Guantanamo Redux

[steelish]

when you act like the enemy, you become the enemy. i am all for a few adjustments to the civil code to make it easier to get the information we need- and i think that we're getting more than enough for our safety under the original laws- but we're on a slippery slope. In Western Australia our government has introduced new search and seizure laws on the basis that it has worked against the terrorists, it should also work against bikies- it worked against the bikies so we can try it on the hooligans who carry on cranky on Friday and Saturday night. New Year's Eve we had 2000 'Incidents' and 250 arrests- about 20 times more than last year with fewer public events. where does it stop?

As you said, only governments can bring actions under the conventions and protocol.

My point is that NO ONE knows what they would do in a given situation unless that specific situation occurs. It's easy to step up and be righteous when you're not the one faced with such choices.

[Bren122]

My point is that NO ONE knows what they would do in a given situation unless that specific situation occurs. It's easy to step up and be righteous when you're not the one faced with such choices.

we owe it to our history to at least act like we have learned something from it. if we do not challenge our government at every threat to our liberties, whether it affects us directly or not, we will find ourselves serving a government that thinks it knows what is best for us even if we do not. liberty must be defined that it can be grasped, but it should never be defined by the needs of the moment. government should be for the needs of the people, not for the people to serve the needs of government.

your argument depends on the acceptance that an emotional response is the best response- that relying on outrage or anger or desperation is a suitable justification for any action. we are more than a bundle of emotions; we have a soul that lets us aspire to be better than we are and certainly better than our enemies.

waterboarding, sleep deprivation and so on are torments, not torture. i have no problem with them. others obviously do. but there can not be a carte blanche allowance for the government or its representatives to do as they please in order to protect society because we can never be sure where it will end.

[steelish]

your argument depends on the acceptance that an emotional response is the best response- that relying on outrage or anger or desperation is a suitable justification for any action.

Absolutely not. My argument is that we simply do not know how we will respond to ANY given situation unless we are actually confronted with it and I was honest enough to say that I truly do not know how I would react in that situation. I would love to be altruistic and say that I would be "above" my enemy...but I cannot truly say that, since I have never been confronted with that. However, that does not apply only to the scenario I outlined. It also applies to the difficult decisions that our government is throwing at us right now. (Health Care, Cap and Trade, and our current administration in the White House) How each individual will respond to this and either defend the United States as the country it was created to be, or vote in favor of moving forward and transforming it into a different sort of government is also something I was alluding to.

For so many years now the majority of Americans sat back and allowed the backstabbing political arena to sway their votes, rather than actually looking into candidates issues, what they stood for, viewing their track record and conduct in whatever capacity they worked before and voting accordingly. We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents, rather than being sheep led by politicians...and this includes voicing our concerns with what happened at Gitmo. Rather than debate it amongst ourselves, we need to let our politicians know how we feel through emails and phone calls. THAT is the only way something will be done decisively with citizen input.

[DuncanONeil]

"We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents"
The sentiment is correct! But should the statement not be "return to being knowledgeable constituents"?
Just a thought.

Absolutely not. My argument is that we simply do not know how we will respond to ANY given situation unless we are actually confronted with it and I was honest enough to say that I truly do not know how I would react in that situation. I would love to be altruistic and say that I would be "above" my enemy...but I cannot truly say that, since I have never been confronted with that. However, that does not apply only to the scenario I outlined. It also applies to the difficult decisions that our government is throwing at us right now. (Health Care, Cap and Trade, and our current administration in the White House) How each individual will respond to this and either defend the United States as the country it was created to be, or vote in favor of moving forward and transforming it into a different sort of government is also something I was alluding to.

For so many years now the majority of Americans sat back and allowed the backstabbing political arena to sway their votes, rather than actually looking into candidates issues, what they stood for, viewing their track record and conduct in whatever capacity they worked before and voting accordingly. We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents, rather than being sheep led by politicians...and this includes voicing our concerns with what happened at Gitmo. Rather than debate it amongst ourselves, we need to let our politicians know how we feel through emails and phone calls. THAT is the only way something will be done decisively with citizen input.

[steelish]

"We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents"
The sentiment is correct! But should the statement not be "return to being knowledgeable constituents"?
Just a thought.

*smiles*

Yes, that should be the statement, unfortunately, it doesn't apply to everyone. Most of America trusted their politicians to do the job they were elected to do. NOT further their own agenda via lobbyists

[DuncanONeil]

*smiles*

Yes, that should be the statement, unfortunately, it doesn't apply to everyone. Most of America trusted their politicians to do the job they were elected to do. NOT further their own agenda via lobbyists

Maybe what we have is 535 lobbyists that are being paid by the budget. I mean since they are insisting on doing what such a small portion of the people want! Isn't that what a lobbyist gets paid for?

[steelish]

Maybe what we have is 535 lobbyists that are being paid by the budget. I mean since they are insisting on doing what such a small portion of the people want! Isn't that what a lobbyist gets paid for?

You mean, get paid to "lobby" for their corporation's/interest group's consideration and special favors, etc? Yes, and if the corporations and/or special interest groups that paid the lobbyists actually had altruistic motives and the best interests of the American people on their mind, I wouldn't mind so much...and we would all be in a much better place.

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!

As you said, only governments can bring actions under the conventions and protocol.

My point is that NO ONE knows what they would do in a given situation unless that specific situation occurs. It's easy to step up and be righteous when you're not the one faced with such choices.