Yes, holding these men for all this time without charge falls well below the high standards of human rights the Western democracies set themselves. The time has come for them to be charged or released.
But, if the Taleban or al-Qaeda had captured the same number of Americans and British four years ago, how many of them do you think would even be alive today? And, if there were any, how many would have been supplied with Bibles and permitted to practise their Christian faith?
Americans have things of which they should rightly be ashamed but so do all other countries in the world. There are none in any position to cast the first stone.
Ian, don't you realize how far USA has fallen for you to have go to the Taleban or Al-Quaeda to have something to compare it to favorably? That "the land of the free" is still better than one of the worst terrorist groups in the world is hardly impressive.
I don't think that Gitmo is either a credit or a debit to an entire people. It is the illegal and immoral act of individuals in the Administration and military of the United States. Most Americans would think it a bad thing if they considered it through any lens but the illiberal media.
But, if the Taleban or al-Qaeda had captured the same number of Americans and British four years ago, how many of them do you think would even be alive today?
So I'm supposed to be proud that we aren't as bad as the Taleban or al-Qaeda? Can I be ashamed that we set the bar so low?
Better yet, can I be ashamed of ham-fisted PR attempts to spin the death of men left desperate by our refusal to adhere to even basic international law (much less our own legal ideals) that will wind up lowering our international reputation even more, fan the flames of anti-Americanism and, in turn, ultimately result in more American deaths?
Can I be ashamed that Americans placed in high military and diplomatic positions are idiots?
Ian, don't you realize how far USA has fallen for you to have go to the Taleban or Al-Quaeda to have something to compare it to favorably? That "the land of the free" is still better than one of the worst terrorist groups in the world is hardly impressive.
How far has the US fallen and in comparison to what or to whom, bearing in mind that all human institutions are imperfect?
The United States sets the hightest standards in human rights but which states has it fallen behind - Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the Arab nations, the African nations, South American nations?
No one denies that the US has made mistakes, that the current administration has been tainted with corruption or been cavalier in its treatment of the rights of some groups. But, in due course, that administration can be voted from office, ministers or officials that have abused their powers can be called to account before the courts. How many of the states or groups that criticize you can say the same?
So I'm supposed to be proud that we aren't as bad as the Taleban or al-Qaeda? Can I be ashamed that we set the bar so low?
On the contrary, you should be proud that you have set the bar so high, but not surprised that, having set it so high, ordinary fallible mortals fail to live up to it on occasion.
And, yes, you should be proud you are not as bad as the Taleban or al-Qaeda. We do not have so many virtues and freedoms that we can afford to take them for granted.
Better yet, can I be ashamed of ham-fisted PR attempts to spin the death of men left desperate by our refusal to adhere to even basic international law (much less our own legal ideals) that will wind up lowering our international reputation even more, fan the flames of anti-Americanism and, in turn, ultimately result in more American deaths?
I have agreed that the detainees should be released or charged and brought to trial in open court. But if some of those released subsequently go on to kill tens or hundreds or even thousands of innocent people, will you still feel as virtuous?
Can I be ashamed that Americans placed in high military and diplomatic positions are idiots?
Oh, yes, you can be ashamed of that - just as long as you remember that it is not just the US that is prone to that particular failure.
I have agreed that the detainees should be released or charged and brought to trial in open court. But if some of those released subsequently go on to kill tens or hundreds or even thousands of innocent people, will you still feel as virtuous?
Yes.
That, after all, is the whole point of what has been called the Golden Thread of Anglo-American jurisprudence: that it is better to free a hundred guilty men that let one innocent be imprisoned or executed.
It's a hard thing to live up to, but - in the words of Dale Arden - it's one of the things that makes us better than [them].
If we fail at it, we don't have to be ashamed. But we can feel virtuous if live up to it. Sacrificing freedom for safety is a very human thing to do - nothing to be ashamed of - but it's nothing to be pround of, either. It's not what our country was founded on. It's not
. . . you should be proud that you have set the bar so high . . .
Sorry, Ian, but no, I don't think that merely avoiding being the very worst our species can offer is a high bar. Maybe when we get back close to this guy:
I fear you do not fully comprehend the danger of abridging the liberties of the people. Nothing but the very sternest necessity can ever justify it. A government had better go to the very extreme of toleration, than to do aught that could be construed into an interference with, or to jeopardize in any degree, the common rights of its citizens. - Abraham Lincoln, sixteenth President of the United States (1861-1865)
He could recognize "sternest necessity" and he could give the liberties back when it was passed. Will I run risks to live in a free society? You bet I will because, after all, othewise we might just as well surrender to Taliban rule and avoid the hundreds or thousands of deaths that way. Which brings me to another guy we could aspire to, Benjamin Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Oh, and back to the original issue . . . the statements made by those idiots were odious and something all Americans should be ashamed of for letting such people be in positions of power. I can't see how anything you've said really addresses that point.
That, after all, is the whole point of what has been called the Golden Thread of Anglo-American jurisprudence: that it is better to free a hundred guilty men that let one innocent be imprisoned or executed.
I doubt that the victims - or, more likely, the relatives of the victims - would agree that it was better that the guilty be freed.
In my view, the release of a guilty person is as much a tragic failure of the justice system as the conviction of an innocent person. For every guilty person freed there are victims who have been denied the justice that is their due, as well as possible further victims who could suffer as a result.
Personally, I would like the law to allow a third verdict of 'not proven' as is the case in Scottish courts.
Sorry, Ian, but no, I don't think that merely avoiding being the very worst our species can offer is a high bar.
You misunderstand. What I meant was that the US can be justifiably proud of setting standards of human rights that are amongst the highest in the world, obviously far above those of al-Qaeda or the Taleban. Any failure to live up to those standards should be taken seriously but should also be viewed in the context of setting high standards in the first place.
Oh, and back to the original issue . . . the statements made by those idiots were odious and something all Americans should be ashamed of for letting such people be in positions of power. I can't see how anything you've said really addresses that point.
We do not know yet why these men committed suicide so this speculation about their motives was tactless and quite probably defensive propaganda. You sound as if you believe it was the despaerate act of ordinary, innocent men who had despaired of ever being released from an unjust detention, which might, indeed, be the case.
On the other hand, however, we have ample evidence of how members of al-Qaeda and the Taleban are fanatically devoted to their cause. The believe in the value of martyrdom and how such a sacrifice will benefit them in the afterlife. If these men did hold such beliefs then it is quite possible their suicides were intended as an extreme form of propaganda.
Sometimes I'm really ashamed to be an American. But just remember that there is some 300 million of us and the 95/95 rule still applies.
Now if we can just wrest our government away from the 5% . . .
John Pieret wrote:
Why? Because of Gitmo?
Yes, holding these men for all this time without charge falls well below the high standards of human rights the Western democracies set themselves. The time has come for them to be charged or released.
But, if the Taleban or al-Qaeda had captured the same number of Americans and British four years ago, how many of them do you think would even be alive today? And, if there were any, how many would have been supplied with Bibles and permitted to practise their Christian faith?
Americans have things of which they should rightly be ashamed but so do all other countries in the world. There are none in any position to cast the first stone.
Ian, don't you realize how far USA has fallen for you to have go to the Taleban or Al-Quaeda to have something to compare it to favorably? That "the land of the free" is still better than one of the worst terrorist groups in the world is hardly impressive.
I don't think that Gitmo is either a credit or a debit to an entire people. It is the illegal and immoral act of individuals in the Administration and military of the United States. Most Americans would think it a bad thing if they considered it through any lens but the illiberal media.
So I'm supposed to be proud that we aren't as bad as the Taleban or al-Qaeda? Can I be ashamed that we set the bar so low?
Better yet, can I be ashamed of ham-fisted PR attempts to spin the death of men left desperate by our refusal to adhere to even basic international law (much less our own legal ideals) that will wind up lowering our international reputation even more, fan the flames of anti-Americanism and, in turn, ultimately result in more American deaths?
Can I be ashamed that Americans placed in high military and diplomatic positions are idiots?
Thomas Palm wrote:
How far has the US fallen and in comparison to what or to whom, bearing in mind that all human institutions are imperfect?
The United States sets the hightest standards in human rights but which states has it fallen behind - Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the Arab nations, the African nations, South American nations?
No one denies that the US has made mistakes, that the current administration has been tainted with corruption or been cavalier in its treatment of the rights of some groups. But, in due course, that administration can be voted from office, ministers or officials that have abused their powers can be called to account before the courts. How many of the states or groups that criticize you can say the same?
John Pieret wrote:
On the contrary, you should be proud that you have set the bar so high, but not surprised that, having set it so high, ordinary fallible mortals fail to live up to it on occasion.
And, yes, you should be proud you are not as bad as the Taleban or al-Qaeda. We do not have so many virtues and freedoms that we can afford to take them for granted.
I have agreed that the detainees should be released or charged and brought to trial in open court. But if some of those released subsequently go on to kill tens or hundreds or even thousands of innocent people, will you still feel as virtuous?
Oh, yes, you can be ashamed of that - just as long as you remember that it is not just the US that is prone to that particular failure.
Yes.
That, after all, is the whole point of what has been called the Golden Thread of Anglo-American jurisprudence: that it is better to free a hundred guilty men that let one innocent be imprisoned or executed.
It's a hard thing to live up to, but - in the words of Dale Arden - it's one of the things that makes us better than [them].
If we fail at it, we don't have to be ashamed. But we can feel virtuous if live up to it. Sacrificing freedom for safety is a very human thing to do - nothing to be ashamed of - but it's nothing to be pround of, either. It's not what our country was founded on. It's not
Sorry, Ian, but no, I don't think that merely avoiding being the very worst our species can offer is a high bar. Maybe when we get back close to this guy:
He could recognize "sternest necessity" and he could give the liberties back when it was passed. Will I run risks to live in a free society? You bet I will because, after all, othewise we might just as well surrender to Taliban rule and avoid the hundreds or thousands of deaths that way. Which brings me to another guy we could aspire to, Benjamin Franklin:
Oh, and back to the original issue . . . the statements made by those idiots were odious and something all Americans should be ashamed of for letting such people be in positions of power. I can't see how anything you've said really addresses that point.
theRidger wrote:
I doubt that the victims - or, more likely, the relatives of the victims - would agree that it was better that the guilty be freed.
In my view, the release of a guilty person is as much a tragic failure of the justice system as the conviction of an innocent person. For every guilty person freed there are victims who have been denied the justice that is their due, as well as possible further victims who could suffer as a result.
Personally, I would like the law to allow a third verdict of 'not proven' as is the case in Scottish courts.
John Pieret wrote:
You misunderstand. What I meant was that the US can be justifiably proud of setting standards of human rights that are amongst the highest in the world, obviously far above those of al-Qaeda or the Taleban. Any failure to live up to those standards should be taken seriously but should also be viewed in the context of setting high standards in the first place.
We do not know yet why these men committed suicide so this speculation about their motives was tactless and quite probably defensive propaganda. You sound as if you believe it was the despaerate act of ordinary, innocent men who had despaired of ever being released from an unjust detention, which might, indeed, be the case.
On the other hand, however, we have ample evidence of how members of al-Qaeda and the Taleban are fanatically devoted to their cause. The believe in the value of martyrdom and how such a sacrifice will benefit them in the afterlife. If these men did hold such beliefs then it is quite possible their suicides were intended as an extreme form of propaganda.