🚀 go-pugleaf

 b> Campaigning in New Hampshire, Rudolph Giuliani said, "I listen a little
 b> to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on
 b> defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the
 b> Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be
 b> back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense."

 b> Is Giuliani campaigning _for_ the Democrats?

Obviously, pre-9/11 atitude, lack of torture - um, sorry, scratch that - 
interrogation, etc., is what resulted in 9/11. 

On May 8, 6:45 pm, bearc...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> Campaigning in New Hampshire, Rudolph Giuliani said, "I listen a little
> to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on
> defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the
> Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be
> back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense."
>
> Is Giuliani campaigning _for_ the Democrats?

IOW, we'll be another sitting duck.

In article <1178725701.557011.219510@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, 
larrybud2002@yahoo.com says...
> On May 8, 6:45 pm, bearc...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> > Campaigning in New Hampshire, Rudolph Giuliani said, "I listen a little
> > to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on
> > defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the
> > Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be
> > back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense."
> >
> > Is Giuliani campaigning _for_ the Democrats?
> 
> IOW, we'll be another sitting duck.
> 
Same duck, different day.

-- 
  Keith

In article <Ab70i.7495$2v1.6076@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
 "bat" <bat@bats.com> wrote:

>  b> Campaigning in New Hampshire, Rudolph Giuliani said, "I listen a little
>  b> to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on
>  b> defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the
>  b> Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be
>  b> back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense."
> 
>  b> Is Giuliani campaigning _for_ the Democrats?
> 
> Obviously, pre-9/11 atitude, lack of torture - um, sorry, scratch that - 
> interrogation, etc., is what resulted in 9/11. 

Really? And who exactly did the government have in custody prior to 9/11 
who they could have tortured for info?

 ??>> Obviously, pre-9/11 attitude, lack of torture - um, sorry, scratch 
that
 ??>> - interrogation, etc., is what resulted in 9/11.

 SH> Really? And who exactly did the government have in custody prior to
 SH> 9/11 who they could have tortured for info?

The same kids and taxi drivers they have in custody now. Everybody can see 
that now with all new security measures, trillions of dollars spent and 
hundred of thousands people killed, we were able to catch many real 
terrorists, all of whom were tried in court of law with evidence, and 
convicted; including, of course, all the perpetrators of 9/11. I only forgot 
how many? oh, I guess the sole approximation to that utopia of justice was 
Jose Padilla? 

In article <1178725701.557011.219510@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
 Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 6:45 pm, bearc...@cruller.invalid wrote:
> > Campaigning in New Hampshire, Rudolph Giuliani said, "I listen a little
> > to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on
> > defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the
> > Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be
> > back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense."
> >
> > Is Giuliani campaigning _for_ the Democrats?
> 
> IOW, we'll be another sitting duck.

What are we  now? In what ways are we different than we were in 2001? 
What has been the cost, compared to the loss of the WTC?

In article <Orv0i.1040$mR2.1016@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
 "bat" <bat@bats.com> wrote:

> Everybody can see that now with all new security measures, trillions 
> of dollars spent and hundred of thousands people killed, we were able 
> to catch many real terrorists, all of whom were tried in court of law 
> with evidence, and convicted; including, of course, all the 
> perpetrators of 9/11

What proportion of the people in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (not to 
mention the secret torture prisons in Eastern Europe, Egypt and 
elsewhere) were *properly* convicted of anything? How many convictions 
compared to the number held without charge whom we will eventually have 
to release to nurse their resentment against our nation? What was the 
cost to those who were imprisoned but never convicted of anything? What 
has been the cost to the United States in terms of individual liberty, 
global prestige and world leadership?

You know that last guy who confessed to practically every act of 
terrorism back to the Kennedy assassination? Personally, I don't have 
any confidence at all in his "confession". Do you? Suffering through 
years of veritable incommunicado confinement, filth and mistreatment, 
isolated from family and the rest of the world, surrounded by people 
under no obligation to restrain their hatred of me, I might confess to 
anything-- just like him. This tendency toward false confession would 
be especially true if I knew I was innocent and wanted nothing more 
than to end my suffering swiftly.

So might you too, and any other thinking person sufficiently privileged 
to call themself human.

In article <srhi-86096B.21124309052007@newsgroups.comcast.net>, 
srhi@comcast.net says...
> In article <Ab70i.7495$2v1.6076@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
>  "bat" <bat@bats.com> wrote:
> 
> >  b> Campaigning in New Hampshire, Rudolph Giuliani said, "I listen a little
> >  b> to the Democrats, and if one of them gets elected, we are going on
> >  b> defense. We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the
> >  b> Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation, and we will be
> >  b> back to our pre-September 11 attitude of defense."
> > 
> >  b> Is Giuliani campaigning _for_ the Democrats?
> > 
> > Obviously, pre-9/11 atitude, lack of torture - um, sorry, scratch that - 
> > interrogation, etc., is what resulted in 9/11. 


> Really? And who exactly did the government have in custody prior to 9/11 
> who they could have tortured for info?


Ramzi Yusef?


-- 
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

 b> What proportion of the people in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo (not to
 b> mention the secret torture prisons in Eastern Europe, Egypt and
 b> elsewhere) were *properly* convicted of anything?

as I understand, it's zero. Properly or not. The only attempt - *attempt* - 
I heard about was Jose Padilla, with ridicolus charges first about dirty 
bomb, then planning to blow up buildings using gas stoves or something like 
that nonsense. They eventually tried, but the judge declared mistrial 
because Padilla went nuts after all torture he was subject to. Other than 
that, as I understand, not a single person ever was actually tried for 
anything. That also includes London bombings, liquids, etc.

Of course there were plenty of people who were tried for things like arguing 
with flight attendants on a plane, reacting to TSA abuse during search, 
trespassing out of "free speech zone", etc., etc. Or those who relatively 
recently caused bomb scare panic in Boston by planting some advertising 
toys. I think those are the only terrorists found so far in this "war".

It's mind-boggling that this hysteria is going on and in fact spreads wider 
and wider without a single piece of evidence that the danger actually 
exists. I think any brainwashing that ever took place in Communist USSR or 
China pales in comparison with this.

 b>  How many convictions compared to the number held without charge whom we
 b> will eventually have to release to nurse their resentment against our
 b> nation?

I suspect there are many we will not released ever. Enemy combatants can be 
held indefinitely. Those few who will, will be completely broken, like 
Padilla. No danger here. I'm much more concerned about the resentment from 
God for all my taxes that kill people - even though I'm 99.9% not religious, 
still, even that 0.1% must be enough for me to burn in hell. With all the 
rest of us, of course.

 b>  What was the cost to those who were imprisoned but never convicted of
 b> anything? What has been the cost to the United States in terms of
 b> individual liberty, global prestige and world leadership?

Today's United States are effectively owned by corporate interests and 
certain foreign interests. If you look from that standpoint, you will see 
that things are just dandy, and Bush is actually the greatest president in 
the history. I seriously believe he indeed has made a really huge 
contribution to the history of this country. Of course this contribution is 
not in the favor of American people, but it's not American people who own 
America today. For those entities who do own it, he is really great leader, 
possibly the greatest in history.

regards 

bat <bat@bats.com> writes:

> The same kids and taxi drivers they have in custody now. 

Oh, bullshit.  You come across like the radical lawyers of
the Sixties and early Seventies who took it as axiomatic
that anyone who was black and in prison was a victim of
racism.  Let's apply a bit of elementary reasoning here:
Obviously, the armed forces and the CIA aren't going to 
waste time, effort, money and resources on the capture
and incarceration of people who are innocent and harmless.
If they did, they'd have nothing to gain and everything to
lose, credibility-wise.


> Everybody can see that now with all new security measures,
> trillions of dollars spent and hundred of thousands people
> killed, we were able to catch many real terrorists, all of
> whom were tried in court of law with evidence, and convicted;
> including, of course, all the perpetrators of 9/11.

Terrorism is warfare, not criminality.  Therefore, dealing with
terrorism is properly handled by the Defense Department, not by
the legal system.


> I only forgot how many? oh, I guess the sole approximation to
> that utopia of justice was Jose Padilla? 

Yeah, he's gonna get his at long last.  They're going to toss
that SOB so far back that they'll have to pipe beans to him.

Incidentally, I noticed that the news media eventually dropped
the Hispanic pronuciation of his surname -- "Pah-DEE-ah" -- and
began pronouncing it to rhyme with "chinchilla."  What's up with
that?  It reminds me of the way the newsdroids suddenly started
saying "Pee-no-CHETT" in lieu of "Pee-no-SHAY," or the way that
Slobodan Milosevic's last name acquired an additional "h" every
week or so during the Bosnia/Kosovo thing.



Geoff

--
"Ya'll know the difference between a Florida orange and
 a California orange?  The California orange sucks back."
					 -- flimflam

In article <134jkqa37k7i188@corp.supernews.com>,
Geoff  Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
>bat <bat@bats.com> writes:
>>
>> The same kids and taxi drivers they have in custody now. 
>
>Oh, bullshit.  You come across like the radical lawyers of the Sixties
>and early Seventies who took it as axiomatic that anyone who was black
>and in prison was a victim of racism.  Let's apply a bit of elementary
>reasoning here:  Obviously, the armed forces and the CIA aren't
>going to waste time, effort, money and resources on the capture and
>incarceration of people who are innocent and harmless.  If they did,
>they'd have nothing to gain and everything to lose, credibility-wise.

Japanese internment during WWII?
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6                        http://rule6.info/
                      <*>           <*>           <*>
"Beware of companies that claim to be like a family.  They might not be
lying."  --Jill Lundquist

Aahz Maruch <aahz@pobox.com> writes:

: Obviously, the armed forces and the CIA aren't going to waste time,
: effort, money and resources on the capture and incarceration of
: people who are innocent and harmless.  If they did, they'd have
: nothing to gain and everything to lose, credibility-wise.

> Japanese internment during WWII?


Not even remotely comparable, for the following reasons:

Japanese-Americans on the West Coast were interned pre-emptively as
potential security risks.  They were innocent, but as a group, were 
not believed to be harmless.  That seems silly in retrospect, but 
what's relevant is that it didn't at the time.  Don't make the mis-
take of judging the past by the standards of the present.

The proper analogy to the Japanese-American internment isn't holding
captured combatants in Guantanamo and the like, but the preemptive,
wholesale rounding up and internment of entire ethnic or religious
groups in parts of Afghanistan and Iraq.  That obviously isn't hap-
pening.  Nor would it even be feasible; the numbers are too great.

The mere fact that the inmates of Gitmo et al. had to be captured at
gunpoint belies the idea that their situation is comparable to that
of the WWII internment.

If anything, the internment of Japanese-Americans in the 1940s would
make the U.S. all the more cautious of incarcerating people without
good reason.



Geoff

--
"Ya'll know the difference between a Florida orange and
 a California orange?  The California orange sucks back."
					 -- flimflam

 GM> Obviously, the armed forces and the CIA aren't going to
 GM> waste time, effort, money and resources on the capture
 GM> and incarceration of people who are innocent and harmless.
 GM> If they did, they'd have nothing to gain and everything to
 GM> lose, credibility-wise.

I think you kinda turn things upside down. Primary here is the fact that 
armed forces, CIA, and anything within 100 miles radius from security topic 
have gained immensely since 9/11, in terms of budgets and powers, because 
they are supposed to fight war on terror. Secondary is the fact that they 
obviously have to demonstrate some result, and, given the absence of 
anything real, they don't have any other choice than to lock up taxi 
drivers. It's even hard to blame them. In USSR during Stalin regime, people 
were demonstrating absolutely the same behavior, and gulags were full with 
"enemies of the nation".

If you think that CIA & Co. are spending resources on real terrorists, then, 
again, where are they? where are trials? evidence? convictions? where are 
those who we are to thank for the liquid-related limitations - I guess they 
were planning to blow something up? were they tried? no? why no? don't you 
think that if CIA & Co. can keep those "terrorists" locked up only on 
condition of no trial, not seeing the evidence, etc., then the most likely 
explanation is that there's no evidence indeed? or maybe you have another? 
or perhaps the media that is so happy to feed us all those laughable hoaxes 
like Osama's video tapes, wouldn't report those real trials if any took 
place? 

In article <134jkqa37k7i188@corp.supernews.com>,
 geoffm@lava.net (Geoff  Miller) wrote:

> Let's apply a bit of elementary reasoning here:

That's rich.

> Obviously, the armed forces and the CIA aren't going to waste time, 
> effort, money and resources on the capture and incarceration of 
> people who are innocent and harmless.

Bwahahaha. They shipped PALLETS LOADED WITH BOUND BUNDLES OF AMERICAN 
10s, 20s and 100s INTO IRAQ. PALLETS. LITERALLY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN 
CASH. ON HUGE MILITARY CARGO PLANES. NONE OF THAT MONEY HAS EVER BEEN 
ACCOUNTED FOR.  THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WENT.. AND YOU TRY TO CLAIM 
THAT THIS WAR IS BEING CONDUCTED FRUGALLY? OR EVEN WITH GOOD ACCOUNTING 
PROCEDURES? ARE YOU INSANE?

How's US$10,000 sound to impoverished Afghanis, Pakistanis or Iraqi? 
That was the reward offered for Al Quaeda members. That's how the U.S. 
"captured" the great preponderance of prisoners incarcerated in Gitmo 
and CIA black holes. That's how the military found out who to bust. 
Almost NONE of them were "captured on the battlefield". They were 
rounded up from their homes and businesses or from the streets where 
they lived. There were midnight raids on neighborhoods and in sleeping 
houses, based in info BOUGHT and paid for; info which was accepted 
without question or any evidence whatsoever except the word of the 
accuser. 

How do we know this? Because, if they HAD any evidence, the tribunals 
would have pounded those guys with it and Cheney and Rove would make 
Goddamn sure it was done publically. Those guys wouldn't be sitting in 
Gitmo, they would have been tried and convicted; the evidence would be 
glorifying the Bush Administration and used to advance Alberto 
Gonzales' legitmization of policies of torture, domestic spying and 
restricted liberties. *That's* how we know.

Only an idiot or ideologue couldn't see this.

Even the Pentagon estimates that fewer than 8% of those held in Gitmo 
have any significant military or intelligence value.

> If they did, they'd have nothing to gain and everything to lose, 
> credibility-wise.

Maybe that's why this war has NO credibility with anyone but 
Administration apologists.

> Terrorism is warfare, not criminality.  Therefore, dealing with 
> terrorism is properly handled by the Defense Department, not by the 
> legal system.

Terrorism, at least the way the current Administration uses the word, 
is a phantom. A boogeyman to scare children. An industrialist's wet 
dream.

In real life, the "terrorists" have already won. Both here at home and 
abroad, and Bush and Rove and Cheney and people like you helped them.

> Yeah, he's gonna get his at long last.

His what?

> They're going to toss that SOB so far back that they'll have to pipe 
> beans to him.

For what? The authorities in charge of adjudicating Padilla's case 
already decided, long ago, that Padilla did absolutely NOTHING. The 
only reason he continues to be held is because Bush and Cheney want him 
held in perpetuity. Why? Because they can, thanks to the yellow-bellied 
slime in Congress.

<snipped skanky, irrelevant and increasingly characteristic borderline 
racist spew>

bat <bat@bats.com> writes:

: Obviously, the armed forces and the CIA aren't going to
: waste time, effort, money and resources on the capture
: and incarceration of people who are innocent and harmless.
: If they did, they'd have nothing to gain and everything to
: lose, credibility-wise.

> I think you kinda turn things upside down. Primary here is
> the fact that armed forces, CIA, and anything within 100
> miles radius from security topic have gained immensely since
> 9/11, in terms of budgets and powers, because they are sup-
> posed to fight war on terror. Secondary is the fact that 
> they obviously have to demonstrate some result, and, given
> the absence of anything real, they don't have any other 
> choice than to lock up taxi drivers.

That strikes me as paranoia and conspiracy mongering.  The
results of incarceration are demonstrated by the amount of 
useful intelligence that's obtained through interrogation,
not simply by the number of people who are under lock and key.

Obviously, if the ratio of the volume of useful intel to the
number of detainees is unfavorable, the CIA and the armed
forces aren't going to look good.  Those who provide money
tend to want results in return for it.


> It's even hard to blame them. In USSR during Stalin regime,
> people were demonstrating absolutely the same behavior, and
> gulags were full with "enemies of the nation".

In Stalin's time it was due to the ruthlessness of Stalin and
his regime and the oppressive nature of the Communist system
generally, not because of a need to demonstrate results by
meeting Gulag quotas.  Anybody who so much as thought about
criticizing the System got a ticket to Siberia, as a way of 
maintaining a climate of fear among the populace.


> If you think that CIA & Co. are spending resources on real
> terrorists, then, again, where are they?

In Guantanamo and in those secret prisons that the Left is so
exercised about, of course.  (Why would there be any need for
those secret prisons and offshore interrogations if most of 
the detainees were mere taxi drivers and the equivalent?)


> where are trials? evidence? convictions? where are those who 
> we are to thank for the liquid-related limitations - I guess
> they were planning to blow something up? were they tried? no?
> why no?

You're taking it as a given that such people would or should be
tried.  What many fail to grasp is that these guys are neither
fish nor fowl: they're not criminals, and not being uniformed
members of the armed forces of a recognized nation-state that's
a signatory to the Geneva Convention, they're not POWs.  Hence
the use of vague terms like "detainees" and "enemy combatants" 
to describe them.

That means two things: that there's no generally accepted 
mechanism in place for dealing with such people, and that 
Bush, Rummy-poo et al. got to (indeed, _had_ to) improvise
and make their own rules.  In short, if someone's stashed at
Gitmo, then his butt belongs to Dubya...and he'll remain there
at Dubya's pleasure. 

Realistically, though, prisoners of war have always been 
incarcerated until the end of hostilities.  Why should this
case be any different, particularly in light of the fact
that so many criticize the Bush administration for _not_
treating the Gitmo detainess as POWs?  If these guys want
to wage perpetual jihad, then it logically follows that 
those of them we capture will have to endure perpetual 
incarceration.  They made their own collective bed.  Let
them lie in it.

After all, if we were to let them go, they'd just rejoin the 
fight.  And it isn't *our* fault that they elected to fight as
irregulars, and by so doing, to forego any right to treatment 
as legitimate, conventional POWs.  They can all stay in there
until they rot, as far as I'm concerned.  When they leave Gitmo
or wherever, it'll be feet-first in a cheap pine box.  And you
know something?  That's suits me just fine.

Of course, the international Left thinks this is terrible.  Poor
terrorists; poor, poor terrorists.

Then again, since these are the same waterheads who make heroes
out of bipedal vermin like Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier, 
and who hold candlelight vigils outside the gates of San Quentin
anytime some waste of skin like Stanley "Tookie" Williams gets
drop-kicked into the Great Beyond, I'm not inclined to take their
objections very seriously. 


> don't you think that if CIA & Co. can keep those "terrorists"
> locked up only on condition of no trial, not seeing the evidence,
> etc., then the most likely explanation is that there's no evidence
> indeed? or maybe you have another? 

Indeed I do: national security.  One of the fundamental tenets of
intelligence collection is not to let the other side know what you
know or how you came to know it.  If these guys went to trial, not
just intel, but sources and methods would be compromised.


> or perhaps the media that is so happy to feed us all those 
> laughable hoaxes like Osama's video tapes, wouldn't report
> those real trials if any took place? 

If they would, that's all the more reason not to hold any -- for
the reason given above.

("...media that _are_ so happy...")



Geoff

--
"Your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants." -- E. Blackadder

GM> Obviously, if the ratio of the volume of useful intel to the
GM> number of detainees is unfavorable, the CIA and the armed
GM> forces aren't going to look good.  Those who provide money
GM> tend to want results in return for it.

This heavily depends on the definition of "useful intel"; useful for what?
if we agree that the whole war with Iraq makes no sense and does not benefit
anyone but military contractors, then "useful" means "able to keep the war
going as long as possible".  I don't think it's in the interests of the
people whose taxes pay for CIA.

??>> It's even hard to blame them. In USSR during Stalin regime,
??>> people were demonstrating absolutely the same behavior, and
??>> gulags were full with "enemies of the nation".

GM> In Stalin's time it was due to the ruthlessness of Stalin and
GM> his regime and the oppressive nature of the Communist system
GM> generally, not because of a need to demonstrate results by
GM> meeting Gulag quotas.  Anybody who so much as thought about
GM> criticizing the System got a ticket to Siberia, as a way of
GM> maintaining a climate of fear among the populace.

No, that was much later, in Brezhnev times, and in very modest amounts. In
Stalin times, nobody was criticizing the regime, Stalin was very popular and
beloved by absolute majority of people. But the general political climate
was that the country was "fighting", that there were enemies around, that
the times were difficult, etc., etc., and that required enemies. So the
enemies were produced, and camps were full with people who in fact were
absolutely loyal, but who were accused in various political plots,
completely made up. The political climate was not fear, it was rather "be on
alert", so whoever was feeling uncomfortable with their neighbor, always
could inform the authorities, and the neighbor would be rounded up the same
night as potential political assassin, or plot participant, or anything
else. This was happening every day with millions (not even thousands) of
people. All others, at the same time, were sure that this was indeed fight
with enemies, and that those rounded up were indeed hidden enemies. When
they themselves were arrested little later, they were thinking that their
case was a sole tragic mistake, while everyone else in their camp is a real
enemy. That's human nature, it happened before, it's happening now, it will
be happening again. As soon as there's political opportunity and demand for
incarceration, it always will be satisfied, with the only difference being
the label - enemy of nation, terrorist, whatever. The process of political
persecution is always totally and completely disconnected form the reality,
in all times and all caountries.

??>> If you think that CIA & Co. are spending resources on real
??>> terrorists, then, again, where are they?

GM> In Guantanamo and in those secret prisons that the Left is so
GM> exercised about, of course.  (Why would there be any need for
GM> those secret prisons and offshore interrogations if most of
GM> the detainees were mere taxi drivers and the equivalent?)

The purpose of offshore interrogation is to be able to do things that would
be impossible in a country bound by international agreements. We participate
in agreements, so we must torture in countries that don't. As for the reason
why we must torture - see above. Because we have to satisfy the demand. It
does not mean that we indeed extract more useful information. For example,
shall I remind, all that interrogation so far has not produced one credible
name of someone who did 9/11, or anything else that was not quietly
dismissed little later as another hoax, panic or histeria.

GM> You're taking it as a given that such people would or should be
GM> tried.  What many fail to grasp is that these guys are neither
GM> fish nor fowl: they're not criminals, and not being uniformed
GM> members of the armed forces of a recognized nation-state that's
GM> a signatory to the Geneva Convention, they're not POWs.  Hence
GM> the use of vague terms like "detainees" and "enemy combatants"
GM> to describe them.

So far, we were talking about war on terror and terrorists, right? terror is
defined as an act against civil population in order to advance political
agenda. If so, since you yourself admit that they are not "uniformed members
of the armed force", and since we define our war as war on terror, then all
"those guys" have committed some terrorist acts against population, right?
do you really think they have? one example please? and if they were, why not
to try them, indeed, for those acts?

GM> Realistically, though, prisoners of war have always been
GM> incarcerated until the end of hostilities.  Why should this
GM> case be any different, particularly in light of the fact
GM> that so many criticize the Bush administration for _not_
GM> treating the Gitmo detainess as POWs?

Prisoners of war, i.e. enemy fighters who fight against enemy's armed
forces - agreed;  but we were talking about terrorists, not prisoners of
war. Terrorists strike civil population. This is war on terror. Where are
the terrorists, i.e. those who committed terrorist acts against civil
population in order to advance their political agenda?

GM>  If these guys want to wage perpetual jihad, then it logically follows
GM> that those of them we capture will have to endure perpetual
GM> incarceration.  They made their own collective bed.  Let
GM> them lie in it.

They don't want to wage perpetual jihad. They want us to get out of their
country that we have invaded.

GM> After all, if we were to let them go, they'd just rejoin the
GM> fight.  And it isn't *our* fault that they elected to fight as
GM> irregulars, and by so doing, to forego any right to treatment
GM> as legitimate, conventional POWs.

What do you mean by "irregulars"? even speaking of those who were fighting 
with us in Iraw and whom we actually captured - we have invaded their 
country and killed hundreds of thousands of their people. Naturally, 
everyone who can fight, fights. How is that they are not "regular"? what 
makes "regular"?

GM> Of course, the international Left thinks this is terrible.  Poor
GM> terrorists; poor, poor terrorists.

Would you explain what they actually did so they deserve to be punished.
Specifically.

??>> don't you think that if CIA & Co. can keep those "terrorists"
??>> locked up only on condition of no trial, not seeing the evidence,
??>> etc., then the most likely explanation is that there's no evidence
??>> indeed? or maybe you have another?

GM> Indeed I do: national security.  One of the fundamental tenets of
GM> intelligence collection is not to let the other side know what you
GM> know or how you came to know it.  If these guys went to trial, not
GM> just intel, but sources and methods would be compromised.

It seems you are again seeing the black cat in dark room, even though 
there's no evidence whatsoever that it exists there. Obviously, you have the 
right to believe anything, including the existence of terrorist 
organizations, al-Qaeda, etc., etc.. It's not unusual - those Russians under 
Stalin also believed in thousands of enemies around every corner who were 
plotting against the state and Stalin personally day and night. Though, even 
under Stalin, those "enemies" were promptly tried, in order to maintain at 
least an illusion of due process.

This war, as many other things, ir being driven by the state of our economy, 
that increasingly relies on artificial stimulators in order to function. 
From that perspective, Y2K business and war on terror are coming from the 
same source. Like a drug addict, once we rely on made-up dangers, we can't 
go back, and each next stimulator must be more powerful than the previous. 
After security theme eventually wears out, there will be promptly made up 
the next one - global warning maybe, or something else. Open your eyes and 
learn to see what's real and what's made up.