Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 |
Turning Point
Eck and Vlad run themselves out of that inning. Bringing in Gregg in a situation where he needed to get a zero frame after he's been struggling. The former was a bad gamble, the latter a reasonable one, but the A's made Mike pay for it. Gregg's one or two more earned runs away from a return trip to Salt Lake.
I'm watching Law And Order, in HD. The Dodgers aren't making any headway against the Giants. It's time for a break.
Tomorrow, Mulder, and a series split. We've got to stop the bleeding, and the DL excuse ran out when GA and Donnelly came back.
I'm not sure I can stand watching the Angels/Dodgers series. Both teams need wins.
The night is not all lost, however. I can hardly wait to see what Ashcroft makes of this Utah State Supreme Court decision. While I'm a glass and a half into a bottle of Charles Shaw, it's always nice to know there are other options out there. It's been years since I lit up, and while I just can't imagine doing that kind of violence to my lungs anymore, I have to say brownies wouldn't be a bad thing...
Comments:
I think Ashcroft would tell you he has far more important things to worry about, like keeping terrorists at Gitmo- where they belong.
I don't know about that. He's found millions of dollars to pursue obscenity charges against publishers, "the first time in 10 years" such charges have been pursued.
Rob, if you are so worried about big brother, maybe you shouldn't post so candidly about brownies. ;)
mattkew
mattkew
# posted by 
: 6/24/2004 05:32:00 AM
: 6/24/2004 05:32:00 AM
Two Buck Chuck notwithstanding, you'd be better served to stick to baseball.
# posted by : 6/24/2004 06:00:00 AM
: 6/24/2004 06:00:00 AM
Yeah, but ... AQ are the principle bad guys. Besides, the main point the article made was that the guys in detention weren't provably guilty of anything, nor were they high rollers in the terror biz. Bad PR, bad policy.
"weren't provably guilty of anything, nor were they high rollers in the terror biz."So let them lose on the world so they can earn both of those monikers, right?
And by the way, the "principle bad guys" are all the guys who want to kill us.
And by the way, the "principle bad guys" are all the guys who want to kill us.
"So let them lose on the world so they can earn both of those monikers, right?"
Uh, yeah, actually. Until someone actually commits a crime, it's unlawful to hold them. Otherwise, why not just put everyone one in jail? We'd all be safer that way...
Uh, yeah, actually. Until someone actually commits a crime, it's unlawful to hold them. Otherwise, why not just put everyone one in jail? We'd all be safer that way...
Last time I checked attempting to kill American soldiers in the deserts of Afghanistan was grounds for detention. These guys didn't just get caught up with the wrong crowd- most of them moved across borders with the intention of killing Americans.
Also, enemy combatants aren’t covered by the civil justice system, so it is not "unlawful" to hold these people. Military code states that these guys can be held, without charges, for as long as the war is still being fought. So there.
I just can't fathom what must be going through your liberal minds. Why can't you see that these people want to kill YOU- they want YOU dead. If they had half a chance they would cut YOUR head off. Yet you go out of your way to justify letting these animals go free.
If you need a reason to keep them imprisoned, think of it this way: Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, is it not?
Also, enemy combatants aren’t covered by the civil justice system, so it is not "unlawful" to hold these people. Military code states that these guys can be held, without charges, for as long as the war is still being fought. So there.
I just can't fathom what must be going through your liberal minds. Why can't you see that these people want to kill YOU- they want YOU dead. If they had half a chance they would cut YOUR head off. Yet you go out of your way to justify letting these animals go free.
If you need a reason to keep them imprisoned, think of it this way: Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime, is it not?
These guys didn't just get caught up with the wrong crowd- most of them moved across borders with the intention of killing Americans.And you know this how, Richard?
The logic of your previous statement was that we should imprison people that *might* be terrorists. I simply pointed out the logical extension of that line of thought.
If it's provable that someone is a terrorist and has acted against the United States, then I'm all for them being imprisoned by our military or civil authorities. That's the right thing to do. If you can't prove it, set them free.
If it's provable that someone is a terrorist and has acted against the United States, then I'm all for them being imprisoned by our military or civil authorities. That's the right thing to do. If you can't prove it, set them free.
What do you suppose the chances are that a Chechen with an AK/47 is "just farming" outside Kabul, Rob?
The US military isn't arresting these guys, then flying them half-way round the world, keeping them at a maximum security prison, feeding them, clothing them, guarding them- all at great expense- for shits and giggles. You don’t “accidentally” end up in the middle of a battlefield with a gun.
The US military isn't arresting these guys, then flying them half-way round the world, keeping them at a maximum security prison, feeding them, clothing them, guarding them- all at great expense- for shits and giggles. You don’t “accidentally” end up in the middle of a battlefield with a gun.
But that's just the point of the NYT article, Richard -- what evidence we do have points to the likelihood that the guys in Gitmo are freqently unimportant and perhaps even innocent of doing anything. You're leaping from accusation to conviction without the interceding trial. That's just wrong, and what's more, it's not helpful.
One of the big problems we suffer from in the War on Terror is an absence of good intelligence. Jailing guys who haven't got any isn't a good way to change that.
One of the big problems we suffer from in the War on Terror is an absence of good intelligence. Jailing guys who haven't got any isn't a good way to change that.
" What do you suppose the chances are that a Chechen with an AK/47 is "just farming" outside Kabul, Rob?"
Well, I'm not Rob, but 1) I'm not going to assume that every prisioner at Gitmo is Chechen, and 2) In a nation that's been at war for 20 years, has an established group of local warlords *and* abandoned Soviet weaponry, the guy with the AK-47 might just be standing in his own doorway protecting his family from the next bunch of men who come running over the horizon with guns.
Remember, TV's were banned. Radio stations bombed. They didn't exactly have the infrastructure to be warned that those were US soldiers.
We've held these guys at Gitmo for YEARS now. Either prove they're guilty of being a terrorist (in which case keep 'em till they rot) or let them go home.
"The US military isn't arresting these guys, then flying them half-way round the world, keeping them at a maximum security prison, feeding them, clothing them, guarding them- all at great expense- for shits and giggles. You don’t “accidentally” end up in the middle of a battlefield with a gun."
Okay, so if they're all guilty, then prove it, and we'll shut up and the military can hold 'em till the cows come home.
Well, I'm not Rob, but 1) I'm not going to assume that every prisioner at Gitmo is Chechen, and 2) In a nation that's been at war for 20 years, has an established group of local warlords *and* abandoned Soviet weaponry, the guy with the AK-47 might just be standing in his own doorway protecting his family from the next bunch of men who come running over the horizon with guns.
Remember, TV's were banned. Radio stations bombed. They didn't exactly have the infrastructure to be warned that those were US soldiers.
We've held these guys at Gitmo for YEARS now. Either prove they're guilty of being a terrorist (in which case keep 'em till they rot) or let them go home.
"The US military isn't arresting these guys, then flying them half-way round the world, keeping them at a maximum security prison, feeding them, clothing them, guarding them- all at great expense- for shits and giggles. You don’t “accidentally” end up in the middle of a battlefield with a gun."
Okay, so if they're all guilty, then prove it, and we'll shut up and the military can hold 'em till the cows come home.
Rob: Do you realize that you just pointed to New York Times "investigative journalism" as the basis for your argument? I think that alone should make my point.
Secondly, the article is wrong- for many reasons, but this one specifically- because it implies that the Bush administration has claimed all Gitmo detainees “ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda” when they have done no such thing. They have said many times that these men were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, many of them foreign fighters, many of them members of Al Quida, many of them Taliban fighters. The one thing they all have in common is that they were all captured on the battlefield, fighting against American forces. That is a fact. It has nothing to do with American intelligence services- it has everything to do with US soldiers on the ground knowing who they were fighting against.
Are there innocents being held at Gitmo? Of course there are- everybody makes mistakes. But I’d be willing to bet you could count them on one hand. And if that still sets off the atrocity alarm in your head, then maybe you should turn your attention to how many people are currently held in American prisons for crimes they did not commit.
Secondly, the article is wrong- for many reasons, but this one specifically- because it implies that the Bush administration has claimed all Gitmo detainees “ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda” when they have done no such thing. They have said many times that these men were captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, many of them foreign fighters, many of them members of Al Quida, many of them Taliban fighters. The one thing they all have in common is that they were all captured on the battlefield, fighting against American forces. That is a fact. It has nothing to do with American intelligence services- it has everything to do with US soldiers on the ground knowing who they were fighting against.
Are there innocents being held at Gitmo? Of course there are- everybody makes mistakes. But I’d be willing to bet you could count them on one hand. And if that still sets off the atrocity alarm in your head, then maybe you should turn your attention to how many people are currently held in American prisons for crimes they did not commit.
Your rejoinder to the NYT article amounts to essentially "na na na I can't hear you". That's not an acceptable answer.
"Are there innocents being held at Gitmo? Of course there are- everybody makes mistakes. But I’d be willing to bet you could count them on one hand. And if that still sets off the atrocity alarm in your head, then maybe you should turn your attention to how many people are currently held in American prisons for crimes they did not commit."
While it appalls me that we're holding innocents anywhere, the ones we took from a foreign land who are now being used as inspiration for a new generation of terrorists alarm me most. So I'll stick to them.
And I'm not willing to concede that the number of "mistakes" at Guantanamo is significantly less than the number of mistakenly held prisoners elsewhere, which is estimated by the Red Cross to be 70-90%. All were taken by the US military on battlefields where US soldiers were on the ground and knew as much about who they were fighting against as they did in Afghanistan.
Even if the number of mistakes made was *half* of those in Iraq, then we'd still be detaining 35-45% of the men in Cuba by mistake.
While it appalls me that we're holding innocents anywhere, the ones we took from a foreign land who are now being used as inspiration for a new generation of terrorists alarm me most. So I'll stick to them.
And I'm not willing to concede that the number of "mistakes" at Guantanamo is significantly less than the number of mistakenly held prisoners elsewhere, which is estimated by the Red Cross to be 70-90%. All were taken by the US military on battlefields where US soldiers were on the ground and knew as much about who they were fighting against as they did in Afghanistan.
Even if the number of mistakes made was *half* of those in Iraq, then we'd still be detaining 35-45% of the men in Cuba by mistake.
Secondly, the article is wrong- for many reasons, but this one specifically- because it implies that the Bush administration has claimed all Gitmo detainees “ranked as leaders or senior operatives of Al Qaeda” when they have done no such thing.It implies no such thing. What it does say, however, is that
For nearly two and a half years, American officials have maintained that locked within the steel-mesh cells of the military prison here are some of the world's most dangerous terrorists -- ''the worst of a very bad lot,'' Vice President Dick Cheney has called them.
For nearly two and a half years, American officials have maintained that locked within the steel-mesh cells of the military prison here are some of the world's most dangerous terrorists -- ''the worst of a very bad lot,'' Vice President Dick Cheney has called them.
Rob, have you read the damn article? The point is that we’re supposed to be outraged by the fact that “only a relative handful” of these guys are “sworn Qaeda members or other militants able to elucidate the organization's inner workings” and that that fact is “contrary to the repeated assertions of senior administration officials.” Well, those “repeated assertions” don’t exist (note that the article does not contain any of these supposed assertions). As I’ve already pointed out to you, the administration has said time and time again that detainees at Gitmo are drawn from a wide variety of enemy combatants- not just Al Queda. Many of them have no information of any value. We already knew that, and the administration has never claimed otherwise.
The article is a distortion- an attempt to make it appear as though the administration has been caught in a lie- nothing new from the NYT.
The article is a distortion- an attempt to make it appear as though the administration has been caught in a lie- nothing new from the NYT.
So what's the justification for keeping them incommunicado indefinitely? The answer, of course, is there is none other than "we don't like them", and "we think they might be bad men".
"We don't like them or we think thry might be bad men".
Good enough for me.
Good enough for me.
# posted by : 6/25/2004 05:59:00 AM
: 6/25/2004 05:59:00 AMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.