On this day, let us all be proud of America

Likely in many cases the facts are classified info. If so, you, AI, nor some federal judge should not have access to them. LOL. Some of our federal judges are despicable and dangerous to society in some of their decisions. Others are fine. I don't know the particulars here in this case. By and large, I'd wager my safety to the military. The military picks these people up in all manners of situations. When the national security is at stake, suspects must be considered dangerous until cleared. This happens to relative few people, but when they are picked up for Gitmo, be assured there's a reason for concern to America's security. I was 4 years in the US Air Force. If I remember correctly, you're still a kid. What makes you so sure of what you think you know about the military? The military is under the command of the executive branch of the government and the oversight of Congress. It's worked quite efficiently up until now. Time will tell about the future. You've overdosed on the AI koolaid, I see. The Devil's Advocate has adequately responded to this foolish notion of yours and sadly of so many ill informed civilians.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I don't doubt that. But how much effect do the views of individual soldiers have on military policy?It is as an institution and at the command level that I mean when I refer to "the military". But even then things are not so clear-cut.Earlier I wrote: The primary, if not sole, concern of the military overrall will always be the safety of the nation. That is it's job. That is right and proper.But when the methods of protecting the safety of the nation come into conflict with with the very principles upon which the nation is founded it requires someone outside, someone from above, someone with a different perspective than "safety at all costs" to step in and provide the checks and balances. It requires someone to draw the line that divides "safety at all costs" with "justice and principle at all costs".In short the military cannot just be allowed to apply it's narrow perspective unfettered.Gitmo is an example of what happens when the narrow military perspective is allowed to override the wider perspective of principle and justice.But in no way am I suggesting that every individual member of the army, people such as yourself, are either blind to this or necessarily in agreement with all of the politicised decisions made in the name of military necessity.

OK Buz have it your way.But let me ask - Would YOU care if 95% of Gitmo detainees are innocent? Is their imprisonment justified by the other 5%?What do YOU think?What do you think Donald Rumsfeld's answer would be to that question? GWB's answer?When I speak of "the military" and it's discarding of justice in the context of Gitmo I speak of the policies imposed by those who ran the military. Not individual soldiers like DA. I don't know what that means? So Buz you still have not answered this question:Fear and compromise or determination and righteousness in the face of adversity? Which is it to be? because it cannot be both.

He's been using AI for Amnesty International (I mention this for your use of army intelligence in an earlier post). So when he accuses you of drinking their kool-aid (a powdered drink mix in the states that is really quite crappy), he is simply using a derogatory phrase. It means you've bought into positions, even if those positions happen to be right, and the phrase is used in conjunction with orgs or persons the user disagrees with. It also generally means the user thinks you are crazy.I had never heard the phrase used until this presidential election, specifically the Barack Obama kool-aid.

Good. So I guess we can get rid of the 3rd amendment? Thank you for overturning one of the most cherished basis of american law; the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.Go fuck yourself, Buz. I don't see how anyone could hate american freedoms as much as you do, since you seem hellbent on destroying them all in the name of temporary physical security. I don't see how anyone could hate america as much as you do, since those freedoms are what make this country what it is. Go join your buddy bin Laden at the gates of hell.

I think you mean the 2nd. indeed as Ben Fraklin said:

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

It depends on how high up in the food chain they are. This is where personal morality plays into policy. At the E-7 level I am the interpreter of policies and instructions coming down from on-high and disciminating them to my Sailors under me. I can't take away from these policies but I can add on to them. However it also depends on the branch of service, the specific command and the CO and XO's command atmosphere you work in as to how much wiggle room you have. That is an understatement. Many times interpretation and execution of these policies are left to the junior officers and senior enlisted members. However, if the policies and instructions are poorly written than it can have vast detrimental effects further down the chain of command. Totally agree. A soldier, sailor, airmen, marine has to obey the orders of those appointed over him UNLESS it is an unlawful order. So what is an unlawful order? That is where common sense and a knowledge of the UCMJ come into play. If an order is given that CLEARLY violates the UCMJ than it is unlawful i.e. My Lai Massacre in Vietnam where over 100 innocent men, women and children were brutally massacred by an Army company (however it was the corageous action by some members of the Army i.e. a helicopter pilot who tried to put a stop to more killing in the village). Totally agree that with power, comes much responsibility and oversight as well. Unfortunately if you have a less than (fill in the blank) Commander in Chief and one that cannot effictively lead than the military (as well as many other parts of the federal government) will suffer as a result. Also, if you have DOD Secretary that fires and emasculates anyone who disagree with him, than this has a very detrimental affect on the military as well. I am not an expert at Gitmo. I have only known 1 or 2 people stationed there several years ago. As to what is the right decision in this regard it is difficult to say without knowing who to trust in reporting the conditions of the prisoners, etc.As for terrorist suspects, they are technically not POW's according to the Geneva Convention because they are not uniformed members of a state's military. However, I do agree that all prisioners, terrorist or not, have basic inalienable rights (not it is not life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness). One of them is the right to representation and a fair trial. That is one the main tenants on which this country and modern society is founded on. Whether this is being done in Guantanamo, it is very questionable and from what I read and hear there are a lot of barriers put up to a judicially fair trial. This is the primary reason for closing this base. Whether this is right or wrong in the long scheme of things, I don't think anyone can say for certainty. The fine line between protecting the security of a nation and outright tyrany is a fine and tenuous line at best. There are a lot of people in the military like myself in there ideaology. Only if we all work together for the common good and police ourselves, both in the military world and as a civilian, can we correct our past mistakes and make this a better country and world. (Singing Kumbaya) Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

War, Christianity, and Justice for Some. We can be proud of America, but we shouldn't be getting too proud just yet. There are still some who want to make it a mirror image of Iran.Remember the thirteen Jews that were arrested in Iran, ranging from a rabbi to a shopkeeper and a teenager? They were refused visits by family and legal council, weren't told the exact charges against them, their simple religious practices (dietary requirements for instance) were denied and so on. As Buz would have it, we should trust the arresting forces that they were spies. The civilized world agrees that we should presume they are innocent until such a charge can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.It was all OK though - after ensuring that nobody had access to them except court appointed representatives, some of the men confessed. No doubt Buz would be happy with a confession under those kinds of circumstances.

quote:

---

Dani (Hamid) Tefileen: Age 29, merchant, sentenced to 13 years in prison on charges "of cooperation with the Zionist regime, membership in the espionage network and gathering classified information."

​

Asher Zadmehr: Age 49, university English instructor, sentenced to 13 years in prison on charges "of forming illegal group and an espionage network and of cooperating with the Zionist regime."

​

Naser Levy Hayim: Age 46, Hebrew teacher, sentenced to 11 years in prison on charges "of running the espionage network and cooperating with the Zionist regime and recruiting people for the network."

​

Ramin Farzam: Age 36, perfume merchant, sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of "membership in the espionage network and cooperation with the Zionist regime."

​

Javid Beit Yakov: Age 41, sporting goods merchant, sentenced to 9 years in prison on charges "of membership in the espionage network, cooperation with the Zionist regime and making new recruitments to the network."

​

Farzad Kashi: Age 31, religion teacher, sentenced to 8 years in prison on charges "of membership at the espionage network and cooperation with the hostile Zionist regime."

​

Shahrokh Paknahad: Age 23, religion teacher, sentenced to 8 years in prison on charges "of operating a branch of the espionage network in Isfahan and cooperating with the Zionist regime."

​

Farhad Saleh: Age 31, shopkeeper, sentenced to 8 years in prison on charges "of cooperating with the hostile Zionist government and membership in the espionage network."

​

Faramarz Kashi: Age 35, Hebrew teacher, sentenced to 5 years in prison on charges of "membership in the espionage network and cooperation with the hostile Zionist regime."

​

Ramin Nematizadeh: Age 23, merchant, sentenced to 4 years in prison on charges of "membership in the espionage network and cooperation with the Zionist regime."

---

Buz might be happy with that kind of judiciary, but I'm glad that there are plenty of people still around to say "Go fuck yourself, Buz.". Keep up the good work, kuresu.

Well...to be even a bit more specific...when Buz refers to drinking the kool-aid (which I agree is quite crappy), he's relating the drinking of the beverage to the 1978 Jonestown mass suicides/murders, in which the followers of Jim Jones (leader of the Peoples Temple Agriculture Project, located in Guyana) drank a beverage (purported to be kool-aid...but it actually was not) laced with cyanide (along with a few others "additives"). There's no need to go into the details as to why this happened, as it's off topic, but thought you might like to know why Buz uses the term "Drinking the Kool-aid". He's basically accusing you of doing what your told to do by an "Authority figure", and drinking the poison without asking "why", or refusing to think for yourself.

No, I meant the 3rd. The 2nd guarantees the right to bear arms. The 3rd is an odd amendment--no soldiers may be quartered in private residences. I'm not aware of any other country having such a prohibition in their constitution, but then, I'm only familiar with the US constitution.If buz is so fond of the military providing for our safety, why not have them in your very home? Let's station a soldier or two in every home across the country to protect us, eh?Granted, eliminating the 2nd so that only the military had weapons would be a help toward this end.

Franklin was addressing fellow Americans who never ever dreamed of encountering foreign fanatics who were vicious enough to purposely blow themselves and as many others as possible into bloody blobs for the cause of an alleged foreign god. Edited by Buzsaw, : Change wording

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

What a distorted version of history. The brits were quite brutal to the colonists during the Revolutionary War. The signers of the Declaration of Independence has just as much to fear if not more concerning their life and limb as anyone facing a terrorist today. It was their opposition and bravery in the face of everything that made those men great.You never responded to me concerning Gitmo. If the military knows so much more about who should be locked up, why have they already released many innocent people? They have already admitted that they are in fact holding guys who are totally innocent but that they cannot release back into their own countries for ethical reasons because they would be imprisoned there and tortured even more.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Hey DA
I hope I have successfully cleared things up regarding the remarks I made that you found offensive.I am quite a fan of your contributions here at EvC in general and paricularly respect your comments in this topic as someone with direct experience of the military.It seems that we agree on much regarding the necessity of principled leadership, the need for a perspective that is wider than "maximum security at all costs" and on the practicalities that on the ground troops inevitably face.The only remark I would make in direct response to your last post relates to the following: As a general principle I find that if one needs to refer to lawyers definitions of what is or is not technically legal in the face of morally questionable actions - Then 9 times out of 10 those actions are going to be morally lacking regardless of legality.Such legal technicalities are just a mask used to justify the morally unjustifiable.The spirit of the Geneva convention has been breached regardless of whether or not specific actions are technically legal.That is what counts.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I agree with the need for principled and exemplified (leading through example) leadership. I also agree that our government (including our high ranking military) leadership needs to see the big picture of not only how do our actions affect our country but the implications and ramifications that armed conflict has on the entire world stage. The Monroe doctrine and its idealology of limited influence and control over one section of the world no longer applies. This also applies to our economy as well. No longer does unchecked greed affect just our (the US) economic superstructure, but it effects the entire world economy and superstructure as well. We need to take our blinders off and look long term to determine what is in the best interest, not just of our nation, but the world at large. Until we take off the feters of greed, prejudice, and unilateralism we are doomed to repeat the follies of our past history. Again I agree and I think that Dr. Jones earlier quote by Benjamin Franklin fits well here: We have to be very careful we do not slip down the slippery slope of mistaking tyranny for security.This quote by my favorite politician should help us in this regard. and

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

hey kuresu, Trashing American rights, liberties, and freedoms does NOT cause physical security. Just the opposite, Bush administration's actions have greatly increased terrorism.I know you already understand all this kuresu, but just a few things off the top of my head:1. On a personal level: If I kill your family and friends (possibly during a wedding celebration) in "persuit" of "terrorists", will my action cause the survivors to be angry, maybe revengeful? Did I just CREATE more potential terrorists or am I "winning the war on terrorism"?2. Some objective evidence:
2004 American National Intelligence Estimate Report; American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"...the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse"
Council on Global Terrorism; Because of US actions of Guantánamo Bay and the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”3. Al Qaeda Endorses McCain; (Although I predict American foreign policy won't change under an Obama administration), Terrorists LOVE American foreign policies. Do you really believe America's recent support of the Israeli's massacuring Gaza's women and children is winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world?Fact, Bush greatly helped Al Qaeda grow in ways they never would have imagined. It takes a willfully ignorant person to think otherwise.So kuresu, I think we agree, sacrifices weren't made for security. But "Go fuck yourself, Buz" was entirely on the mark.Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklinregards

---

Cogito, ergo Deus non est