<p>I'm sorry Alexandre, I totally forgot to respond to you in my previous post. I see what you're saying, and I'll be honest I don't know all that much about bin Laden's organization during the Cold War in Afghanistan. I just know that the US did fund the organization. My feeling, with the knowledge I do have, is that the organization changed greatly and maybe that is bias based on being from the United States. Was his organization killing civillians "randomly" like was done in 1993 at WTC, at African embassies, the USS Cole in 2001, and September 11?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh well, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist I suppose. Only the most ignorant of people would really buy into those ridiculously simplistic, one-dimentional labels, more often than not used to influence the naive and uninformed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A better example of this may be how the US govt. classifies/ed Kurdish rebels/terrorists in Iraq, Iran and Turkey.</p>
<p>The Kurdish fighters in Turkey are labled terrorists, while those in Iraq (back when Saddam was ruling) and Iran are labled as rebels or freedom fighters.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you have the right to be ABSOLUTELY WRONG. They have NO RIGHTS under the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. [Gitmo detainees] are NOT US citizens therefore they have NO RIGHTS!!
[/quote]
Actually, you're absolutely wrong. The Bill of Rights never uses the word "citizen," only "people" and "persons," though many other sections of the Constitution DO. The Founding Fathers did that for a reason, they did not want the government to repress ANYONE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don't think they have to use the word "citizen" in the US constitution to make it obvious that they are referring to US citizens/residents...</p>
<p>Jarn,. the bill of rights considers Americans as humans and persons. Every"thing"
else is exclusive of such notation. :(</p>
<p>Hops_scout, in Afghanistan, it is difficult to separate Al Qaeda from the Taleban. The Taliban definitely butchered innocent civilians for quite some time. Besides, Al Qaeda is a relatively new term (late 80s, early 90s). When the US was funding those "freedom fighters" back in the early-mid 80s, they were called the Mujahidin. As a group, they were more focused on expelling the Soviet occupyers, so I don't think they targeted civilians. However, to the Soviets, the Mujahidin were terrorists.</p>
<p>^^ What makes you so sure that the taliban butchered people? I mean we dont even have the leaders picture, how on earth can you "predict" what the organization was like in the old days. Yeah they were pretty harsh, but i dont think they butchered any more than we did. =</p>
<p>I have known a few Afghans and they told me some pretty scary stories about the oppresive nature of the Taleban. That is not to say they are any less brutal or murderous than NATO or UN forces, but they are more deliberate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think they have to use the word "citizen" in the US constitution to make it obvious that they are referring to US citizens/residents...
[/quote]
But they're not. That's the point. There is a very clear distinction between the two. At some points, the Constitution uses the word "person," at others they use "citizen" and they use them differently. I think this sentence illustrates my point well enough:</p>
<p>"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"</p>
<p>They're very clearly used differently there - and that's not even in the bill of rights. Keep in mind that the Constitution is, at heart, a legal document and the two terms have very different legal definitions.</p>
<p>FWIW, Wikipedia says that "These amendments limit the powers of the federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory."</p>
<p>Jarn, read your very last comment again. My interpretation there is that it does NOT include enemy combatants. They aren't exactly residents and they aren't exactly visitors-- they didn't choose to be on what could be considered US territory by being held in Cuba.</p>
<p>hops_scout, the point is, civilized nations do not resort to torture.</p>
<p>Doesn't that depend on your definition of civilization?</p>
<p>Couldn't I make a blanket statement like "civilized nations don't eat meat" and have it be equally valid?</p>
<p>
[quote]
hops_scout, the point is, civilized nations do not resort to torture.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said there was torture going on in Cuba by the US? Who said holding somebody in jail was torture? I guess that one is an opinion as well.</p>
<p>Would I rather hold a member of the al Queda organization in a military prison or would I prefer another September 11? What would you prefer? We are at WAR. The prisoners being held at Guatanemo Bay are ENEMY COMBATANTS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who said there was torture going on in Cuba by the US?
[/quote]
Amnesty International? The Red Cross? The United Nations?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would I rather hold a member of the al Queda organization in a military prison or would I prefer another September 11?
[/quote]
Yes! Two options! All is black or white! DICHOTOMY! DICHOTOMY! DICHOTOMY!</p>
<p>k, it's just gonna be conservatives vs. liberals fighting forever on this thread. go run for office or something.</p>
<p>Racinreaver, my comment was not intended as a matter of fact but rather, as what a civilized nation should aspire to. I am sure the governments of all nations, civilized or otherwise, resort to unfortunate means from time to time.
Some people would defend their governments, others won't. Personally, I would hold a government that represents me to a higher standard, which is why I have given up on my own country. </p>
<p>Hops_scout, there is obviously no way of proving what is going on in those prisons, nor do I care. But I am concerned about a comment you made above, which is what really scares me:</p>
<p>"They have NO RIGHTS under the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. They are NOT US citizens therefore they have NO RIGHTS!!"</p>
<p>I hope you don't really believe that. Are you saying that only citizens of a country have rights in said country? Are you telling me that Americans living or travelling abroad don't have rights? I studied and lived in the US for over 10 years. Are you telling me that I had no rights when I lived there?</p>
<p>Furthermore, believing that anything your government does now will prevent another attack is what it wishes you to believe. Unfortunately, there is no way of minimizing, let alone eliminating, the risk of future attacks. The fact that attacks have not taken place in recent years is more likely a result of a lack of desire/restraint on the part of the so-called enemy than on any measures taken by any government. And although I am not sure who started or caused that war you speak of (or if it even qualifies as a war), I am pretty sure it is a war that cannot end through strength of arms alone. </p>
<p>Bottom line, I think laws in any country should apply to all people, citizens and visitors alike.</p>
<p>
[quote]
go run for office or something
[/quote]
I plan on it. ;)</p>
<p>Jarn in '36!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would I rather hold a member of the al Queda organization in a military prison or would I prefer another September 11
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Those who give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin-</p>
<p>Yes, I'd rather have another 9/11 than hold someone in military prison without access to an attorney or the right to confront their accusers or even know what they're being accused of any day. Because this nation is NOT about respecting the rights of only SOME criminals. When we roll over and sign our fundamental constitutionally guaranteed rights away, the terrorists have won. We've come a long way since 1776, when we looked the KING OF ENGLAND straight in the eye, and and said "No, we've had enough. We're leaving." Where's the independent and free spirit that created this country? We won't be silenced by the KING OF ENGLAND let alone some rogue idiot president. The spirit of this country is that we speak the truth to authority, and if those in power don't like it, too bad.</p>
<p>Gitmo is a US naval base. Technically, that's US soil. US embassies are considered US soil. US military bases are considered US soil in foreign countries, that's why they check passports at the gate. Therefore the constitution DOES apply at Gitmo. I don't care what the PATRIOT Act says, the constitution is the supreme law of the land, therefore, any law that conflicts with the constitution and its amendments is null and void.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, I'd rather have another 9/11 than hold someone in military prison without access to an attorney or the right to confront their accusers or even know what they're being accused of any day.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>wow, just wow.</p>
<p>beefs: where were you in civics class? The rights of the accused exist in this country precisely to prevent the incarceration of the innocent. Well, there sit 439 innocent people in prison. Of the 441 so-called "enemy combatants"-euphemism for criminals-in Gitmo, only TWO have been accused, tried and convicted of something. And ONE of the two people plead guilty. This isn't exactly a great record.</p>
<p>I know we're all scared, but the bill of rights, we MUST live up to that. We simply MUST. This is our duty and obligation not only to the founding fathers, but our troops, who FOUGHT AND DIED for these rights. If we want to be grateful to our troops, that's the first step.</p>
<p>And no, I will not run for office. Public office corrupts.</p>