A day without illegal immigrants...

A very interesting conversation recently:

Transcript
Outlook: Realities of Guantanamo

Mahvish Khan
Law Student, University of Miami
Monday, May 1, 2006; 12:00 PM

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: It's a place of tropical beauty that hides a controversial reality -- the U.S. Naval base camps that house prisoners in the war against terrorism. Many of the men have been in detention awaiting charges for three years or more. Mahvish Khan , an Afghan American law student at the University of Miami, felt so strongly about the situation that she wangled her way into an interpreting assignment with American lawyers traveling to Guantanamo to represent the detainees in their petitions for habeas corpus before U.S. courts. She tells the story of her experiences in her Sunday Outlook article, "My Guantanamo Diary." Mahvish Khan was online from Guantanamo Monday, May 1, at noon ET to discuss her article and the realities of Guantanamo.

My Guantanamo Diary , ( Post, April 30, 2006 )


The transcript follows.

____________________

Mahvish Khan: Hi everyone, I'm in Guantanamo right now and welcome any questions.

_______________________

Athol, Mass.: Can you help me understand why I should care about the treatment of individuals bent on killing me and/or my countrymen. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, Roosevelt illegally placed thousands upon thousands of Japanese in camps during WWII and Wilson put the boots to the press (effectively suspending free-speech) during WWI.

Mahvish Khan: There's no evidence and nothing's been proven that these people actually were killing your children and your families. The whole purpose of having habeus corpus down there is to have a trial and if they're found guilty then lock them up and you don't have to care about people who've committed crimes. We don't know that they've committed crimes and there are laws of war for a reason.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: Would closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp reverse the damage this operation has done to the U.S.'s image abroad? Or is the taint to America's ostensibly pro-liberty and pro-freedom image irreversible in the eyes of the Muslim world?

Mahvish Khan: I think closing this detention center can help redeem some of the unlawful detentions, but what's going on in Guantanamo is abhorrent to the laws of our nation and habeus corpus pre-dates the Magna Carta and having the Guantanamo detention camps is an affront to international and domestic law. So putting an end to the detentions in Guantanamo can only begin to redeem the injustice that has been done by our country.

_______________________

Urbana, Ill.: This open dialogue is great. Since the exposure of the conditions in the camps in the last year, do you know if there have been any improvements in the camp conditions?

Mahvish Khan: It depends on the camp that the detainee is in. Some of them are in complete solitary confinement and don't see the light of day for months. It's often arbitrary which camps they're placed in; some are given a checkerboard in solitary confinement but it's hard to play checkers by yourself. In Camp 4 for example detainees mingle with each other several times a day so there is someone they can speak with but it depends on where they are placed. Some of the Uighar detainees who have been deemed non-enemy combatants are housed in Camp Iguana and have a communal setting and get to watch movies, etc. But those are not enemy combatants and they are still being detained.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: This article puts human face on the Guantanamo prisoners. We are paying huge bounties for the terrorist in poor war-ravaged countries, so it doesn't come as surprise that many innocent end up in our hands. If our government has solid cases against these prisoners couldn't they provide them with speedier trials? How many prisoners have been found innocent so far and released? Once released, one could imagine that many of them await brutal treatment in their own countries, so what does our government do to ensure their safety?

Mahvish Khan: I don't know the numbers of people who have been released; some have been released but it's totally based on military discretion. Some fear that when they are released they are released to their home countries where they will later be imprisoned and some face torture in certain Middle Eastern countries. To my knowledge the U.S. hasn't done anything to ensure their safety upon their release. Regarding the speedier trials, they aren't afforded civilian trials in the sense that we know and the government is fighting what habeus counsel are trying to provide. Currently all they're being given generally is military hearings where they have no lawyer and most of the witnesses they want to call are deemed not presently available because they are outside of the country, they don't have an investigator to gather evidence and the attorneys who are representing the clients feel that their military hearings are not fair and not impartial. On a side note about the bounties, for example Afghanistan has a per capita income in 2005 $288 per year so when the U.S. military drops leaflets offering millions of dollars to pay for an entire tribe's cattle and school. Specifically they were giving $5000-$25,000 to turn in anybody who was Talib or al Qaeda member. In a country with such a low per capita income, that kind of money goes a long way.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Are the Gitmo prisoners and personnel supervised in an effective way, for example, by video camera reviewed by independent viewers, to prevent torture of prisoners?

Mahvish Khan: No, there's no video cameras to monitor if torture is occurring but the interrogations are recorded by the government.

_______________________

Salt Lake City, Utah: I worked as an interrogator at Gitmo for the Department of Defense from 2002 to 2003. I interrogated many prisoners, and recommended many for release to their home countries. My question is, of the 180+ detainees that have been released from Gitmo so far, what compensation have they received for the time they have been incarcerated, kept away from family and friends, and deprived of liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Thank you for your work and dedication to ensuring adherence to human rights and dignity.

Sincerely.

Mahvish Khan: To my knowledge the detainees that have been released haven't received any form of monetary compensation or otherwise for their wrongful detention.

_______________________

Washington D.C.: Ms. Khan - can you answer a question?

Is there a SINGLE inmate/detainee presently - right now, in real-time - at Guantanamo who has actually been determined by ANY tribunal (military or other) to be an anti-U.S.. terrorist actually involved in any attack on the U.S. or U.S. forces?

My understanding is that, at maximum, there have never even been 10% of the Guantanamo detainees even formally accused of any specific action hostile to the U.S. or Coalition forces. A large number seem to have been "sold" to the U.S. by bounty hunters, and some other detainees seem to have been collected entirely by accident.

Thanks.

Mahvish Khan: According to the recently published statistical reports based on unclassified government documents (by Seton Hall University), 86% of the detainees were sold into captivity, 5% are there as a result of U.S. intelligence and there have been no fair trials and impartial hearings to determine whether the allegations that many of these prisoners face are true. While all of the detainees I have encountered have been accused of hostilities against U.S. and Coalition forces, because they have not been allowed to bring forth evidence and have fair representation of their side of the stories, many of these men are being detained on the flimsiest of allegations, often hearsay reports, and when they ask who their accusers are and for the evidence against them they're often told that the evidence is classified, so they have no way of refuting it.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Thank you for the work you are doing and for your excellent article. I also read "Wilting Dreams" by P. Sabin Willett (WP 4-27) and cannot express how ashamed the treatment of these individuals makes me. What in your opinion can the average citizen do to help?

Mahvish Khan: I would say write to your Congressmen and Senators and forward those articles around. It's important for Americans to know whose in Guantanamo and to be informed and to speak out against the injustice that are ongoing in Guantanamo.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I am from Pakistan and completely understand the feelings you expressed in the article. I think it is difficult to comment whether one is guilty or not just by listening to him/her once. No offence, but when its emotional, you tend to think more from heart than mind. It's probably more likely that they did something wrong without any intention to harm the U.S. Having said that, I really appreciate whatever you are doing to help those people getting the fair treatment and justice; it really requires a courage, not many people have. Thank you!

Mahvish Khan: I've seen the military charge sheets, I've read the transcripts of hearings and my belief is that this is not based on emotional attachment but after analyzing the allegations and the complete lack of evidence that the U.S. has on many of these men, I came to that conclusion. For example, Dr. Shah is accused of associating with the Taliban. He spent 12 years in exile in Iran while the Taliban were in power. The Taliban looted his personal property and estate while he was in Iran, only when the Taliban fell did he return to his country and he was arrested two days later. The allegations against him have not been substantiated. This is a man who worked closely with the U.N. to encourage Afghan electoral support. He was in support of the Karzai administration and wanted nothing to do with the Taliban.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The article did a nice job of pointing out that there may be some innocent people in the prison. But comparing to the justice handed out to Americans in all Muslim countries, where an American is very likely to find his head separated from his body without any kind of trial, these people are not getting too bad of a deal and in the end will get their day in court and may be freed (the U.S. has released many prisoners from Guantanamo and no one has been executed yet). There were more than 11,000 terrorist attacks last year by Muslims (about 30 a day). When you pray for these prisoners, I hope you also say a prayer for all terrorists' victims and their families.

Mahvish Khan: Of course my heart goes out to victims of terrorism, but just because there are acts of terrorism occurring around the world doesn't mean we should strip people of their natural right to a trial.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: How were you able to visit Guantanamo? Can any U.S. citizen get permission to go there?

Mahvish Khan: I had to go through a rigorous six month security clearance and my purpose was to travel with the habeus team. Any citizen cannot go to Guantanamo unless cleared by the State Department. Some journalists are allowed to go but have not been allowed to meet detainees.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: In answer to your first questioner -- I encourage them to try reading some of the transcripts from the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, and from the more recent Administrative Review Boards. They are online. Here is the URL: Combatant Status Review Tribunal and Administrative Review Board Documents (U.S. Dept. of Defense)

I am sure if he or she reads half a dozen they will be sure to come across some detainees where they must admit there is doubt about their guilt. I am sure if he or she reads a dozen they will be convinced some of the detainees are completely innocent.

Mahvish Khan: Furthermore, as is also written in my article, I quoted the military presiding officer of Dr. Shah's military hearing and this military judge stated that he "couldn't believe" that Dr. Shah was flown all the way over to Cuba. He said that no matter what accusations somebody brought against him he found it very difficult to believe that he is guilty. And yet he has sat for the last few years in prison.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: The US government seems to make no distinctions between terrorists from any countries--inmates at Guantanamo Bay hail from nearly 50 countries. Why are there no U.S. citizens detained at Guantanamo?

Mahvish Khan: Guantanamo Bay is a place where only aliens and non-U.S. citizens have been held. It is outside of U.S. jurisdiction and that has allowed the administration to create legal loopholes and strip the legal rights of prisoners.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: In what specific respects is the prison illegal and unconstitutional?

Mahvish Khan: The right of habeus corpus is enshrined in our constitution and it forces the jailer to show why he is holding somebody prisoner. It's also unconstitutional in that these detainees have been given no legal recourse, they have not been afforded the right to a trial or lawyers. There's hearsay evidence used against them in their military commissions. In addition to violating domestic law, it violates international law, the Geneva Conventions and it goes against past historical U.S. precedent.

_______________________

Detroit, Mich.: Do you know if there is a time-line for closing of the prison?

From the recently published list of the prisoners, I was surprised that in addition to the "regular suspects" (Afghans, Arabs, Pakistanis) that there are also prisoners from less suspecting countries like China. It seems absurd that Chinese are terror suspects.

Besides the somewhat random list of their country of origin, the common link between the prisoners seem to be that they are Muslim and not white. Do you think that racism is a part of the reason for the horrible treatment that is inflicted upon them?

Mahvish Khan: I don't know if racism is the reason they have been treated the way they are. To my knowledge there is no plan to close the prison; in fact they are in the process of building another detention facility called Camp Six. So in fact it appears as though they're expanding. With regard to the Chinese detainees, those are the Uighars and they've been designated as non-enemy combatants.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: Thanks for your excellent, important article.

About a year ago, when the DoD let a BBC crew interview some of the enlisted staff, they broadcast a short interview with one guard, who made two points. (1) He expressed a sense of helplessness, that the prisoners could throw bodily waste on them, or threaten them, and they had no means to retaliate; (2) "Half of the guys here killed an American soldier".

The soldier's notion was absurd, of course. I checked. About 190 GIs had died in Afghanistan, at that point -- most of them long after most detainees had been captured.

Have any of the staff there expressed similarly misinformed notions to you, on your visits?

Mahvish Khan: I have heard in the past of detainees, I don't know how many or how frequently, throwing feces or urine on guards. But I don't believe that means they are guilty of anything other than that in and of itself.

_______________________

Mahvish Khan: I'd like to thank everybody for your interest in the story. I've enjoyed speaking with you. I hope you continue your interest in what's going on here.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.

[WGJ]

Thanks for presenting us with THE FACTS!
This is the same old conundrum. As a democratic country founded on the rule of law and the rights of our citizens we operate under specific rules. Unfortunately, in order to effectively engage our enemies, who are not under the same self imposed constraints, we are faced with abrogating the moral, ethical and legal position of our society and our laws, which are designed to maintain a reasonable level of order, but which may put us at a possible disadvantage. By abrogating our own moral and legal standards we will ultimately become what we are trying to defeat. The reality is that there is no such thing as a "fair" fight whenever death is the potential outcome. If you remember Apocolypse Now, one of the major themes explored was the Col. explaining that in order to successfully engage in a guerilla war one had to become harder and crueler than the enemy. Unfortunately the conflict of his rational mind with the inherent barbarity of his actions destroyed him.

Our country was designed to facilitate citizens evolving and engaging in self impowerment and wise self rule. Diametrically opposed to that is war. War stimulates the most animalistic, barbaric and irrational aspects of human nature. Ask any combat veteran and if you can get him to even discuss it, you'll hear about the enormous difficulty of reconciling these extremes of human behavior.

There are a number of historic parallels between our gov't now and the fall of Rome. Two of them are greed and corruption in the gov't and constant warfare.

If this happened to you in America:
"How about you get picked up, thrown in jail, and for the next 4 years your friends and family have no clue where you are and if you're even alive? And you don't know what, if any charges have been brought against you, you aren't allowed a phone call, a lawyer might be assigned to you, and no evidence is presented to show why you are in prison."

How would you differentiate us from terrorists? We haven't chopped off any heads yet? How is this illegal behavior any less wrong if it's done to non-citizens?

The Republican party hounded President Clinton relentlessly (several years and $40 million of investigation) chanting the mantra "RULE OF LAW!" as the reason. Even the President was subject to the rule of law. Now somehow, the RULE OF LAW is subject to Bush and the gang's interpretation. And their interpretation is "war is hell so we can do what we want!"
Bush's approach is wrong and even the average citizen's figured it out, in spite of the smoke and mirrors. That's why Bush's ratings are below 30%.
WGJ

[lhopp77]

I am going to say this clearly and with a very clear conscience. I know immediately that it will fit the international opinion of the "Ugly American", but I think it will voice the opinion of a majority of Americans. The exception, of course, will be the far left bleeding heart liberals. Even moderate Democrats will share the opinion.

If only 10 percent of the Guantanamo detainees are actually guilty and DO represent a real threat to the US, I have no qualms at all about detaining all of them until their innocence can be determined. In my opinion NOT ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER'S LIFE is worth turning any of them lose until absolutely necessary.

Bleeding heart liberals and FOREIGN U.S. haters can rant and rave all they want to, but it is not necessarily their lives (or their loved ones) that are in jeopardy.

Lee

[lhopp77]

This is an example of why I said what I did.

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

Lee

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I am going to say this clearly and with a very clear conscience. I know immediately that it will fit the international opinion of the "Ugly American", but I think it will voice the opinion of a majority of Americans. The exception, of course, will be the far left bleeding heart liberals. Even moderate Democrats will share the opinion.

If only 10 percent of the Guantanamo detainees are actually guilty and DO represent a real threat to the US, I have no qualms at all about detaining all of them until their innocence can be determined. In my opinion NOT ONE SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER'S LIFE is worth turning any of them lose until absolutely necessary.

Bleeding heart liberals and FOREIGN U.S. haters can rant and rave all they want to, but it is not necessarily their lives (or their loved ones) that are in jeopardy.

Lee

Interesting logic there. So let's see if I understand your point of view correctly. "In 2004, there were an estimated 1,367,009 violent crimes nationwide." (source: Dept of Justice, FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offen...ime/index.html)

Using your figure of 10%, if the USA were to pick up 13,670,090 of its residents and lock them up, then since most probably at least 10% of them actually did commit some crime, then the USA would become safer for everyone else?

I suppose that might work. Would also provide a real boost to the economy. Need a heck of a lot more jail cells, though, and all the personnel and supporting services required to keep it going. I vaguely recall some other country going that route.... something about gulags... give me some time and it will come back to me...

[lhopp77]

Bipa, as you well know my posts apply ONLY to the Guantanamo terrorists, potential terrorists or Taliban fighters and to nothing else. Logic is not needed or even appropriate as it "might" pertain to anything or anyone else.

By the way--your name is under the FOREIGN haters list as indicated above.

Lee

[WGJ]

We understand that you don't get it. You've already flunked my Logic class. Might as well flunk Bipa's too. Here's a position you can understand:

The NSA happens to monitor a call to you from a terrorist cell member. He miss dialed and got you. He speaks to you in accented English and in code you can't understand. You try to understand him but soon realize he called the wrong number and you excuse yourself and hang up. The terrorist calls back to make sure he's calling the wrong number.
Next crack of dawn they come and get you. You're put into a cell by yourself. Due to a paperwork snafu no one believes you...you end up in Cuba months later.
We'd be able to hear you HOWLING OVER THE INCREDIBLE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL FROM GITMO!!!

If you ever finish Plato's Allegory of the Cave, give Alexander Solzhenitsyn's book, The Gulag Archipelago, a read. It's a long and incredibly depressing story of what happens when you live in a police state run by a sociopath. The slippery slope that leads to such a state is the same old story. Destroyed from within by greed, corruption and convenient stuational ethics, while keeping the populace's attention focused on external threats/issues, such as:
Terrorists! (suprise, suprise)
Arabs with nukes
Arabs with WMDs
Koreans with nukes
Persians with nukes
War
Pandemics
Abortion
Steroids in sports
Homosexuality/Gay marriage
The President's sex life
Nominating unqualified people to positions of responsibility
Outing CIA operatives to discredit an opposing view

You get the picture...the question is:
Is that picture made up of black and white shadows on a wall or, in living color, REALITY?
WGJ

[lhopp77]

WGJ--I should have saved myself a post and put you under the flaming bleeding heart liberal list. Again I stand by what I said. The majority will agree with me about the GITMO prisoners.

Bipa--You assume I am emotional about it? You are wrong I just flatly stated what I felt and am not too concerned about there being any great big hurry to release any more of them. It seems that you and WGJ are the ones that are getting your knickers all in a twist over the "injustices".

I am sure you have seen the poll results over the latest "Bush injustice" about the telephone record analysis. Over 63 percent of Americans had no problem with it and many even said they would not care if their calls were monitored if it help prevent terror attacks on our country. The same response would be given to a poll about GITMO detainees.

Lee

Originally Posted by lhopp77

This is an example of why I said what I did.

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

Lee

Let's take a closer look at that article you've quoted. Here's how it actually starts, which is also the main theme:

Released Detainees Rejoining The Fight

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 22, 2004; Page A01

At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials.

One of the repatriated prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said. In telephone calls to Pakistani reporters, he has bragged that he tricked his U.S. interrogators into believing he was someone else.
...
Mehsud said he spent two years at Guantanamo Bay after being captured in 2002 in Afghanistan fighting alongside the Taliban. At the time he was carrying a false Afghan identity card, and while in custody he maintained the fiction that he was an innocent Afghan tribesman, he said. U.S. officials never realized he was a Pakistani with deep ties to militants in both countries, he added.

"I managed to keep my Pakistani identity hidden all these years," he told Gulf News in a recent interview. Since his return to Pakistan in March, Pakistani newspapers have written lengthy accounts of Mehsud's hair and looks, and the powerful appeal to militants of his fiery denunciations of the United States. "We would fight America and its allies," he said in one interview, "until the very end."
....
-----------------------------------------------------

So... the first question that comes up is whether these guys are fighting US and/or coalition forces as a result of being wrongfully imprisoned, which fits with the honour code most of their tribes follow, or if they have in fact simply returned to their previous fighting status. But even if all of them were in fact fighters to begin with, then that rate of recidivism is actually very low.

Let's take a look at USA rates. On April 19th 2005 in his testimony during a Public hearing, Jack Cowley had the following to say:

"It is widely accepted that nationally 70% of released offenders commit new crimes within three years of their release. It is also understood that over 93% of all offenders in our prisons will be returned to the community."

(Jack Cowley has more than 20 years of experience in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections as an inmate Counselor, deputy warden, warden, and assistant regional director.

Mr. Cowley is currently National Director of Alpha for Prisons and Re-Entry, part of Alpha USA, an interdenominational non-profit ministry. Alpha for Prisons and Re-Entry trains, equips, and connects volunteers to deliver a basic Christianity course to prison inmates and to assist offenders in successfully reintegrating into their communities after release.)
http://www.prisoncommission.org/publ...ess_cowley.asp

So again I must question the logic of your highly emotional stance to the issue of the Guantanamo detainees. The facts just aren't supporting your position.

You will find the following article of interest, since it directly relates to the article that you posted a link to.

To Fight Another Day
The real reason Guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield.
By Phillip Carter
Posted Monday, Oct. 25, 2004, at 3:29 PM ET

....
It's hardly surprising that the men imprisoned at Guantanamo would lie or cheat to earn their release. Any soldier would do the same thing under similar circumstances, including U.S. military personnel—who are honor bound by the U.S. military's Code of Conduct to "resist by all means available" and "make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape." However, it is surprising that sophisticated U.S. intelligence officials would fall for these deception efforts. One detainee who has rejoined the jihad in Afghanistan, Taliban field commander Abdullah Mehsud, bragged that he had concealed his identity as a Pakistani from U.S. interrogators by using a fake Afghan ID and lying to them. A Pentagon spokesman told the Los Angeles Times, "If he fibbed, we've said from the beginning that these guys are masters of deception," and a former Pentagon official involved with detainee issues said that "you can't trust them when they say they're not terrorists." But how daft were our interrogators at Gitmo if they fell for a fake ID? And how much trust can we put in the intelligence gleaned from Gitmo, if the interrogators there fell for whoppers like Mehsud's?
....
Mehsud says he was a combatant long before he ever made it to Guantanamo, and that he simply lied to his captors about it. But others, like an Afghan teenager released in January 2004 only to be recaptured recently as part of a Taliban unit, appear to have been turned into terrorists by their experiences in captivity. This trend is not universal—Yaser Esam Hamdi, the enemy combatant whose case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, appears not to have been radicalized by his experience. Nonetheless, the fact that our incarceration system may be creating and then releasing terrorists to fight against us should concern us. In his infamous October 2003 memo, Rumsfeld asked if "we [were] capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?" The answer to that question remains uncertain. But what we do know now is that our own policy—and our flawed execution of that policy—is helping create terrorists at Guantanamo and then release them into the world.

It hardly takes an expert to say that the way to win the war on terrorism is not to create more of it. But the haphazard, extralegal, credulous policies at Guantanamo have done just that.


Phillip Carter is a former Army officer who writes on legal and military affairs from Los Angeles.

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Bipa, as you well know my posts apply ONLY to the Guantanamo terrorists, potential terrorists or Taliban fighters and to nothing else. Logic is not needed or even appropriate as it "might" pertain to anything or anyone else.

By the way--your name is under the FOREIGN haters list as indicated above.

Lee

Lee, you are dangerously close to crossing the line between discussing ideas and personal attacks. Stop making snide comments about supposed foreign haters, and come up with some hard facts to back up your position that not all men are equal before the law.

[WGJ]

all Lee ever comes up with is ad hominems (bleeding heart liberals) and the totally inane response of a child...the ol' " The majority will agree with me about the GITMO prisoners." Surely, Lee, your Mom asked you the "Lemming Question"..."If all the other kids jump off a cliff are you going to jump too?" Apparently you are.

THE MAJORITY OF GERMANS AGREED WITH HITLER...for awhile.

"Again I stand by what I said." What??!! Ripa just SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED your position. You have NOTHING TO STAND BY! What you've said is yet another NON SEQUITUR. You really don't get it do you? Present some FACTS! Bring some logic and reasoning to the dialogue. Not just your opinion!
WGJ
By the way, is that an "Enemies List" like "Tricky" Dick, "I am not a crook!", Nixon? He would be your political model.

[lhopp77]

Let's get this very straight. I don't believe we have an argument over the Supreme Court decision. We all agree that the court determined that they were subject to our federal court jurisdiction. End of that supposed "argument".

The other posts simply stated my opinion which cannot be rebutted or argued against since it is MY opinion. I just stated it.

Besides--how many Americans are demonstrating in the streets or strongly lobbying for the release of these "terrorists"? Hummmmmm.

Emotional??--not me. While doing these posts I have managed to repair a multimeter with disassembly, soldering, tracked down an electrical problem on a lawn tractor, replaced switches (after lengthy searches for them) and mowed an acre of grass. It seems it is you two that have been on line doing research to supposedly rebut my OPINION.

Lee

PS: Have also cooked supper and am ready to eat it.

[WGJ]

QUOTE:
"Besides--how many Americans are demonstrating in the streets or strongly lobbying for the release of these "terrorists"? Hummmmmm."

Evidently, they're as ignorant and ill informed as you are. Fools who fear the terrorists and still trust their gov't. H.L. Mencken once said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the Amerian public." But Bush's low standing in the polls is an indication the public's coming around. Eventually, when the public figures out their trusting good nature's been used and abused, you know what's going to hit the fan. I suspect that the Rebuplican party's going to reap the whirlwind of crap come Nov. No more smoke and mirrors.
As for you, sir, like I said before, you refuse to do your homework or apply any critical or reflective thinking to these issues. Mowing grass apparently represents the zenith of your cognitive skills. Please keep your OPINIONS to youself until you have the stones to defend them with facts and not useless blather.
"Emotional??--not me." Are you serious? The vast majority of your responses have been NOTHING BUT EMOTIONAL. Your strange vision can't see facts and your mind refuses to address issues. Your various positions held throughout this forum are consistently devoid of reason and are COMPLETELY EMOTION AND FEAR BASED. You're only kidding youself. You called on Electrophil to analyse the media for bias but you haven't analysed anything, proof positive being the lack of any supporting documentation. You just present opinions without being able to present anything approaching a line of REASONING.
YOUR POSITIONS ARE INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT...go water the lawn and quit wasting our time.
Good night and good luck,
WGJ

You've obviously never left the safety of your rural community Lee...good work on the tractor.

Originally Posted by WGJ

QUOTE:
"Besides--how many Americans are demonstrating in the streets or strongly lobbying for the release of these "terrorists"? Hummmmmm."

Evidently, they're as ignorant and ill informed as you are. Fools who fear the terrorists and still trust their gov't. H.L. Mencken once said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the Amerian public." But Bush's low standing in the polls is an indication the public's coming around. Eventually, when the public figures out their trusting good nature's been used and abused, you know what's going to hit the fan. I suspect that the Rebuplican party's going to reap the whirlwind of crap come Nov. No more smoke and mirrors.
....
WGJ

Newest poll shows only 41% of US folks support the NSA's snooping program.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
By David Jefferson
Updated: 11:59 a.m. ET May 13, 2006

May 13, 2006 - Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

President Bush tried to reassure the public this week that its privacy is “fiercely protected,” and that “we’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans.” Nonetheless, Americans think the White House has overstepped its bounds: 57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/