Well just to play devil's advocate maybe its not that they aren't terrorists maybe its that they can't PROVE they are terrorists.

The explanation given was that people had information about terrorists, not that those people were themselves terrorists. This might explain the reluctance to put people up for trial; they hadn't done anything.

I wonder if these people are going to show signs of the Stockholm syndrome?

Just like one of the two Aussies that are there. Supposed to be released soon too.

though he may not be free totally. link

[Edited on Jan 12, 2005 8:02AM]

That violates the standard of innocent until proven guilty.
Anyone might be a terrorist. How do you go about proving conclusively that you aren't a terrorist anyway?

That's good news. But there's also the question of the fate of detainees in similar circumstances who are not from "friendly" (coalition) countries.

... and they are free because of the tireless support of Tony Blair. NOT.

There is also the question that can't be asked because nobody can find purchase from which to ask, "what about the kidnap victims disappeared into other places in secret?" with no hope of light of day, subject only to the whim of the likes of Rumsfeld and his ilk? They will almost certainly be exterminated. Their stories will never be told. Are some guilty? - some may ask. I believe the question better asked is >but what if one of them is innocent? what if ONE is?> That's the question Americans used to ask, once upon a time. But then, this isn't America anymore now, is it?

Playing devil's advocate to your devil's advocacy:

"You know, I can't PROVE that the anti-war protestor over there holding the 'Fuck Bush' sign is a terrorist, but I Just know he is. Tell you what, let's just take him in, and hold him until we find something that can stick."

The massive potential for abuse outweighs whatever questionable good could come of locking up people for extended, indefinite periods of time without any evidentiary justification for doing so.

They are innocent untill proven guilty but the gov. isn't.
If you know of a "kidnap victim" please let us know. Don't get me wrong if they didn't do anything they should be set free, but these arn't people pulled over for speeding. They were captured by U.S. soldiers in combat areas. And you know what, If I'm in a crackhouse I will not be suppriesd if I go to jail even if I don't have a pipe in my mouth.

They are enemy combatants not criminals. They should be evaluated as to whether they took part in actions against our forces or terrorist activities. If they have they shouldn't be let go until it's guaranteed safe and that they will not resume their activities.

Pakistan was not a terrorist 'combat area' before 9/11 and I'd suggest it isn't after either. One guy was seized in Zambia so I'd like that one explained away in an 'enemy combatant' context if you have the time.

[Edited on Jan 12, 2005 by WaTed]

They were either captured by U.S. troops or the countries own security/military and I doubt it was when they went to the market. Don't get me wrong there have to be abuses in anything of this size. I just think the overreaction and extreme hyperbole is counterproductive and as inaccurate as anything the "military Industrial complex" puts out.

And if you don't think Pakistan is in some areas "combat areas" then we really sould just let this thread go.

[Edited on Jan 13, 2005 by bones_708]

Mainly political pressure from those fucks at the Red Cross.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

Some areas of Pakistan may indeed have combat taking place (there's been regular border skirmishes for years, but to call this terrorism is really stretching the boundaries of credulity), but that's neither the point, nor what I said.

One guy (Moazzam Begg) was seized from his house in Pakistan and then taken to Cuba where he was detained until now.

You can't just make false situations up to suit your stance when the evidence is to the contrary. Give specific examples of what these people are supposed to have done intead of making unfounded accusations based on assumptions.

Also, I think you need to look up the definition of 'hyperbole' if you're planning on returning.

You said terrorism not me. Read my post I said "combat areas" and who is making up what. I said the detainees were captured by U.S. Troops in combat areas or by the countries own security/military. Is this made up? I also said that I'm sure abuses occur, but obviously I think that some people take sketchy evidence and want to run around saying it proves something. We got different ideas on proof.


(Pronunciation Key)hy·per·bo·le n.

A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.


Exaggeration used for effect.........works for me.
I don't believe that the smart assed tone on your post was necessary. All I did was disagree with you and then stand up for my point of view. I thought that was kind of the idea. I guess not.

Indeed I did, and indeed you did. Looks like we're talking about 2 different subjects with little connection in the Venn Diagram that I'd use to illustrate this thread.

So (correct me if I've still got the wrong end of the stick here) if anyone is in a 'combat area' anywhere in the world then, just by being in that area (or once having been in that area), they can be captured by US troops, or that country's security/militia, and then detained without charge in a limbo outside the rule of international law whilst people justify it by saying things along the line of 'well, there's no smoke without fire'?

Sorry, but that's neither a world that I want to be actively part of, nor a world that I'd ever feel comfortable trying to explain away with semantics.

[Edited on Jan 13, 2005 by WaTed]