Well looky here...today it's been reported that the people running Amnesty International were big Kerry supporters. That would explain their Bush-Bashing nonsense of a report last week calling our Islamic terrorist prison in Cuba a Gulag. <br><br>Some fun facts to consider, courtesty of John Podhoretz:<br><br>[i]Number of prisoners at Gitmo: approximately 600.<br><br>Number of prisoners in the Gulag: as many as 25 million, according to the peerless Gulag historian Anne Applebaum.<br><br>Number of camps at Gitmo: 1<br><br>Number of camps in the Gulag: At least 476, according to Applebaum.<br><br>Political purpose of Gulag: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state.<br><br>Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of airplanes.<br><br>Financial purpose of Gulag: Providing totalitarian economy with millions of slave laborers.<br><br>Financial purpose of Gitmo: None.<br><br>Seizure of Gulag prisoners: From apartments, homes, street corners inside the Soviet Union.<br><br>Seizure of Gitmo prisoners: From battlefield sites in Afghanistan in the midst of war.<br><br>
Principles are not laws. Principles are subjective to each person. This country wasn't founded during a time it had to defend itself agains terrorists. But I shouldn't have to point this out, should I?<br><br>If locking up some guy keeps him from blowing up a plane full of people, I'd like you to show me why I should feel bad about it.<br><br>You simply can't paint with a broad brush. Not these days. As it is, the criminal has more rights than the victim. What about those principles? What about the pursuit of happiness. That's not a principle, that's from Declaration of Independence. <br><br><br><br>
I heard yesterday that the gulag quote was from an Amnesty International Bangladeshi spokesman through their London offices. I doubt he campaigned for Kerry.<br><br><br>From yesterday's Hardball:<br><br>WILLIAM SCHULZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA:<br><br>And, Chris, let me make two points about this gulag comment. First of all, Amnesty is a truly global organization. The comment came out of Amnesty London. It was made by the secretary general, who is a Bangladeshi national. And whether we like it or not, whether we Americans like it or not, this is how the U.S. detention system is perceived in much of the world. <br><br>Now, secondly, let me make this point. Of course there are differences in scale between the Soviet gulags, which Amnesty, of course, criticize regularly, between the Soviet gulags and the U.S. detention system. There are differences in size. People are not being starved, to best of our knowledge. They‘re not being denied medical care. They‘re not being forced into labor. <br><br>But there are also similarities. The United States has established an archipelago of detention centers, not just in Guantanamo Bay, but throughout the world, many of which are secret, in which people are disappearing. They‘re being held at...<br><br><br>also:<br><br><br>WILLIAM SCHULZ: Well, Amnesty is concerned that the prisoners at Guantanamo have not been provided an opportunity to plead their case before what the Geneva Conventions require, a competent tribunal, at which they are given an opportunity to know what the charges are against them and to defend themselves. <br><br>We know that prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere in U.S. detention have been mistreated. And I will say this. You know, the administration never thinks Amnesty International is absurd when we criticize Cuba, China, North Korea, as we do regularly. Indeed, the administration, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush, didn‘t think Amnesty International was absurd when it cited our reports constantly on Saddam Hussein in the months to the run-up of the Iraq war. <br><br>Amnesty International is an equal-opportunity offender. And we criticize everybody. Our report here has 149 countries, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, all held to the same standard. <br>
The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are unlawful combatants.....terrorists. Legally, they're essentially on par with spies. <br><br>If we didn't think we could use them to get any information, we would be completely within our rights to line them all up and shoot them. Wouldn't have to worry about anymore abuse complaints then, would we? <br><br>
No principles are not laws. Principles are the characteristics of us collectively that say that no person should be detained without due process, without purpose. Those are the principles that say we don't kill indiscriminately.<br><br>Principles are what differentiates civilized society from terrorists. But I shouldn't have to point this out, should I?<br><br>I know we want the same thing here. I'd like to imagine that the Guantanamo Bay detentions are justified by the horrible deeds that the terrorists inside would want to do. However, that simply is not true. Without having their cases heard in front of any kind of fair trial (whether it is military or not), we don't know who those people are. The military has even admitted that many of the prisoners were never involved in the Taliban or any terrorist organization; they were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.<br><br>You say you simply can't paint with a broad brush. I agree. We cannot continue to detain everyone we feel like without prosecuting the terrorists and freeing the innocent.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
I agree with you on many of your points. <br>In this case it's a matter of weighing the which is more important, the 'better safe' or the 'than sorry'. <br><br>Most of us know about our rights by word of mouth instead of actually looking at the law. Because of that, we don't understand the ins and outs of those rights. <br><br>As for these people in Gitmo, it's a shame that the innocent (if any of them are) should be detained. I'm not insensitive to them. But my princples include protecting my loved ones because nothing has greater value than their lives. <br><br>It's a harsh truth that many share. We have to ask ourselves, which is the greater evil; holding a few innocent people in a detention camp, or freeing future suicide bombers?<br><br>No, these are not easy decisions to make, and I'm glad I'm not the one making them. But someone has to and they're erroring on the side of caution. And that's okay with me.<br><br>
Loc: Hampstead, MD, USA
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>We cannot continue to detain everyone we feel like without prosecuting the terrorists and freeing the innocent.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Right on, but at the same time we can't rely on a judicial system that would potentially allow terrorists to be set free on technicalities. These folks aren't shoplifters or petty crooks, they're out to kill and nothing else... and there lies the problem.<br><br>Law and order is certainly the preferred way of doing things, but one should never be afraid to take the gloves off and play dirty. The kids that fight dirty are usually the ones that win the fight.<br><br>I'm also at odds with people saying foreign combatants should have the same legal rights and liberties as I do as an American citizen. Now I'm not condoning just going around and lobbing their heads off, but if a known terrorists sits and rots in Gitmo for ten years without having his case heard, I'm not going to shed a tear or feel bad about it either. Certainly we should review the cases and make sure innocent people are set free, but the ones that we *know* are terrorists? Let 'em rot for a while.<br><br>
Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!® twitter.com/SgtBaxter facebook.com/Bryan.Eckert
Exactly. Amnesty should be thanking us for treating these jihadist scumbags with the decency that we are.<br><br>We are a nation at war against the most vicious enemy we have ever faced (Islamofascism.) Every last one of these bastards has to be hunted down and executed. To ensure the survival of our republic, we have to do what is necessary. <br><br>If bedwetters ran the world, we'd all be living under dictatorships because it's "not that bad."<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.