Quote Originally Posted by dragonrider
I did not slam your opinion or make any personal attack on you. I don't understand why you would percieve that as a slam. I'm pointing out the inconsistency between what you feel should be done and what the Bush adminsitration has argued should be done. If you feel that the Guantanamo detainees should be treated as POWs, then that is great and I applaud your desire to see them have the recognied legal status of POW as apposed to the legal limbo of "enemy combatant." Perhaps if the Bush administration had treated them as POWs, then we would not be in this situation of having them afforded the rights of a civilian trial.
Maybe it wasn't a slam; I'll give you credit. But what was the point in posting fact against opinion. Everyone knows what you already stated. So in that regards; it appeared as if you were trying to "rub my nose" in it so to speak. As if you found some damning information to prove me wrong. When there was no right or wrong to what I said. I am glad that you agree that they should be given some status. However I notice that you failed to acknowledge that the Left did vote for Iraq, they did vote for Afghanistan and they did vote for Guantanamo bay and the military Tribunal hearings that were being held ther with overwhelming support.

Are these facts you are just going to ignore? Seems convenient.



Well, here now we are talking about MY opinon. And MY opinion is that the government has attempted to create a legal limbo in which a person can be designated an "enemy combatant" and afforded no legal status whatsoever, neither a POW nor a criminal. MY opinion is that by creating such a legal designation, the governemnt has weakend the right to due process in general and has diminished MY rights to due process. If you create a system where you can put someone in prison without charging them, without any access to the legal system, or even the right to have their government or family notidfed of their detention, then how do you KNOW that YOU won't someday find YOURSELF in that hole? Do you just take it on faith that the government will never make that kind of mistake, and wrongly put YOU in prison for something they suspect YOU did? And if it did happen, what would YOU do? What recourse would you have?
It's funny now that your opinion has changed from blaming the Bush administration to now blaming the Government. Your rights have not been infringed. The courts ruling does not even effect you. It effects the detainees of Guantanamo bay by extending OUR rights to them. If you feel that your rights have been trampled upon than I suggest you talk to the Liberals as well as the Republicans. Write or call your congressman and voice your beliefs.

Again you've conveniently changed your wording here.. From your last post:

What a load of revisionist history crap. It's not the left wing who can't decide what to do with these people. It's the Bush administration arguing that these people's rights fall under neither the Geneva Convention nor our own Constitution.

Hrm.. nice subtle change of words that slightly contradict your last statement. Previously placing all blame on the administration and now after my posts saying it's the Government. Which I take to be an all encompassing term for the organization that runs our Country and not specifally pointing fingers at a group. Maybe this was an error and you said "government" when you meant to say the Bush Administration. If that were the case then I apologize and you've stayed true to your previous statements.


I don't want to expand the scope of this debate any further, but I do want to say that the legal status of prisoners in GITMO is only one area in which I think the Bush adminsitration has diminsihed the rights of Americans. I agree that the legal battle around the legal status of GITMO detainees may have little practical affect on the rights of Americans. I am far more worried about other erosion of rights that do DIRECTLY apply to Americans on American soil, such as warantless wiretapping and othe kinds of surveilance. Again, I'm not trying to expand the scope of the thread, but I see the GITMO detainee issue as part of a larger pattern of the erosion of American rights.
We're we expanding the scope of this debate? I'm fairly certain that we have remained on topic throughout the course of this thread. Here you contradict yourself again moving away from the word Government and make it seem as if the Bush administration made it happen all by themselves, but again like above maybe when you said "government" you meant to say Bush Administration.. incase you missed the post let me put an excerpt I included in one of my previous posts:


In the two most critical votes, the Democrats gave their support by a 37 to 6 margin to a Republican amendment tacitly supporting the Bush administrationâ??s policy on the Iraq war; and then voted 30-13 for a Republican amendment explicitly endorsing the use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.

Don't telll me what I want to do. I dislike someone else putting words in my mouth. If you want to discuss what I want to do, ask me, don't tell me.
Please show me where I said what you want to do? Here is what my response was to.. this is from your own post:

It seems foolish to me to say we need to protect our way of life from these terrorists by giving up the way of life that make us different from them.

To me, we have a compassionate way of life in comparison to a large portion of the world. This is my own opinion and I stick with it; so to me you're suggesting we should practice our "way of life" on many of whom are known terrorists. I'm sorry that i don't believe in being compassionate to a majority of people who wish and attempt/succeed in doing harm to us.


I have no compassion whatsoever for anyone who beheads a civilian or practices any other kind of attack on civilians. My opinion is that in a war zone if we thnk we have the coordinates for someone who is suspected of this kind of thing, or any kind of terrorist activity, then we should drop a bomb on them or send in a sqaud to kill them in combat. I'm not in favor of trials for enemies in a war zone. However, my opinion is that if we capture people we suspect are eneimeis in a war zone, then we need to treat them as POWs. If we capture people outside a war zone that we suspect are terrorists, then we need to afford them some legal status so that we can prove those charges. And once those charges are proven, we can apply the maximum legal punishment --- death if possible. I have no comapssion for terrorists --- I just believe in the rule of law.
Define War Zone.. Here I'll do it for you:


Main Entry:
war zone
Function:
noun
Date:
1914

1: a zone in which belligerents are waging war; broadly : an area marked by extreme violence

So by that definition a War Zone an occur anywhere making your statement rather vague and unclear. Majority of this paragraph I can agree with. Some things I don't but they are not even worth touching on. So we'll just say we're pretty much in agreement here.

Well, there it is. That is the real nut of the matter. That's why these people need some kind of legal status. I agree that nearly all of the suspects in GITMO are probably there for the correct reason. I also think that almost all civilians who are arrested by civilian police for routine crimes are guilty of the crimes they are charged with. However, I still believe in due process.
Again here we see Eye to Eye but we see different approaches to the matter. I'm assuming since this post is in regards to the supreme courts ruling to grant habeas corpus to the detainees of Guantanamo, that you are for this. I on the other hand would like my Government.. both left wing and right wing.. to do the correct thing and recognize these individuals as POW. I think you can agree with this also? We seem sort've on the same page when it comes to regards of getting them some sort of due process.



Earlier you said that your opinion is that the detainiees are POWs, but here you say that your opinion is that there should be a separate process for them. That is not a consisitent opinion. However, I do agree that there may be a need for a different kind of process.
Here you're arguing semantics and it seems to me that you are bringing things up just to argue them. Yes I believe there should be a seperate process from what they have currently. Yes I believe that process should be the same as that of a POW. Is it wrong for me to bundle these as one in the same?

It may actually be legitimate to create a separate legal status of "enemy combatant" that applies to a person who is not part of a foreign army but takes up arms against the US. However, my opinion is that so far the governemnt has not managed to create such a status in a way that satisfies either inernational law or the Constitution with regards to due process.
I think this is a GREAT idea and feel you've really hit upon something here.

I disagree that I am doing any finger pointing. I especially am not pointing the finger at anyone on these boards if that is what you mean. I am however very critical of the Bush adminsitrtion for its diseragard for due process.
no no. I never meant anyone on this board. We're all friends here. I meant finger pointing at political parties, at Individuals in office, at the media.. etc etc.

The Bush administration often times got much support from the Democratic party. This is where I feel you're finger pointing. You don't seem to acknowledge that it takes two to tango. If you want to blame President Bush then you need to Blame the democrats as well.. dating back at least to 1998.

That is what I meant by finger pointing.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting but you seemed to take my post as a personal attack and it wasn't. I apologize if it came across that way. I've advocated for people to gain as much knowledge as possible regarding circumstances they wish to choose a stance on. There is no point in saying you are FOR or AGAINST something when you have half the information.

Which; no offense. I feel you only have half the information as you keep looking to the right to blame as opposed to acknowledging that both parties are responsible for Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay and the processes that occured there.