America's Top Thirteen Worst Sins Of All Time

[UNI88]

travel - my qualm with gitmo isn't that it's a prison... it's the government rejecting their obligations under the geneva convention for the sake of expedience... prisoners of war are a legitimate thing, and they are granted rights under geneva.

yes, i realize our enemies in this struggle are not inclined to provide the same rights to our citizens and/or soldiers... however, i believe that such a distinction is the reason we are right, and they are wrong.

I'm not trying to justify Gitmo but I do have some questions:
How should enemy combatants in a war on terror be classified? Are they soldiers who when captured should be treated as prisoners of war? Or are they spies who can be treated much differently? They do not wear uniforms; they blend in with the local populace; etc.

My biggest concern with Gitmo was not how they treated terrorists it's that it would appear that a lot of other people were caught up in the sweeps and were just thrown in with the lot and treated harshly as well.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

travel - my qualm with gitmo isn't that it's a prison... it's the government rejecting their obligations under the geneva convention for the sake of expedience... prisoners of war are a legitimate thing, and they are granted rights under geneva.

yes, i realize our enemies in this struggle are not inclined to provide the same rights to our citizens and/or soldiers... however, i believe that such a distinction is the reason we are right, and they are wrong.

I'm not trying to justify Gitmo but I do have some questions:
How should enemy combatants in a war on terror be classified? Are they soldiers who when captured should be treated as prisoners of war? Or are they spies who can be treated much differently? They do not wear uniforms; they blend in with the local populace; etc.

My biggest concern with Gitmo was not how they treated terrorists it's that it would appear that a lot of other people were caught up in the sweeps and were just thrown in with the lot and treated harshly as well.

well, as i understand geneva... a sabateur still has to have a legal process to prove that they were in fact a spy... and as long as that process is open... i don't have a problem with them being regarded that way.

what i object to is intentionally not giving them a status... so that they in essence become un-persons... it's a shame to turn our country in to that... when we are supposed to believe in the rule of law.

[UNI88]

I'm not trying to justify Gitmo but I do have some questions:
How should enemy combatants in a war on terror be classified? Are they soldiers who when captured should be treated as prisoners of war? Or are they spies who can be treated much differently? They do not wear uniforms; they blend in with the local populace; etc.

My biggest concern with Gitmo was not how they treated terrorists it's that it would appear that a lot of other people were caught up in the sweeps and were just thrown in with the lot and treated harshly as well.

well, as i understand geneva... a sabateur still has to have a legal process to prove that they were in fact a spy... and as long as that process is open... i don't have a problem with them being regarded that way.

what i object to is intentionally not giving them a status... so that they in essence become un-persons... it's a shame to turn our country in to that... when we are supposed to believe in the rule of law.

Don't disagree about the legal process but how open does it need to be? The process s/b fair and unbiased (which I don't think it always was under Bush) but I don't think it necessarily needs to be open. I'm not sure I want the government to be required to submit evidence in public that might jeopardize a valuable source.

I agree on the status issue. While I'm not opposed to turning the intelligence community loose and getting our hands dirty to help win the wars on terrorism I also think that the USA needs to demonstrate that it stands for something better and that it walks the walk.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

well, as i understand geneva... a sabateur still has to have a legal process to prove that they were in fact a spy... and as long as that process is open... i don't have a problem with them being regarded that way.

what i object to is intentionally not giving them a status... so that they in essence become un-persons... it's a shame to turn our country in to that... when we are supposed to believe in the rule of law.

Don't disagree about the legal process but how open does it need to be? The process s/b fair and unbiased (which I don't think it always was under Bush) but I don't think it necessarily needs to be open. I'm not sure I want the government to be required to submit evidence in public that might jeopardize a valuable source.

I agree on the status issue. While I'm not opposed to turning the intelligence community loose and getting our hands dirty to help win the wars on terrorism I also think that the USA needs to demonstrate that it stands for something better and that it walks the walk.

i think we are in agreement on that. i WANT my CIA unconventional techniques (car bombing an al qaeda truck for example).

as for the trials... i mean open to international observation - adhering to our standards for a "fair trial"... i don't mean broadcasting it on court tv. i think that can be achieved without giving away sensitive information.

[slycat]

Capn Cat and D1Bs parents conceiving not once but twice.

[Cap'n Cat]

Capn Cat and D1Bs parents conceiving not once but twice.

Wow.


Anyway, great discussion, people. 'Course you're all fcked unless you're a liberal.

[Cap'n Cat]

How about a war against a legal secession that resulted in the deaths of 620,000 people including tens of thousands of civilians, and giving birth to the dangerous and powerful monstrosity known as the federal government? That war has still caused more death than both Vietnam and Iraq even though it was fought with fairly unsophistocated weaponry.

Hmmm. Pretty good, McVeigh.

[slycat]

Capn Cat and D1Bs parents conceiving not once but twice.

Wow.


Anyway, great discussion, people. 'Course you're all fcked unless you're a liberal.

Too personal Cappy. My bad. All in good fun.

[Cap'n Cat]

Wow.


Anyway, great discussion, people. 'Course you're all fcked unless you're a liberal.

Too personal Cappy. My bad. All in good fun.

I meant nothing. It was just an eyebrow raiser.

[slycat]

Too personal Cappy. My bad. All in good fun.

I meant nothing. It was just an eyebrow raiser.

I wanted to make sure the topic didn't get too serious.

[Cap'n Cat]

Talk to the Conkies on that, Sly.

[UNI88]

I think we are in agreement on that. i WANT my CIA unconventional techniques (car bombing an al qaeda truck for example).

as for the trials... i mean open to international observation - adhering to our standards for a "fair trial"... i don't mean broadcasting it on court tv. i think that can be achieved without giving away sensitive information.

Works for me.

[Cap'n Cat]

Re losing the Cold War, the Soviets/Russians led us around by our noses from 1945 until, well, really, now. We spent trillions feverishly answering perceived emergencies which were virtually all hoaxes causing us to compromise our values left and right, while they guffawed uproariously at the stupid Americans. And, dare I say, it was all inspired by religion.

Think of all that money spent and how it could have been spent on poverty and infrastructure and a million other things. Instead, it went to armament, payoffs to undesirable dictators and young American blood spilled in the fertile loam of the plains and hills of Vietnam. And Korea. And Central America.

And, yes, this is mostly a Conk thing, if one looks at it from a 30,000 foot level and across the whole of 60+ years of it. Can't be soft on Communism, said Nixon (Conk). Commies have infiltrated us all the way to the top, said McCarthy (Conk).


The popular perception is that we "won" the Cold War, but a deeper examination might prove the opposite. We were monkeys in the Commie cage.


Take that, Reagan!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Re losing the Cold War, the Soviets/Russians led us around by our noses from 1945 until, well, really, now. We spent trillions feverishly answering perceived emergencies which were virtually all hoaxes causing us to compromise our values left and right, while they guffawed uproariously at the stupid Americans. And, dare I say, it was all inspired by religion.

Think of all that money spent and how it could have been spent on poverty and infrastructure and a million other things. Instead, it went to armament, payoffs to undesirable dictators and young American blood spilled in the fertile loam of the plains and hills of Vietnam. And Korea. And Central America.

And, yes, this is mostly a Conk thing, if one looks at it from a 30,000 foot level and across the whole of 60+ years of it. Can't be soft on Communism, said Nixon (Conk). Commies have infiltrated us all the way to the top, said McCarthy (Conk).


The popular perception is that we "won" the Cold War, but a deeper examination might prove the opposite. We were monkeys in the Commie cage.


Take that, Reagan!

I totally disagree. Our approach, containment and assistance "the Truman Doctrine" did in fact prevent the expansion of communism... and the Soviets were pushing expansion hard... by force under Stalin, and largely by other means under Khrushchev and Brezhnev. You know I'm no conk nutter about this... I don't see commies under the bed... but I'm a well read guy... and I know that Khrushchev especially was influenced by Trotsky, who advocated expanding internationally as aggressively as possible.

The billions spent "fighting" the cold war, while likely being the impetus of dozens of regional wars (most of which IMO would have happened eventually anyway) it also prevented WWIII and was the motivating factor in de-colonization (help a former colony form it's government rather than have a revolution).

[Cap'n Cat]

Re losing the Cold War, the Soviets/Russians led us around by our noses from 1945 until, well, really, now. We spent trillions feverishly answering perceived emergencies which were virtually all hoaxes causing us to compromise our values left and right, while they guffawed uproariously at the stupid Americans. And, dare I say, it was all inspired by religion.

Think of all that money spent and how it could have been spent on poverty and infrastructure and a million other things. Instead, it went to armament, payoffs to undesirable dictators and young American blood spilled in the fertile loam of the plains and hills of Vietnam. And Korea. And Central America.

And, yes, this is mostly a Conk thing, if one looks at it from a 30,000 foot level and across the whole of 60+ years of it. Can't be soft on Communism, said Nixon (Conk). Commies have infiltrated us all the way to the top, said McCarthy (Conk).


The popular perception is that we "won" the Cold War, but a deeper examination might prove the opposite. We were monkeys in the Commie cage.


Take that, Reagan!

I totally disagree. Our approach, containment and assistance "the Truman Doctrine" did in fact prevent the expansion of communism... and the Soviets were pushing expansion hard... by force under Stalin, and largely by other means under Khrushchev and Brezhnev. You know I'm no conk nutter about this... I don't see commies under the bed... but I'm a well read guy... and I know that Khrushchev especially was influenced by Trotsky, who advocated expanding internationally as aggressively as possible.

The billions spent "fighting" the cold war, while likely being the impetus of dozens of regional wars (most of which IMO would have happened eventually anyway) it also prevented WWIII and was the motivating factor in de-colonization (help a former colony form it's government rather than have a revolution).

I'm a well-read guy,too. Soviet and Cold War studies is a hobby of mine. I also realize my claim is not popular, yet, because it remains a largely unstudied phenomena mostly due to the flag waving that still goes on over the Cold War. And, due to human nature which dictates that we hear what we want to hear and we tend to agree with things that make us look good.

I totally disagree with you, but respect your opinion here.