chris says:

Nobody chose to take issue with my last post. Here it is again, condensed.

When you’re dealing with small numbers of people that are almost assuredly real intel operatives, state backed or not, many rules don’t apply. If they wind up dead or tortured it isn’t a big deal.

When you start collecting people in numbers great enough to require a regular distribution chain other issues(laws and decency) start to intrude.

Every regime has persecuted enemies. When persecution requires an industrial apparatus things get very hinky.

After 9/11 about 1,500 people were rounded up. How many were later proven to be terrorist operatives? None. That’s a major problem.

When the state is very selective about who it targets then much leeway should be granted. If conversely the state grabs a crowd of people because they have ethnic sounding names then extensive judicial interest should be applied.

The Gitmo people are a similar case. Some are actual operatives, some are guys who got paid $5/day to hold an AK, and some are totally uninvolved.

This is a problem of nuance. Sadly we don’t do nuance.

Guyver says:

57, Fusion,

None. Every person taken to Guantanamo was deemed a terrorist and treated like one.

At best you’re getting what the military has allowed to be declassified. It won’t be the whole picture and sometimes what’s released doesn’t tell the whole picture and can be misleading. People “deemed” a terrorist did something to earn that label. The military doesn’t just grab people. That’s a total waste of time for the military not to mention it does nothing to shorten the war. If we truly didn’t care about innocent people, we would have bombed them back into the stone ages.

You are either guilty of a crime or you are not guilty. Other transgressions are inapplicable. If they are guilty of something CHARGE THEM FOR THAT CRIME.

There are rules of engagement (ROE) and the people they apprehended fit the bill. You’re trying to say rules of engagement don’t apply on the battlefield.

Especially when YOU cry about Obama taking YOUR effen rights away by seeing all Americans have health care.

Look having “free” universal health care for everyone is a nice idea. But the first and foremost thing is this is not a power the Federal government is supposed to have. The moment you start opening up the Pandora’s box of giving the Federal government more power at the expense of the states, where do you then draw the line?

Also, you can have health care for all but the trade offs are:

1. Rationing. And before you say this is not true, I have used government-run health care through the VA as well as my parents. It sucks. You go on wait lists, appointments are done months ahead of time, appoints are also canceled and rescheduled more months ahead of time, it usually takes a month for my Dad to get lab results on his bloodwork.

2. Level of care will go down. You have a fixed number of doctors and now you will increase the number of people who demand that doctor’s attention. What rights do the doctors have? Will they be able to maintain their standard of living?

3. Innovation will come to a crawl. Most of the great medical innovations happen here due to the “greed” factor which motivates companies to risk their own capital. If you take that away then no one is interested.

4. Obama promised televised Health Care debates on CSPAN. Instead everything is behind closed doors.

5. The Health Care bill is completely partisan. Republicans have tried but failed to be part of any meaningful discussions.

IMHO, we need to fix what’s wrong with Medicare for those who are already on it while we should focus on better education for our people. Public schools are a joke and the substandard education kids get from those schools sets them up for failure by not making them competitive enough to get into companies which have outstanding health care benefits.

58, Fusion, Thanks for the help.

62, TCC3, I clearly stated that no system is perfect and that some people can slip through the cracks. I never said nor implied that the military is infallible, but I did state that most of those people who got arrested acted in a hostile way toward troops at the wrong place and time. This is similar to someone who refuses to listen to a cops orders.

What I am saying is try and have a little more trust that our military is doing their best to single out the bad guys.

Nothing sucks worse than to come home from combat and hear someone accuse you of trying to apprehend innocent people. It’s not in our interest or desire. Am I say every military person has impeccable character? I’m not saying that. You’ll get a few bad apples and those bad apples are the ones who get a lot of attention… just like power hungry cops or those who use bad judgment in a heated situation.

Mr. Fusion says:

#64, Guyver

That being said, I don’t have a problem with the facts themselves, but what are those facts trying to “prove”?

You said waterboarding isn’t torture. Those that experienced it differ in opinion. In reply you then dispute the source.

Here is a extremely right wing radio jockey being waterboarded to show it isn’t torture. Watch the video and see if he thinks it is fun.