Guantanamo Bay: Shame on you, United States

[questor]

Reason you are losing it. My comments are not addressed to you, so you don't have to read them or comment on them. Why don't you take a break and calm down? You are becoming increasingly hostile with your attacks. I guess free speech only applies to you?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Originally Posted by questor

Reason you are losing it. My comments are not addressed to you, so you don't have to read them or comment on them. Why don't you take a break and calm down? You are becoming increasingly hostile with your attacks. I guess free speech only applies to you?

Actually there are several posts pertaining to "free speech" on Hypo. the gist of them ""free speech" doesn't apply to anyone here". If the Mod's or Admin's don't approve of what you have to say they have the right to inform you of their disaproval, delete your post (or any portion there-of), or suspend/ban you if it is deemed necessary. (see rules)

[questor]

You're kidding.. you mean we all have to think the same way? How do we learn anything?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by questor

You're kidding.. you mean we all have to think the same way? How do we learn anything?

No, if we all thought the same way there would be no sense in discussions.

DefDisturbd is correct in his post above yours. There is no free speech here as this is a private forum (with no taxpayer dollars used in its operation).

Mind you, anyone is free to say whatever they wish, but the approval of posts are based on the site rules and the moderators administration of those rules. Egregious violation of the rules may warrant infractions, suspension, or a permanent ban. Posts may be deleted at our discretion.

If any of this is still unclear to anyone, please send me, or another mod, a PM. In the meantime, let's stick to the subject of the thread please.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Originally Posted by questor

Why not let all prisoners go free? Why should we have to pay to keep them housed, fed and healthy? We are spending millions on their upkeep and court appearances. Obviously no one thinks these people have done any wrong and are not dangerous, let them go.

I agree to the extent of what's quoted above.

Either give them a fair trial preferably as soon after the are captured as humanly possible. Or release them.

But the real issue here is the treatment of the detainees, Which cannot be justified by any reasonable or humane person.

[Kayra]

I actually understand Bush's perspective on this.

I get that the terrorists do not play by the rules and it sucks when he has to.
I get that it is frustrating as hell when you KNOW someone is guilty, but lack the proof necessary to press the full weight of justice on them.
I can see how tempting it is to use any means necessary to get the information you need to head off these threats.

What I also get is that the President's are human, and with that comes all of the human faults and frailties.

The system of government in the US was designed with this understanding in mind. To specifically remove the accumulation of to much power in a single persons hands. The voice of the many acts as a great leveler in this respect, with an overall tendency to stand on principle devoid of personal needs or wants.

Bush and his administration have found ways to ignore what was never ever to be ignored, those voices of the many. In this silence they have unfettered many of the limitations of the presidency that they saw as hindering their ability to "keep the country safe", ignoring the profound fact that those limitations in fact served that very purpose. To keep it safe from the Presidency.

So what is the greater threat to freedom in the US, terrorists with bombs, or a President whom through judicious use of loopholes in the law can enact policies and actions that are as completely counter to basic founding principles of the country as to be considered seditious by the founding fathers, and do so without the checks and balances of the common voice?

I actually understand Bush's perspective on this.
I just do not agree with it.

[modest]

Originally Posted by REASON

It appears you are unaware of the fact that we were offering rewards to people who handed over "terrorists" to the US, meaning we didn't necessarily have any evidence that those who were being handed over were actually guilty of anything. And since we denied their ability to challenge their detention, they were left with no recourse. This is not indicative of the type of justice that the United States of America has stood for throughout it's history.

This has me thinking...

Unfortunately the US has historically disregarded the kind of Justice that's mentioned here (including habeas corpus) whenever such liberties have become inconvenient.

Slavery is a pretty obvious example. In 1860, some 15% of the US population was held captive without trial or recourse. The civil war may have changed that, but at the same time Lincoln locked up Northern newspaper editors, journalists, rioters, "peace democrats", and even an Ohio congressman. These people were held for months with no trial or lawyer. This was not legal for Lincoln to do (or so said the Supreme Court at the time), but there's really no way for the Supreme Court to stop the army from arresting and detaining citizens.

In fact, the same situation played out with Native Americans. President Jackson was ordered by the Supreme Court to honor a previous treaty with the Cherokee. Jackson ignored the Court and sent thousands of troops to force the Cherokee from their homes (and many to stockades) at bayonet point... In the '40s, more than a hundred thousand innocent Japanese-Americans were forced into "internment camps"... There are other examples I will omit for the sake of a succinct post.

Considering the history, I don't find it surprising that 65 out of 100 senators would vote to pass a law denying habeas corpus to anyone Bush decides is a potential evil-doer. It seems to me like nothing more than history repeating itself. As much as we want to say America is the land of the free and land of liberty and all that - what does that really mean? Is it the land of liberty when convenient?

~modest

[REASON]

Originally Posted by modest

Considering the history, I don't find it surprising that 65 out of 100 senators would vote to pass a law denying habeas corpus to anyone Bush decides is a potential evil-doer. It seems to me like nothing more than history repeating itself. As much as we want to say America is the land of the free and land of liberty and all that - what does that really mean? Is it the land of liberty when convenient?

~modest

Excellent points, modest. And worthy of rep from me.

It is by my nature as an American to consider that we are a society of fairness and justice, or at least that it is our intention to be. It sure comes out that way in our patriotic rhetoric.

Maybe what I should have said in my post above was:

"This is not indicative of the type of justice that the United States of America claims to stand for."

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

No matter how you put it it's true...sadly.
Just one of the many issues that make me ashamed to be an american.

[modest]

Thank you, Reason. I should have said also that I didn't mean to disagree with what you said (rereading my post, it might come off that way) - your post was very insightful and just got me thinking about why Gitmo and the denial of rights can both be antithetical to U.S. ideals and such an easy pill for a large part of the country to swallow. Bush's rhetoric about fighting for liberty and freedom are so ridiculous considering Gitmo and domestic spying and everything else. I couldn't agree with you more on this and I suppose I was looking for some historical reason for it. It really bothers me. Both the hypocrisy and the fact that people don't recognize it - they both bother me more than most issues of politics.

~modest