I'm Fine With Indefnite Detention Of Some Detainees

[WeDidIt]

If Obama declares them to be prisoners of war and accords them all the rights of prisoners of war, they can be detained for as long as we fight the war on terror.

[Mari333]

1. war on terror is a bullshit war

there is no such thing. how can you have war on an idea? both of these occupations are more like 'war for corporate oil interests and concerns'. thats the real name for it.

[WeDidIt]

3. So long as we have troops engaged in combat operations

in the nation they were detained within, they are legitimately prisoners of war.

[Dark]

5. Oh fer chrissakes.

"The war on terror" is a real thing. It isn't bullshit. It just got co-opted by Bush as a reason to invade Iraq.

The war against the guys who attacked us on 9/11 and those who support them is a very real thing.

[Mari333]

7. you need to read about the pipeline in Afghanistan

http://www.alternet.org/audits/139983/pipeline-istan%3A_everything_you_need_to_know_about_oil%2C_gas%2C_russia%2C_china%2C_iran%2C_afghanistan_and_obama/

dont drink the propoganda koolaid.

maybe if we quit trying to occupy their countries and steal their resources they wont attack us..a novel idea!

[walldude]

11. Shhh... all that sense you are making

might sink in.

[Michigan-Arizona]

22. Well said & thank's for the link

[Dark]

24. Wow. A pipeline. That's what we went to war over?

That's what you base your antiwar views on. The fact that there was a pipeline in the works? And the fact that they signed an agreement to build a pipeline is all the proof you need to decide that it's a conspiracy to control the entire central asian landscape, not simply a wise economic move?

You do realize that the Taliban, previously, http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=17">had already been in talks to develop this pipeline, and it still ran through Pakistan, one of the U.S.'s 'allies'.

[Mari333]

26. the US had to attack someone

after 9/11. Because we are not a nation that looks in the mirror and asks a simple question..why would someone attack US? maybe because we set policies and puppet govts all over the world and are bullies? no, we have bullshit kneejerk chest thumping macho adolescent reactions.
and yes, we are there for the money. there was never any proof that anyone in Afghanistan was involved concerning 9/11. 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
we created the Taliban we funded them we armed them, as you may recall.
Its about the pipeline. and the money. and protecting corporate oil interests, and protecting a huge military industrial corporation that runs our whole show.

[Dark]

32. It's possible to consider why they attacked us AND hold them accountable at the same time.

Sorry, but if you're actually advocating that we shouldn't have acted militarily in response to 9/11 against an organization and a nation hostile to us, you're just flat out wrong.

No, we're not there for the money. There isn't much money to be gained from Afghanistan, especially since we aren't even purchasing the poppy crop for medicine.

OBL was hiding out there. The Taliban knew it. They were given an ultimatum: hand him over or we come in looking for him. They made their choice, and we invaded.

Like I've already said, the pipline was in the works before we invaded Afghanistan.

[Mari333]

39. I was against attacking Afghanistan and Iraq

and it was a kneejerk response to appease the masses. we created the Taliban, we created our own nightmare with the ME, and we continue creating it as long as we think a military answer is the answer to anything.
the USA must cease to be a military empire or it should learn to expect that people will hate us.
send your own kid over there. and see how you feel about it.
dont argue with me anymore, i cannot stand chickenhawks whether they are on the right or the left. willing to send other peoples kids to war but not their own.

[Dark]

43. I'm not arguing that the U.S. hasn't created its own problems. But I won't argue with you anymore.

All I'm saying is that we we're justified in going into Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Had we had a decent president, he would have helped Afghanistan become a strong, economically independent country.

Then, we would have succeeded in removing terrorism.

[JuniperLea]

35. Please link to story showing where Congress declared war...

Thank you. I'll wait for your reply, but will continue to breath.

[Raineyb]

50. Where is this declaration of war and how does one fight a feeling? n/t

[stray cat]

19. I don't like the term war or terror but there are people who perform acts of terror

and I don't think they have to kill people before they are locked up. We prosecute those who plan murders w/o requiring them to kill people first.

[Raineyb]

51. Yes but they still have to act in accordance to the plan first

Locking people up because we can't figure out what to do with them doesn't exactly fall in line with such an example.

[Obamanaut]

29. I agree with you. Perhaps we could have a War on Deforestation

and detain some of those pesky lumberjacks.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Other then the WOT is nothing more then a marketing campaign.

To hell with rule of law, give it a cool name and we can skirt all the laws we want to.

[WeDidIt]

4. Combat operations are ongoing in Afghanistan

We are engaged in warfare. So long as we are engaged in warfare, detainees detained in said warfare are prisoners of war.

[Arctic Dave]

9. WRONG! We are engaged in an OCCUPATION!

An ILLEGAL occupation at that.

[Dark]

15. No. Afghanistan war = Correct war. Iraq war = Clusterfuck.

Just because Bush screwed up both doesn't mean that they're both wrong. We were right to invade Afghanistan, and shouldn't leave until the country is stable.

[Arctic Dave]

18. Wrong again. We invaded Afgahnistan to bring OBL to justice

because the Taliban wanted proof of his involvment in 9/11 and wouldn't give him up. Occupying country and killing a lot of poeple is not a war.

[Dark]

25. It was a war, and now that we've broken it, we need to fix it.

Sorry, but if you're hiding a terrorist who just engineered the mass murder of 3,000 people, and you don't want to give him up to a superpower, you're asking for invasion.

What should we have done? Simply said "Pretty please with sugar on top?" What if we'd just left them in power? You think they'd simply have said "okay, we forgive you. We won't harbor any more of Al Qaeda"?

"Taliban wanted proof of his involvment in 9/11 and wouldn't give him up."

You do realize Osama blatantly admitted responsibility to 9/11. You aren't a truther, are you?

[Arctic Dave]

31. If we had proof that he did it why didn't we give it to them?

Did we really need to invade the country? We could have sent in Special Ops and killed or captured him on our time. Just like we did with KSM. Instead we've "engineered" the killing of so many more poeple then OBL did and pissed away HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars on top of it. WOW, great plan.
How do do a BBQ, torch the hillside then go buy a pack of hotdogs.

[Dark]

40. Proof:

Osama bin Laden has claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.<80><81><82> The attacks involved the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 11, and American Airlines Flight 77; the subsequent destruction of those planes and the World Trade Center in New York City, New York; severe damage to The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia;<83> and the deaths of 2,974 people excluding the nineteen hijackers.<84> In response to the attacks, the United States launched a War on Terrorism to depose the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and capture al-Qaeda operatives, and several countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation to preclude future attacks.

Are you a truther or aren't you?

[JuniperLea]

36. "War" requires a declaration of Congress...

Please link to same... thank you.

[Dark]

41. Sadly, it doesn't, since the Vietnam war.

The Tonkin Gulf resolution kind of destroyed that.

I actually agree with you, but as current law stands, this is a war.

[Xipe Totec]

13. That is not the definition of war

Only congress can declare war.

A military operation is not a war.

[WeDidIt]

21. We held prisoners of war during Vietnam and Korea

So you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[armyowalgreens]

49. And the war fucking ended...

That is a key component of holding prisoners of war. The assumption that there is eventually going to be some form of resolution.

[Mari333]

14. Uncle Sam wants you since you are so gung ho about it

https://secure.military.com/Recruiting/page1.do?ESRC=ggl_rec_genrec.kw

[WeDidIt]

20. I've already proudly served

I am too old to re-up now.

[readmoreoften]

45. According to my enlisted friends, they're recalling people as old as 60.

A 50 year old woman in naval intelligence was just sent to Iraq--first time ever in a war zone. Doesn't have a language skill that relates to the ME. If you're so gungho, get your ass back in the game.

[alarimer]

28. So it's okay now that Obama is doing it?

I am sick of this fucking double standard. It's wrong no matter who is doing it.

[walldude]

6. Yeah and we are fighting the WOT like the War on Drugs.

You going to keep these people in prison for 30 years? Sorry, but these endless "wars" need to stop. You are not going to stop terrorism by putting them all in prison. That's no different than the neo-con cries of "kill em' all". We need to be attacking the roots not the weeds.

[Taverner]

8. Unconstitutional

And wrong

Simple question: What if they're innocent?

[Dark]

10. It's true that POWs haven't ever gotten trials; They were let go after the war. But it seems that

if we were to just switch the names now, we'd be accused of simply shuffling the waterboarding tables in order to maintain the current condition.

Also, only one out of every 7 people released from Gitmo, supposedly, returned to terrorism according to the Pentagon. That's a hell of a recidivism rate, much better than our prison system.

[leftofthedial]

12. we should do the same thing to all the pot fiends we detain

in the War on Drugs too!

And anyone who fails English class while we're waging a War on Illiteracy.




(This is, in NO sense other than the marketing campaign for fascism, a "war.")

[Junkdrawer]

16. I'm not surprised. n/t

[Toucano]

17. That is immoral.

If they have done something wrong, charge them, try them, and convict them.

Indefinite detainment without trial is a violation of basic human rights.

[gkhouston]

23. I'm not. If they're that damned dangerous, we should be able to prove it.

"Because the President says so" is far too open to abuse.

[alarimer]

27. It is completely unconstitutional and inhumane.

I don't really care that they are not citizens or that they were captured in "war". That war is wrong. And so their detainment is unlawful. But, okay, maybe it is lawful. It is still unlawful to detain them indefinitely. Charge them with something, have a trial and be done with it. Of course all the evidence is tainted and any judge worth his salt would throw out the case.

[Lost-in-FL]

30. Too expensive. Let's just kill them all.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. I'm NOT fine with Indefinite Detention of ANY Detainees

We need to change our primary approach to addressing terrorism back to what it (rightly) was- a law enforcement issue. I'm sure that there may be some circumstances where military force (overt or covert) may be required, however for the most part, we should focus on preventing terrorist attacks, undermining and disrupting the funding and support of extremist groups, and detaining (and trying) individuals alleged to be involved in planning or organizing attacks- basically everything Clinton did that Bush didn't. There's no rationale for a free and democratic society -like we allegedly are- to detain anybody for an indefinite period of time, particularly for a period of time as uncertain and indefinite as the so-called "war on terror". IMHO we need to treat terror suspects THE SAME as we treat criminal suspects, specifically, we need to try them in an appropriate legal setting, imprison them if they're convicted, and release them if found innocent. There was never a need prior to 9/11 to establish and operate an alternative legal system and/or operate under new civil liberties-abridging rules and, despite 9/11 and Bush/Cheney's insistence to the contrary, there shouldn't be any need to do any of those things now either.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. Bogus POWs in a bogus (and lost) "war" against a bogus enemy.

But, what the hell, if it makes the suckers feel "safer" and keeps Lockheed, Ratheon, and Boeing in business and making billions...

[madeline_con]

37. How long have we been at "war on Drugs"?

Same deal here. Bad idea.

[EFerrari]

38. You sure are free with the lives of others. n/t

[1]

42. if michael vick were a detainee, half of du would have no problem with indefinite detention...

[Bluebear]

44. OK Brittney

[readmoreoften]

46. I'm fine with crushing the testicles of some of their infants to make them talk.

What the hell. Might as well be consistent. :sarcasm:

[armyowalgreens]

47. Ummm you cannot and should not detain someone FOREVER

The point of suspending Habeas Corpus during times of war was to keep everything moving instead of halting to try a bunch of people in courts. It was suppose to keep the focus of the mission clear. It was also to keep prisoners behind bars so that they can't go out and rejoin the enemy.

But that was making the assumption that the war would eventually END. And the war on terror will be going on FOREVER. It's not really a war more than a state of perpetual conflict.

If you honestly think it's okay to hold potentially innocent people in detention forever, you are fucking insane.

[varkam]

48. Hey - maybe we can treat drug addicts the same way for as long as we fight the "War on Drugs"

:eyes:

[lunatica]

52. With our war on poverty we can throw the poor in jail. Problem solved

And the rest of us can get jobs keeping them there... Another problem solved.

[Badgerman]

53. NO war has ever been formally declared! FURTHER, and Obama KNOWS this...

Even if the 'War on terror' is a war, then any prisoner detentions MUST by treaty follow certain guidelines set out by the Geneva Treaty and other international agreements. Cheney/Bush formally declared that the Geneva Treaty had no validity in this war. Yet, Obama has NOT reversed that stance and declared openly and publicly that it does in fact apply.

If their is no declared war and the detainees are what the Cheney/Bush regime often called criminals, then they fall SQUARELY in middle of our Constitution and must be treated in a manner that is consistent with that. Again, Obama has reversed or avoided dealing with that issue. Instead he has come out with some murky witch's brew which seeks to co-mingle rules of war and the Constitutional Rule of Law. They cannot co-exist in specific application...either a person is a criminal OR they are a prisoner of war. If they are war criminals then they fally under EXACTLY the same rules and due process applied to the Nazis. And just for information purposes Military tribunals are NOT valid against non-military personnel, except when extreme cases dictate their use on the battlefield.(yes, that last is an opinion...the issue is not settled and has been argued for decades.)

To bring it back on point, Obama MUST be called on to make good on the stances he STRONGLY and unequivocally(or so he said) took while campaigning. If these are not made good, then the only 'CHANGE' will have been in some names on some letterheads and headlines.