Originally posted by NaplesX
Thank you for being civil, there is a serious lack of it these days.
1) The statement was my way of pointing out that no-one here knows who it is they are defending. As a matter of fact, no-one knows the true story surrounding that picture. He may very well be a lowly baker, as just stated, but then again he just as easily could be a SH loyalist directly involved in the crimes of that regime, or even a terrorist from Pakistan. Or then again he could be both. Who knows. Maybe a better choice of words was in order.
In our American system of justice, it doesn't matter at all
what these people "might" have been. They are entitled to a certain level of treatment.
That's the whole point of the "rule of law"; it doesn't allow for "feelings" to be acted on, it requires process and evidence.
So IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WE ARE DEFENDING because we are not "defending" individuals but the whole edifice of justice, as ostensibly adhered to by the US.
I'll remind you, again, that "that whole edifice of justice" is a lynch pin in the "American way of life" that we are holding up as the alternative to murderous despots.
By musing about the possible culpability of the abused prisoners, you are in effect at least allowing for the notion that foreign detainees are subject to torture if a local military authority judges them to be "bad guys". There is no other way to read this, it's pretty much an either/or concept. Either you think justice must applied every single time via the rule of law, without recourse to notions of proximate "badness", or you are implying that American justice means little to you, that it is a situational notion that can be discarded if you feel the accused are really really bad.
I think that is a horrible way to think, and I think it does real harm to very fabric of liberty and democracy.
2) I know that many will accuse me of repeating talking points, but this is how I feel about the Iraq war issue:
13 years of sanctions and resolutions, and now we know, corruption, not to mention the constant and unrelenting acts of war and noncompliance, did not give the US or the world much choice. I see that as being fairly patient.
I also feel that 9/11 changes the whole landscape with regard to diplomacy and war. Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. It also removed a possible WMD supplier to the outlaw groups all around there. It also gave the US a strategic stance in the ME, a long standing problem for the US.
Most people on both sides agree that SH an Co. had to be dealt with sooner or later. I am a person that tries to take care of problems asap, so I do not see a problem with the action.
Don't get me wrong, war sucks, but I don't see that the President had much of a choice. I feel that the success that AQ had on 9/11 mobilized, emboldened and motivated terrorist groups and rogue nations around the globe. Bush/US had to show some real strength, Iraq afforded them the opportunity to do so.
This is my thinking on those questions. I make no claim to know anything more than anyone else on these subjects, but this is the way I see things, and this is how it makes sense to me. I could be wrong. [/B]
I dunno, dude. If you can still say things like " Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. " I suppose there is precious little point in debating it any further. It's not like the information is hard to come by.
I will say that there can be a real problem building a world view based on a foundation of lies, since it leads to false conclusions. Such as assuming that the people imprisoned in Iraq are likely "terrorists", since you start with the (false) assumption that Iraq was a haven for terrorists in the first place.
And I think it pretty much goes down hill from there, but we have your posts to look to to decide that.