Well, sorry, but I just don't consider terrorists a major and worrisome threat. They're not anywhere near the top ten, twenty, or hundred things most likely to kill me or anyone else currently residing in a western democracy. They are a threat, certainly, but we are responding all out of proportion to their actual magnitude as a threat. This is what they want.

Recognizing that does not mean I am "surrendering".

And by the way, no, we were not at war until after Pearl Harbor was attacked. Congress did declare war thereafter. And from then until the end of the war in 1945, we were indeed at war in every sense. It is an important distinction, whether you think so or not. If you think it is archaic, you are perfectly welcome to contact those members of Congress who represent your particular region and urge them to do something about it.

On a completely different note....have scientists discovered how to clone threads?
See here.

And by the way, I'm not attempting to diminish the deaths of those lost on 9/11. Or in any other terrorist incidents before or since. I cannot imagine what the people who loved them are going through. And I would absolutely like to a) catch those responsible and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law (or just blow them up, whichever works.), and b) take reasonable precautions to prevent such things from happening again.

But I don't think sacrificing fundamental principles is the way to go about that process.

I just lost my appetite. I thought the mere mention of Lemon Chicken would have done it, but you sir take the maggot-infested fruit cake.

you know, mr. lasswell, it's funny you brought up pearl harbor as a comparison to septemtber 11th, considering it's pretty widely acknowedged at this point that roosevelt knew that there would be an attack and delayed informing anyone of it. it was the only way that he could get congress into wwII.

regarding guantanamo, until ANY of those men receive a trial, and are CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW of the crimes with which they are ostensibly accused, they are to be treated in accordance with the geneva conventions, and presumed innocent. that's the law, remember? that's what this country is founded on. as the entity claiming moral superiority here, the responsibility is our to adhere to the moral high ground in our dealings and foreign policy. that's the way civilization works, and it is completely justified for a citizenry to expect a higher standard of action and behavior/policy from their government. when the only defense you can make about something is that someone else did it first, or worse, then you don't have a defense. you're trying to distract from a meaningful argument on the topic, because it's largely indefensible in most cases.

i understand the motivation to distract. it's an effective tool to keep from having to really explain the unexplainable. the only more common tactic among neocons would be to distract and to pepper that distraction with distortions of fact, like your bullshit throwaway comment about abu ghraib. just because no higher ranking officials were prosecuted (by their friends and cronies, i might add) for the abu ghraib abuses doesn't mean they weren't responsible. there is a great deal of documented evidence that there was an institutionalization of abuse and psychological and physical torture by higher ranking officials than the good colonel, including reasonably powerful figures influential in bush's defense policy. hell, bush had gonzales working on legal justification of just this sort of situation.

how many times will you have to be proven to be full of shit before you go back into hiding again, exactly? because i'm sure a few of us have at least a few days in june before things get really crazy, which should be more than enough time to show people who are new or people who forgot that your threads are poorly thought out bush administration propoganda.

Thank goodness for the voice of fucking REASON.

Well in some of the cases the reason they can't be release is because they can't find countries willing to take them. Even their own countries won't take them.

Not to get off topic but that is not widely acknowledged. It is only somewhat speculated and is impossible to prove.

it is highly speculated, and radio and message traffic that weekend prior to the attack suggests that there was, in fact, some kind of warning of attack. now, whether or not you're inclined to believe that military intelligence and communication blew it completely (which acheived what roosevelt wanted but could not convince an isolationist congress to do), or you're inclined to believe that intelligence was very up on things during a time of pronounced international tension and war and that the failure to receive or acknowledge existing intelligence was a calculated move on the part of roosevelt to get congress's ass moving, is up to you. regardless, comparing september 11th to pearl harbor is both a fallacious, emotionally mud-raking tactic and not helpful to patty boy's original jingoist arguments in its ellicitation of governmental conspiracy theory.

blasted new site and its double fucking posting!

I don't doubt that it was a calculated act. Only they know the details, but being held captive without formal charges is absurd and it wouldn't surprise me if this was done to bring further attention to their unlawful detention. Charge the detainees or let them go. Letting them go is certainly a PR move that the U.S. is certainly not willing to engage in so it will be interesting to see how this transpires. They sure can't wait for "the war on terror" to end because that is an unwinable action.

I'm actually ashamed to be a citizen of the same country as people like you, let alone to have you supposedly fighting for my "freedoms". I wish you nothing but ill will, you monster.

And why does the US have a deetntion center in a country that is in no way, shape or form in political terms with us?

Those people in Guantanamo haven't been charged of any crimes, i guess we forgot all about "Innocent until proven guilty" and changed it to "We'll keep you for as long as we want or find some lame ass excuse to charge you with"

Patrick,

I don't like Terrorists. At one time or another, they've shot assault rifles, machine guns, mortars, and even rockets at me. It's not a "hate" sort of dislike, mind you.

Having said that, your post made me think of nothing but Nietzche and his quaint little quote regarding monsters.

In short: I think you need to get a hold of yourself, pal.

The problem with that kind of mindset is that you'll never be proud to call any place home.

In what way do you see national pride as desirable? Can't people support freedom, justice and apple pie without having them wrapped in an american flag?