war prisoners is funny. The root cause of the misfeelings must be in a believe that we are NOT at war. From that vantage point I can understand the misfeelings. But I giggle at the notion because I believe we are at war. Just like the protesters of 1939, I believe the new protesters will be proven wrong. That said, I hope beyond all hopes, that it is ME who is wrong; for should I be right, the feelings of wrongness I believe the new protesters will feel will be the morning of loved ones and other country members who died in some massive attack.
As a self proclaimed politically astute individual I feel protests against in-humane treatment of war prisoners is funny. The root cause of the misfeelings must be in a believe that we are NOT at war. From that vantage point I can understand the misfeelings. But I giggle at the notion because I believe we are at war. Just like the protesters of 1939, I believe the new protesters will be proven wrong. That said, I hope beyond all hopes, that it is ME who is wrong; for should I be right, the feelings of wrongness I believe the new protesters will feel will be the morning of loved ones and other country members who died in some massive attack.
Hmm... setting aside the question of whether or not we're at war - I have a problem with how we're treating these prisoners regardless (so I disagree with your assessment of the root cause). Even if we are at war - we should take the high road. These prisoners should not be tortured. They have a right to a writ of habeas corpus. We cannot hold them indefinitely without trial. If it wasn't us doing this, we would completely condemn these actions.
Here's a thought experiment: What if the government could guarantee our complete safety? But the price is that we lost every right we have - they can lock up anyone at any time without reason. But everyone else is completely safe; no crime, no terrorist attacks, etc. The cost of utopia is that a lot of innocents are frequently locked up, occasionally tortured, etc. Would you accept those terms? Not me.
Of course I realize the other end of the spectrum is unrealistic as well - the only way to guarantee that no innocents are ever wronged is to never lock up anyone. Let the criminals run free. Not acceptable either. So, then, here we are somewhere in the middle. And then, the reason for habeas corpus is to help protect the innocent from wrongful imprisonment. People from foreign countries who may be terrorists also may be innocent, and there lives are just as important as mine, or yours, or anyone elses.
Here's a thought experiment: What if the government could guarantee our complete safety? But the price is that we lost every right we have - they can lock up anyone at any time without reason. But everyone else is completely safe; no crime, no terrorist attacks, etc. The cost of utopia is that a lot of innocents are frequently locked up, occasionally tortured, etc. Would you accept those terms? Not me.
Of course I realize the other end of the spectrum is unrealistic as well - the only way to guarantee that no innocents are ever wronged is to never lock up anyone. Let the criminals run free. Not acceptable either. So, then, here we are somewhere in the middle. And then, the reason for habeas corpus is to help protect the innocent from wrongful imprisonment. People from foreign countries who may be terrorists also may be innocent, and there lives are just as important as mine, or yours, or anyone elses.
It is too bad more are not involved in this discussion because I bet we'd see about a 50/50 split in the views. If Aerik got all his friends to respond, I'm willing the bet a majority of them would agree with him; however if I got all my friend to respond, I'm willing to bet they'd agree with me. While this doesn't actually prove anything, because we didn't do the deed (i.e. get our friends involved) this does proof one point, people can have different options.
Aerik, I think you've taken the discussion to the extreme in an effort to make the wrong point. That said, I'll play along and assume your point as my own. We should not torture people. That's a good idea, we should torture people--I actually agree with that statement so it isn't a stretch for me to assume the point. However, what is torture? Hold that thought for a moment.
It would appear that the crux of the point is the seemingly indefinite state of the prisoners. Although I'm cautions to move to far down this train of thinking because you also referenced a total loss of freedoms (suspending the Constitution for Americans). When would you suggest we release the prisoners we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan? Ok, back to my way of thinking... When the war ends. This brings us back to my original point: if you don't think we are at war you would more than likely be against us holding anyone for any reason pertaining to the war.
I purposely did not address torture in my first post because I felt the root cause issue was are we at war or not. However, maybe we should examine torture for a moment. What is the worst form of torture? Murder, right? If our gaurds are killing prisoners, that would be the ultimate in BAD, right? Do we have any records of our guys killing prisoners? I just checked the NYTimes.com site and didn't find anything. While that may not be the authority on the topic, I can at lease use it an anecdotal in nature and say it hasn't happened. I can, however, find several references to our enemies killing prisoners. Text, pictures, and video. Now, let me dispel the anecdotal statement once and for all. If our enemies are so careless as to show us pictures and video of them murdering prisoners, I must assume they would also provide evidence of our guys doing the same thing. Of course one could argue that our guys are just better at keeping this sort of thing a secret; but then we have to bring abugrave (spelling?) into the discussion.
If our guys are willing to show pictures and video of our guys making prisoners do degrading things, why wouldn't they show pictures and video of worse? I believe because it doesn't exist because we haven't murdered prisoners.
Ok, now the harsh part. If they are going to kill our prisoners, why can't we kill theirs? Moral high ground? Actually, I think because we have better methods. Water boarding takes someone to the brink of death and prisoners start singing Broadway numbers. Right or wrong, water boarding is better than killing, unless you don't think we are at war. Thus the reason for my avoiding the topic of torture to begin with. If you think our enemies are killing prisoners of war, then you are more than likely going to approve of in humane treatment of guys we have as prisoner; if you don't think we are at war, then you believe we have innocent people in shackles with no trial, no end to their sentence, and no just cause.
That is why I giggle when I see protesters demanding an end to the action, because I believe the protesters are wrong--similar to how wrong the French were in 1939. I just hope the next "non-war" action on the part of the those we are fighting is NOT in Oregon, California, New Mexico or anywhere else I have friends and family.
The fact is, even in our justice system, Americans are wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. DNA evidence has released hundreds from "legal" prisons yet we are not trying to over throw our legal system in favor of something that will guarentee no innocent person will EVER be convicted again. Nope, instead we are waving signs in the streets America protesting the detainment of people because we don't think were are at war.
Driving this baby home...My point is still true, if you don't believe we are at war, then you against detaining people.
Aerik, I think you've taken the discussion to the extreme in an effort to make the wrong point. That said, I'll play along and assume your point as my own. We should not torture people. That's a good idea, we should torture people--I actually agree with that statement so it isn't a stretch for me to assume the point. However, what is torture? Hold that thought for a moment.
It would appear that the crux of the point is the seemingly indefinite state of the prisoners. Although I'm cautions to move to far down this train of thinking because you also referenced a total loss of freedoms (suspending the Constitution for Americans). When would you suggest we release the prisoners we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan? Ok, back to my way of thinking... When the war ends. This brings us back to my original point: if you don't think we are at war you would more than likely be against us holding anyone for any reason pertaining to the war.
I purposely did not address torture in my first post because I felt the root cause issue was are we at war or not. However, maybe we should examine torture for a moment. What is the worst form of torture? Murder, right? If our gaurds are killing prisoners, that would be the ultimate in BAD, right? Do we have any records of our guys killing prisoners? I just checked the NYTimes.com site and didn't find anything. While that may not be the authority on the topic, I can at lease use it an anecdotal in nature and say it hasn't happened. I can, however, find several references to our enemies killing prisoners. Text, pictures, and video. Now, let me dispel the anecdotal statement once and for all. If our enemies are so careless as to show us pictures and video of them murdering prisoners, I must assume they would also provide evidence of our guys doing the same thing. Of course one could argue that our guys are just better at keeping this sort of thing a secret; but then we have to bring abugrave (spelling?) into the discussion.
If our guys are willing to show pictures and video of our guys making prisoners do degrading things, why wouldn't they show pictures and video of worse? I believe because it doesn't exist because we haven't murdered prisoners.
Ok, now the harsh part. If they are going to kill our prisoners, why can't we kill theirs? Moral high ground? Actually, I think because we have better methods. Water boarding takes someone to the brink of death and prisoners start singing Broadway numbers. Right or wrong, water boarding is better than killing, unless you don't think we are at war. Thus the reason for my avoiding the topic of torture to begin with. If you think our enemies are killing prisoners of war, then you are more than likely going to approve of in humane treatment of guys we have as prisoner; if you don't think we are at war, then you believe we have innocent people in shackles with no trial, no end to their sentence, and no just cause.
That is why I giggle when I see protesters demanding an end to the action, because I believe the protesters are wrong--similar to how wrong the French were in 1939. I just hope the next "non-war" action on the part of the those we are fighting is NOT in Oregon, California, New Mexico or anywhere else I have friends and family.
The fact is, even in our justice system, Americans are wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. DNA evidence has released hundreds from "legal" prisons yet we are not trying to over throw our legal system in favor of something that will guarentee no innocent person will EVER be convicted again. Nope, instead we are waving signs in the streets America protesting the detainment of people because we don't think were are at war.
Driving this baby home...My point is still true, if you don't believe we are at war, then you against detaining people.
Wow - not surprisingly, I think I disagree with you across the board. But your last statement, which was "if you don't believe we are at war, then you against detaining people," I guess we agree there - maybe. One of the things I have a problem with the the indefinite detention of people.
I also do believe we should take the moral high ground. I think that a lot of the principles America is founded on are based on taking the moral high ground. I love the phrase "presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" - this is a terrific example of the moral hgh ground.
I disagree with "What is the worst form of torture? Murder, right?" - and I think that my view, that long term suffering can be worse than death, is another one we could debate about endlessly, but I'll oversimplify and use the anecdote that many people say, when a loved one dies, "at least he's not suffering any more". So, I think your whole paragraph on this is wrong. But I respect your right to hold your opinion.
You said, "If they are going to kill our prisoners, why can't we kill theirs? Moral high ground? Actually, I think because we have better methods." This actually scares me a little bit. I do believe in taking the moral high ground. Even if I cannot always live up to that as an individual, I believe we should strive for the moral high ground as a community, and as a country.
We have no proof that these guys are all genuine bad guys! Half of them have been released - so do you really believe that 100% of the other half are guilty for certain? But this means nothing if you do not agree with me on taking the moral high ground. If we don't care about making great efforts to assure that innocents are not hurt, then it won't matter to you if a few innocent guys get held in jail for years and tortured into confessing doing things they may not have actually done.
But it bothers me.
You said "Americans are wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. DNA evidence has released hundreds from "legal" prisons yet we are not trying to over throw our legal system in favor of something that will guarentee no innocent person will EVER be convicted again."
No, we are not trying to guarantee that - but we do have a very high standard: "beyond a reasonable doubt." And people who are arrested for crimes have rights and cannot be held indefinitely or tortured. I think that is a pretty good system, on average. Holding foreigners in secret prisons indefinitely and torturing them is completely different, and is totally unacceptable.
I also do believe we should take the moral high ground. I think that a lot of the principles America is founded on are based on taking the moral high ground. I love the phrase "presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" - this is a terrific example of the moral hgh ground.
I disagree with "What is the worst form of torture? Murder, right?" - and I think that my view, that long term suffering can be worse than death, is another one we could debate about endlessly, but I'll oversimplify and use the anecdote that many people say, when a loved one dies, "at least he's not suffering any more". So, I think your whole paragraph on this is wrong. But I respect your right to hold your opinion.
You said, "If they are going to kill our prisoners, why can't we kill theirs? Moral high ground? Actually, I think because we have better methods." This actually scares me a little bit. I do believe in taking the moral high ground. Even if I cannot always live up to that as an individual, I believe we should strive for the moral high ground as a community, and as a country.
We have no proof that these guys are all genuine bad guys! Half of them have been released - so do you really believe that 100% of the other half are guilty for certain? But this means nothing if you do not agree with me on taking the moral high ground. If we don't care about making great efforts to assure that innocents are not hurt, then it won't matter to you if a few innocent guys get held in jail for years and tortured into confessing doing things they may not have actually done.
But it bothers me.
You said "Americans are wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. DNA evidence has released hundreds from "legal" prisons yet we are not trying to over throw our legal system in favor of something that will guarentee no innocent person will EVER be convicted again."
No, we are not trying to guarantee that - but we do have a very high standard: "beyond a reasonable doubt." And people who are arrested for crimes have rights and cannot be held indefinitely or tortured. I think that is a pretty good system, on average. Holding foreigners in secret prisons indefinitely and torturing them is completely different, and is totally unacceptable.
Hi Aerik,
This has been fun. Thank you for the brisk exchange in opinions. We could go on forever debating semantics, but my original point has been born out and you have agreed that the view of the state of war is the root.
Debating the concept of moral high ground is not something of interest at this point because I believe the electronic nature of the medium will not do the debate justice.
For the record, I believe we are at war and I further believe those who provoked this war are due a date to meet their maker. Those captured on the battlefield should be detained as prisoners of war until the conclusion of the war. If, at the conclusion of the war, the prisoners of war are not released then I will add my voice to yours; calling for their release. Until then they can enjoy three squares and a cot at the expense of the American government.
I agree with you, I don't believe all these guys being held are bad guys; just the same as I don't believe all the German soldiers we held were bad guys. A soldier does what he is told, he even believes in the cause he fights for--that is war. But if captured on the battle field, that soldier has every expectation of indefinite detention so long as the war rages.
Here, again, lies my thesis (that you agreed with--maybe) that if one views our current state as at war, then you would agree with the detention of war prisoners. By your very first statement in this thread, I concluded you don't believe our country is at war.
Now, if you want to really have fun, then we should start a new thread and discuss the concept of civil rights... For example, we could discuss the value of American civil rights in the eyes of a common sheite or suni. Especially the way they treat women and minorities. That would be a fun debate, heck we could even compare and contrast our detention of the prisoners we have to those practices of other countries, like Egypt, Iran, or Afghanistan (prior to the most recent gulf war).
Give Joan and the boys a hug for me. Stay well my friend!
Ed
This has been fun. Thank you for the brisk exchange in opinions. We could go on forever debating semantics, but my original point has been born out and you have agreed that the view of the state of war is the root.
Debating the concept of moral high ground is not something of interest at this point because I believe the electronic nature of the medium will not do the debate justice.
For the record, I believe we are at war and I further believe those who provoked this war are due a date to meet their maker. Those captured on the battlefield should be detained as prisoners of war until the conclusion of the war. If, at the conclusion of the war, the prisoners of war are not released then I will add my voice to yours; calling for their release. Until then they can enjoy three squares and a cot at the expense of the American government.
I agree with you, I don't believe all these guys being held are bad guys; just the same as I don't believe all the German soldiers we held were bad guys. A soldier does what he is told, he even believes in the cause he fights for--that is war. But if captured on the battle field, that soldier has every expectation of indefinite detention so long as the war rages.
Here, again, lies my thesis (that you agreed with--maybe) that if one views our current state as at war, then you would agree with the detention of war prisoners. By your very first statement in this thread, I concluded you don't believe our country is at war.
Now, if you want to really have fun, then we should start a new thread and discuss the concept of civil rights... For example, we could discuss the value of American civil rights in the eyes of a common sheite or suni. Especially the way they treat women and minorities. That would be a fun debate, heck we could even compare and contrast our detention of the prisoners we have to those practices of other countries, like Egypt, Iran, or Afghanistan (prior to the most recent gulf war).
Give Joan and the boys a hug for me. Stay well my friend!
Ed
Ed, Ed,Ed... you argument is bunk and let me tell you why.
Article 3 of the Geneva convention describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.
These people are not being treated as they should be. It's just that simple.
Your argument has literally no bearing on the issue at hand.
Article 3 of the Geneva convention describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.
These people are not being treated as they should be. It's just that simple.
Your argument has literally no bearing on the issue at hand.
The United States was founded on the guarantees in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. All of its citizens formerly enjoyed those freedoms, including the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. We no longer have that right as the NSA continues to illegally monitor U.S. citizens without appropriate court order. As recently as early this year, the U.S. Attorney General stated in testimony before Congress that the Constituion does not expressly guarantee the right to petition for habeas corpus to U.S. citizens; therefore it must follow that any U.S. citizen may be held indefinitely without charge.
The federal government, especially but not exclusively the Executive Branch, regularly demonstrates its incompetence in the "war on terror" by invading the wrong country at the wrong time, pursuing the wrong policies after said invasion, continually supporting the Pakistani government--which is making possible the continued survival of the Al Quaeda leadership--and creating an environment in which a militant Iran develops nuclear weapons while the entire Middle East inexorably moves toward implosion.
All this while it plays on our fears and takes away our freedoms, because--lacking any coherent policy to respond to militant Islam and the debacle that its policies have created--that is all it knows to do.
The entire situation, here and in the Middle East, is much more grave than a disintegrating Iraq (while painfully tragic) would suggest.
We are losing our influence around the world, wasting our resources in the wrong country, and becoming a police state.
It is time to change our policies and time to say "enough."
The federal government, especially but not exclusively the Executive Branch, regularly demonstrates its incompetence in the "war on terror" by invading the wrong country at the wrong time, pursuing the wrong policies after said invasion, continually supporting the Pakistani government--which is making possible the continued survival of the Al Quaeda leadership--and creating an environment in which a militant Iran develops nuclear weapons while the entire Middle East inexorably moves toward implosion.
All this while it plays on our fears and takes away our freedoms, because--lacking any coherent policy to respond to militant Islam and the debacle that its policies have created--that is all it knows to do.
The entire situation, here and in the Middle East, is much more grave than a disintegrating Iraq (while painfully tragic) would suggest.
We are losing our influence around the world, wasting our resources in the wrong country, and becoming a police state.
It is time to change our policies and time to say "enough."
Hi Aerik (et.al),
Wow. What a great conversation. The true beauty of America is how people with different beliefs can converse freely. I think the conclusion is we all agree that Americans can not be held without cause in the United States. We all differ on the treatment of the people being held in Guantanamo (and other detention facilities related to actions here and abroad.) Lastly, I am the only one of the bunch who believes we are in a state of war.
I wish each of you all the best and will look forward to a future debate.
Ed Bejarana
Wow. What a great conversation. The true beauty of America is how people with different beliefs can converse freely. I think the conclusion is we all agree that Americans can not be held without cause in the United States. We all differ on the treatment of the people being held in Guantanamo (and other detention facilities related to actions here and abroad.) Lastly, I am the only one of the bunch who believes we are in a state of war.
I wish each of you all the best and will look forward to a future debate.
Ed Bejarana
I wanted to let this go, but I guess I didn't make myself clear.
I believe that we are in a state of war.
However, other than naming them generally as terrorists or specifically as Al Qaeda, there is no clearly defined enemy such as existed in any previous war the U.S has fought.
There has been no strategy, no goal or endpoint defined.
Statements such as "wipe terror from the face of the earth," or "make American safe" mean nothing.
For a tiny fraction of what we have spent in Iraq, in money and lives, Afganistan would have been a flourishing democracy, the Taliban a dim memory.
Now Iran proceeds to do exactly what this country accused Iraq of doing, developing nuclear weapons. And we seem powerless to stop them because of the squandered resources, military and diplomatic, that have been spent on Iraq.
Underlying all of this is a secondary conflict, between Sunni and Shia, that we are only just beginning to see.
I believe that this will be a very dangerous world for a very long time to come. Our politicians do not appear to be facing the real issues, and the American public in general seems to be unaware of the real risks that exist.
Enough from me.
I believe that we are in a state of war.
However, other than naming them generally as terrorists or specifically as Al Qaeda, there is no clearly defined enemy such as existed in any previous war the U.S has fought.
There has been no strategy, no goal or endpoint defined.
Statements such as "wipe terror from the face of the earth," or "make American safe" mean nothing.
For a tiny fraction of what we have spent in Iraq, in money and lives, Afganistan would have been a flourishing democracy, the Taliban a dim memory.
Now Iran proceeds to do exactly what this country accused Iraq of doing, developing nuclear weapons. And we seem powerless to stop them because of the squandered resources, military and diplomatic, that have been spent on Iraq.
Underlying all of this is a secondary conflict, between Sunni and Shia, that we are only just beginning to see.
I believe that this will be a very dangerous world for a very long time to come. Our politicians do not appear to be facing the real issues, and the American public in general seems to be unaware of the real risks that exist.
Enough from me.
All For Good
Fight Internet Censorship
Categories
Syndicate This Blog
Top Exits
www.riseagainst.com (10)
en.wikipedia.org (8)
eventfeed.org (4)
sourceforge.net (4)
www.sharkresearchcommittee.com (3)
abcnews.go.com (2)
en.wikibooks.org (1)
www.wikidweb.com (1)
en.wikipedia.org (8)
eventfeed.org (4)
sourceforge.net (4)
www.sharkresearchcommittee.com (3)
abcnews.go.com (2)
en.wikibooks.org (1)
www.wikidweb.com (1)
Blog Administration
Powered by
