So about those "fair trials" at Guantanamo

Were you going to answer the actual question?

 

Silly me, too. I forgot that ALL Muslims are terrorists. And that the average airport screener can tell the difference between Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.

 

If we're the good guys does that mean:
a). Whatever we do is OK?
b). If we do something wrong, it's for a good reason?
c). We have an obligation to act as if we're the good guys?

I'm picking c.

 

I can't tell how much sarcasm your reply was laced with, but yes, I really do believe what I said. And if they wanted to listen, I'd explain it to whoever wanted to hear. I can understand personal loss and how much anger it must invoke. That said, it doesn't excuse my contempt for them if they choose to sell out our liberties in exchange for security. I'd rather see another 9/11 than see an innocent person imprisoned. I'd rather see America crumble than see it turn into the police state it is already becoming.

 

Sorry, I can't take this seriously. "Police state"? Really?

I would rather never see another 9/11, thankyouverymuch. One was plenty.

 

To answer the first question: As many as it takes.

Bigotry and profiling has absolutely nothing to do with my feelings. I could care less if they're Russian, Malaysian, Muslim, Buddist or Baptist.

 

Unfortunately, we have to be right every time. The bad guys have to be right only once.

 

And if one of those people happens to be you?

I mean, my God. Did you seriously just say that? As many innocent people as it takes? We can lock up as many innocent people as it takes to make sure we lock up the terrorists?

I had a ton of respect for you before that post, man.

Any of the other right-wingers want to take a shot at it? How many innocent people should we lock up to give ourselves the illusion of safety?

 

I don't think we are there yet, but the ball is rolling swiftly in that direction. Off the top of my head: warrantless spying on phone calls/email communications, a "with us or against us" mentality(instead of with an idea or against an idea. people are fallible, ideas aren't), the war on drugs and associated aggression against victimless crimes (one of the highest per-capita incarceration rates in the world), no-knock warrants, police corruption and the "blue curtain".

It's like the frog in the pot on the stove. You warm him up slowly and he's nice and cooked when it reaches boiling. You try to boil the water first and he jumps right out. And in America the ball is rolling faster than it ever has; the water is warming quickly.

And I'm scared to death for another 9/11. Not for the tragedy of the lives lost in an attack of that magnitude (yes, it is horrible, and 9/11 profoundly affected me for the mere destructive/loss of life element), but much much much more for fear over how fast we'd offer up another plate full of liberties to those who could "promise" to protect us.

With all that on the line, I'd still rather see another catastrophe than see us imprison an innocent person. At least we stand a chance to stop them. We've given up all hope in America as a free nation if we continue on a path like we've set up with guantanamo and patriot acts. In my mind, what we are doing down there and trying to do domestically is saying that the terrorists have already won--they got us to trade in our liberties and independence and we've taken many leaps into becoming more like them.

 

No, I don't know. Because that information is classified.

I do know that more than 500 have been released from Guantanamo since we started holding them there, and that we've only had two or three trials (there was the Australian guy a year or two ago, this recent one and maybe one or two others). Many were released into custody in their home countries. Many others were simply released. Whether they were innocent or not, who knows. Again, the details are classified. But for them to simply be released is rather telling, I think.

I do know that approximately 265 inmates are there now, of whom the government plans to charge approximately 80. What that means about the other 185, I don't know. You'd think if they were guilty of something, there'd be a move to try, convict and punish them.

 

Before we get into hysterics, let's review:

A military tribunal ruled that this man should only serve 66 months. Again, a jury of military men (and women?).

How can anyone argue against their decision?

And this:

. . .is just jaw-dropping ridiculous. You're actually choosing to spit on the constitution instead of putting faith in it. Sad.

 

I just accept that a free society is inherently more dangerous and I live with it. It's a trade-off that I'm happy to make.