my bad, right-wing Hollywood   That made my day! All kidding aside. They very proud of their left tilt. Here's an interesting article for you from the Washington Post. I could list hundreds of links for you, but what good would that do, right? You've made up your mind to believe it doesn't exist and I'm not here to tell you what to believe. 

Off topic a bit. - As I've said, every person has their own definition of torture. Tal, personally I believe you're wrong, suggesting what the US has done is torture at all. These few high level prisoners (your average combatant, is given a cursory interrogation), that have knowledge of operations are giving every opportunity to cooperate, the easiest methods are used first. If they CHOOSE to be uncooperative, harsher methods are used, but hardly life threatening. They even have a doctor on hand. These so called "tortures" are mostly psychological. Hell, I've sat on a block of ice in my underwear above the Arctic Circle as part of an initiation and lived in places that wouldn't meet standards for a stateside US prison. I guess if you still believe it, shouting surprise at a birthday party is "torture", the person may have a heart attack and die, this just for a groups amusement. Now if you believe the prisoners cause is righteous, and they should withhold as much information as possible. then I guess getting only 4 TV stations instead of cable in the enemies prison cell is torture.

A friend I served with sent me this LINK today. This is more in line with what I'd like to see for these terrorists (can't call them soldiers, since they don't follow the rules of war, such as no uniforms, hiding among civilians, and purposely targeting them). If you open the link, be sure to read the paragraph below it. And to the terrorists, you have been warned what will happen to you, unlike those folks in the towers on 9/11. It is also good to see what your tax dollars have bought, and why some, even within the US, are jealous of US military power and seek to dismantle it.

There was support and parades for hamas and bad ole hizzy (hizbuallah) during Israel Apartheid Week.  That is when Hollywood had their little parade supporting hamas and other terrorist groups.  Yes, people support al-qaida in this country because they feel that States is the big bullies and that al-qaida is being suppressed.

During this past Israel Apartheid Week, I had a friend tell me that 2 young republicans at San Franisco State U were demonstrating and having an ant-hamas rally while ant-israel protests was going on.  Some people decided to assault the two having the anti-hamas rally.  The police eventually arrested two individual for assaulting the anti-hamas rally participants.  The two were from the campus's Palestinian student club and its Socialist union  now insist not only that the charges against them be dropped, but that the university re-educate its students to ensure that they understand that criticizing Hamas and other genocidal terror groups is a form of prohibited hate-speech.

Bush was in the process of releasing prisoners and shutting it down.  This refutes people that say that Bush was able to do what ever the sheol he wanted.

I didn't interrogate any of them but the fact that most were afraid to go back to their home countries should say something. Not all of them were tortured.  They all got 3 meals a day.  You bring up Iran and Iranian prisons.  I have a friend who was in an Iranian prison. He wrote a book about it.  He was beaten several times a day and actually gotten beat more than he was a fed a day.

Again, I'm willing to say not all prisoners were tortured there.  I am also willing to bank on that 50% of them probably had a better living conditions there unlike in their home country.

I want to clarify something. For most of the part I was not accusing the US of torture. That wasn't really the maingist of what I said - it was rather system oriented. All that stuff about principles etc. I was reacting to Tals statements that "under specific circumstances torture would not be immoral" and tried to show that torture is always immoral as it violates human rights and there are no legal circumstances that allow that violation anywhere, and for good reason. That reason is systeminherent, if you change the pinciples that govern the state, the constitution, you will end up having a political and legal system that is near to a dictatorship or opens to door for one. I had an argument about that with a friend who studied political science and she was rather forceful to explain to me why "Human dignity is inviolable" is the first paragraph of the german constitution and what could happen if that was altered. It is part of legal philosophy and jurisprudence as well and has nothing to do with political ideology, conservative or liberal.

The problem with Gitmo is not specifically that detainees were allegedly tortured there but the legal vacuum that was deliberately created in order to be able to do what would otherwise be illegal, namely detaining someone for years on end without a trial and legal consult. It took a while until that had been granted and military tribunals started.

It does not matter what I was convinced of, it is part of US law that nobody is guilty until proven in a court of law. It should not be the other way around - everybody is guilty until they can prove that they are innocent or everybody is guilty PERIOD.

My post  was specifically about detainees that could not be proven guilty of association with terrorist activity and what to do with them and the problems that might arise from releasing them and a response to The_Peoples_Party's comment. Don't twist it around to paint me into a corner. I never called the US a monster and evil organization and I speculated why someone would be pissed off after being detained in a legal vacuum for a long time, not why a person would become a terrorist in general. What exactly is convoluted about that?

And that is the reason for Gitmo, not because we need a place to "torture", there are plenty of other places without where real torture could be preformed, and nobody to cry about it. If you could transpose WWII events to today, liberals would be fighting to have the 250,000 German and Italian prisoners of war interned in the US to "lawyer up" (Provided they would even let FDR declare war). People outside the US do not abide by US law. You give the rights of a US citizen away too easily. Travelers assume the laws of US when they present their visa's or by treaty with their passports. These thugs are not travelers to the US and are not bound by our laws. I'm all for the rest of the world declaring the laws of the US to be the worlds law, until then these pukes don't qualify.

Interesting idea about the german and italian POW's in the US during WW2. But they weren't accused of being terrorists or criminals, they were held in accordance with the Geneva Convention that regulates rules of war. I never really read the Landkriegskonvention so I am not so firm on the details.

It is sort of a frightening precedence to limit the application of US law only to a select group, or rather select a group that doesn't qualify. For example, you can't just round up illegal immigrants and put them in huge detention camps in Texas or California - it violates the law, doesn't it? Even though I am sure that there are people out there that wouldn't really mind such an approach. If you start once to make exceptions there is no way you can predict where it all might end up. It changes the foundation of the state if you start making exceptions to the law possible based on demands for national security. You can not just allow it in one instance and not allow in others. That is why they had to use Gitmo - to avoid US law. I find an institution basically acting outside any law a bit troublesome, though.

Just a comment on liberal sensibilities here. I'm so sure it would occur that, if it were possible, I would wager money on it...and I don't gamble. Liberals here are that predictable.

Yes we afford so many stupid rights to people that set foot on US soil illegally. I'm not against legal immigration. I have nothing against the people that want to come her. It took me a year and a half and a big stack of cash to get my wife over legally. Why should we welcome people that as a first act break the law? Personally I thing they should be shot dead the minute a leg goes over the fence. It's really the only way to stop it. That or the courrupt Mexican Government patrol their own side of the boarder (Truth is they make money from illegals in the US). Then maybe these people will consider legal avenues. Maybe others can afford to be more generous, but then I don't see a big cruise ship pulling into Mexico with an offer to take them to their countries.

Utemia, I understand your point about laws and that they should be followed.  Both your example here with illegal aliens and terrorist are not playing by the rules. Both are openly (intentionally) breaking laws.

For Islamic terrorist, they DO NOT VALUE life.  With this in mind, how do you stop something like that?  Asian/Middle Eastern thought is that the group is greater than the individual.  The 9/11 hijackers (disregard everything that was thought about Paradise) felt that their sacrifice was for the greater good for all Muslims. Another example is in Asia when a business fails its usually due to the whole business.  Just for reference: Western thinking is the individual is more important than the group.  The individuals rights are more important than the groups rights no matter if it affects the whole group adversely.  In the West, when a business fails its usually due to an individual making a bad decision.  Now, those ARE NOT ALL statements. You can just look Madoff, he was more concerned about himself than the impact that it would have on the whole (being society).

Way back in the day like 1300 or before that, if an individual did something that could affect the whole there would be no thought to what to do to that individual: correct or get rid.

We've gotten to a point were the individual attitudes that I am more important than the group are now really affecting and having an impact on society.  Especially considering there are so many with that attitude.

Nitro Cruiser, I just got off on a tangent to discuss the inherant morality of torture as a technique... I am well aware and I thought I said so, that what the USA is doing to less than 1% of gitmo detaines isn't REAL torture.

It does matter actually, it matters a whole lot. And that principle never applied to POWs, and doesn't anywhere in the world. A nation cannot survive if it does apply it. That doesn't mean assume people are guilty and not look for evidence. But it doesn't mean "court of law" for every enemy combatant, especially enemy combatants who blatantly violate international laws of engagement like the terrorists do.

That's the rub - what do you do in the face of terrorism that disregards the ideals of the constitution? But the answer can't be that you dilute the constitution to match the threat. There has to be another way to counter terrorism and the reasons for its success.

I once tried to make an argument using Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory about learned behaviour to promote the idea that the best way to stop terrorism is education. It wasn't a very thought out approach, and I haven't really studied Bandura besides knowing some broad information about his theory. We learned about him in University in regards to pedagogics and teaching methods. But there has to be something to stop the manipulation of children which are easily molded and grow up to be fanatic followers. Well, it was just a stupid idea and has no chance of success - I know that.

Nations came up with the Geneva convention because there had to be a common ground on how to treat prisoners or war.

Taltamir, one cannot make exceptions for certain people that deny them basic rights because even if they are vicious criminals, they are still persons, and a person has inherent moral rights. It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence and goes back centuries. You can not just ignore it. Those countries that do ignore it on a routine basis are all countries that I never want to go to. It does pose a problem on what to do, but the direction you find acceptable is not going to make things better.

Here you go again calling them "criminals" and saying that they are not enemy combatants. That is the rub, you insist that they are not an orginized enemy force that attacks us, but a group of criminals which should be arrested and persecuted in criminal courts.

You said you are not sure what principle I am referring to? well here it is, a nation cannot survive if it "arrests" enemy combatants and "tries" every POW under civilian courts for their blatant disregard for international laws of engagement.

Even if you call them enemy combatants, they are still persons with undeniable rights. They can disregard international rules of engangement, it doesn't change that fact.

What international laws of engagement do you mean anyway?

No single country on earth gives an undeniable right to a civil trial to POWs, they get a military tribunal. And those "undeniable rights to life freedom and the persuit of happiness" are certainly waiveable since some actions get you the death penalty.

You never actually answered this (only said it doesn't matter):

But those detainees are not recognized as POW's. There is either POW - military - or civilian. Each status comes with rights for the persons so designated. What happened in Gitmo was to circumvent that by saying they are neither and have no rights - which was unconstitutional.

I can't actually see a question in that quote. What didn't I answer?

Really confused by this - I never said that they were not left leaning or lift wing - just that you need to demonstrate that they paraded in support of al-quiada when accusing them of it.

Who and were?  Yes I know that people in the UK support Hamas and there is a section in the left who support them for the reasons you say but the only people who uspport al-qaida are muslim fundmentals.

Supporting hamas does not mean you support al-qaida

Ok, let's waste some space on clarifications, shall we? Here is my entire statement with My mention of Hollywood in bold, otherwise unedited:

"Oh right wait, that is exactly what happened in Guantanamo bay - a loophole exploited to make a concentration camp legal. And hello surprise - alot of people held there were in fact innocent.
The flip side of this statement is true as well.  A lot of guilty individuals were captured. A lot of guilty ones were set free and actually returned to attacking the U.S.

The enemy which has been discussed here: Al-Qaida, does not play by the rules that the West has set up. 

My point is I don't get why people are putting to so much effort to condemning what the States is doing and not condemning what they are doing.  In fact, a lot of left leaning people have parades for them (at least in Hollywood)."

Now WHERE EXACTLY did I say that that Hollywood is having parades for Al Quida? You are aware what a "new" paragraph represents? If you read the sentence prior to the one you chose to dwell on, you'd understand the paragraph was about what the US is doing...them being the people condeming actions of the US. The only mention of Al Quida, is in the previous paragraph, stating they don't play by the rules.

(New thought, hence a new paragraph) Does that clear it up for you, now? 

The general problem is the consequence if you change the rules in regard to a specific group, make an exception for them. You can not justify making exceptions just in regard to Al-Quaida and not to other groups as well that might be deemed a threat. It  potentially opens a floodgate - there will be people who will demand exceptions for whomever they deem a threat or morally inconsequential as well (illegal aliens, homosexuals, sex offenders etc.). If the precedent has been set, you can not really deny that demand. It would change the legal system and the nature of the state.

You would let an outside terrorist organization alter the very essence of government and nullify the constitution because that would be the consequence of classifying terrorists nonpersons.  Are you really willing to go there?

Well OBVIOUSLY, once you allow the waterboarding of foreign terrorists then the next thing to follow would be the evil conservatives using this as precedence to do the same to homosexuals; and next thing you know, all gays are sent to concentration camps! [/sarcasm]

Don't be thick. What I said has nothing to do with conservative or liberal ideology or evil this and that. If you allow it to be legal to disregard human dignity and human rights for whatever reason - however legitimate it might be in that particular case - it sets a precedent. And even murderers and terrorists are persons and have rights as such. Equality encompasses them too - which has nothing to do with sympathizing for them or excusing their behaviour in any way - it is not liberal or understanding or whatever you like to call it.

Laws and rights don't come with a class system. They are either valid or they aren't - everybody is regarded equally in that system.  You don't have certain groups that have more rights than other groups that have no rights. If you allow those rights to be ignored for terrorists, the legal system would basically turn it into a class system - which would makes it possible to demand other exceptions to be possible as well. If you allow it once, you can not NOT allow it another time.

If you are unable to get past the notion that I seemingly want to protect and coddle  terrorists - the apparent reason for your ridiculous sarcasm - you clearly have not grasped how the legal system shapes society and how those principles protect and make freedom and democracy possible in the first place. You are quite eager to get rid of those principles instead. Countries without those principles are all places where the people have no rights in general - it opens the door to an opressive regime and state terror. Not that you want such a system - but if you start diluting the constitutional rights of terrorists you start eroding the foundation of free deomcracy (sorry for the pathos).

I am not being "thick", that is exactly what you said.

Everyone is equally executed if they murder a bunch of people, everyone is equally interrogated if they are a terrorist, everyone is equally incarcerated if the commit a crime.

For there to be any justice you have to separate the innocent from the guilty. Your laws don't become invalid if you punish the guilty and spare the innocent. It does become invalid if you treat innocents and guilty alike (in which case you have no real law; since there is no punishment for any action).

You keep on saying again and again and again the same thing "they might be terrorists/criminals by they still have human rights"

1. Yes we get it, that is your point. You haven't been able to define any terms like justice, or explain why incarceration or the death penalty are ok to apply to a terrorist but not certain interrogation techniques; but ok, that is your point.

2. You assume that waterboarding is torture.

3. You keep on using strawman arguments such as

My ridicule is always specific and not about "coddling terrorists" on the last point was obviously that the suggestion that allowing terrorists to be waterboarded "opens the flood gates" and means allowing homosexuals to be waterboarded (for being homosexual)

4. You also assert that terrorism is a just response to an evil USA as I have shown in detail.

5. You assert that they are "criminals" and not "enemy combatants".

6. You demand they be given rights that exceed international laws (example: try them in civil courts. Their conditions and treatment already exceeds the requirements of the geneva convention).

So far the only backing you have made for any of your ludicrous claims is repeating ad nasium the saying "they are still people with inalienable human rights". You have to do better than that.

pff. You're just stupid if you ignore the basics. I don't care about the terrorists or how they are treated. I care about how making certain things legal would change the legal system, the constitution and thus the state. That is what is at thr heart of the whole matter.

To 2) Yes. I assume that forcing your mind to think that you are about to die a horrible and wet death is torture.

to 3) Obviously, you are not very well versed in the use of sarcasm and irony.

to 4) I made no statement about the reason for terrorism or about the nature about the US.I never called the US evil either.

to 5) I specifically did not use the word criminal as you react allergic to it. Enemy combatants have rights. There can be no such thing as a person without rights. That is unconstitutional.

6) I wasn't that specific actually. military or civilian court both allow the defendant access to legal councel and grants certain rights as the right to defend oneself and the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.

My "ludicous claims" as you like to call it are only the basis of the constitution. I don't think I have to do better than that.

A murderer has a trial and if found guilty will recieve a sentence by the judge - death penalty is not the forgone conclusion.

How do you know someone is a terrorist in the first place - there is quite a legal grey area there which is part of the general problem

If a person commits a crime he is arrested and goes to jail and then the court will arrain that person and decide if bail can be posted and how high that should be. Then there is the trial and afterwards, if that person is found guilty, does that person go to prison. Of course, I have never been arrested so i don't really know, and things in the US might be different than from Germany in that regard.

Equal to 2 of 3 is the trial. Everybodyh as the right to a trial and their dayin court. I am not really sure what else you intended to say?