MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics? - Page 5

Arnfinn Madsen · #41 10-28-2005, 11:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your link is seven months old. The link says it may take up to two months to return the people to their countries. It is fair to assume from your link they have now been released. Your posts appear to say that the US is intentionally trying not to release these people and then you provide evidence that the US is doing the exact opposite. This is why it looks as if your contradicting yourself. If you have more current info please post it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did not release them at the time! They admitted they were innocent and said they were working on a solution, but they kept them in prison. They did not say: "Sorry, you are free to leave if you want". They said: "You are innocent, but you are not free to leave".

#42 10-28-2005, 11:41 PM

Did you read the whole link you provided? It's from March 29, 2005.

[ QUOTE ]
The Department of State has been notified of all of these determinations, and State is coordinating the return of the 38 non- enemy-combatants to their home countries. As of today, five of those 38 persons have returned to their home countries, and the Department of State is working to coordinate the return of the remaining 33 as expeditiously as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Five of them were released. As to the others...

[ QUOTE ]
Q When they get released, are they free, or are they released to the government for further prosecution or whatever?

SEC. ENGLAND: No, they're free. I mean, they're released. They're free. We just move them to a different area on Guantanamo. Arrangements are made to send them home.

Q Do they get any special privileges once they have been designated not an enemy combatant? Better quarters or better food?

SEC. ENGLAND: It's a better environment, I believe, it is a different area than they've been in, while waiting to be transferred. And we do that as quickly as we can. State has to do it. They have to make arrangements, transportation. So there's some finite time involved to do all that.

Q And how much time have they been there? A month? Weeks?

SEC ENGLAND: Different times. I think some maybe have been there as much as two months. You know, again, it's up to State along with the country. Sometimes it's just difficult to arrange transportation. But we try to move them out as quickly as we can. The delay is not necessarily on us, it's really on the country they're being returned to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your link shows the US was working to get the others home. If you have more current info on these people then please post it.

Arnfinn Madsen · #43 10-28-2005, 11:54 PM

I know they asked the Norwegian government after this, but I don't know the status right now.

Arnfinn Madsen · #44 10-28-2005, 11:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I know they asked the Norwegian government after this, but I don't know the status right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Searched for it, link claims that 29 has been sent home. 9 staying due to fear of religious persecution in China.

Link

#45 10-29-2005, 12:41 AM

Let me try and explain why I was so mad.

I asked you what you would do about Guantanamo Bay and part of your reponse was...

[ QUOTE ]
Release those who are proven innocent. There have been prisoners there which is proven innocent but which have not been released since the US does not know where to send them. They did not dare to release them at Guantanamo since they were considered to have become a security risk due to the treatment they received. I think they deserve compensation and US citizenship if US cannot find any other place for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post makes it seem as if the US is intentionally keeping non-enemy combatants as prisoners in Gitmo.

I then wrote...

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, none of the detainees at Gitmo are innocent. They may be of little intelligence value because they are low-level fighters, but they took up arms against American troops. If someone's got a link that says otherwise, hook it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was unsure of my info which is why I qualified it with "as far as I know" and then asked for a link to different info. You provided the link to show I was wrong. But the link you provided also showed that the US was trying to send these people back to their countries.

This is where I got pissed off. You made the statement...

[ QUOTE ]
They did not dare to release them at Guantanamo since they were considered to have become a security risk due to the treatment they received.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then you provided a link showing this statement was completely false. In March 2005 the US was trying to get these people home.And you posted...

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, posting pretending to be knowingly about this without even knowing about the basic facts. A lot of the detainees were never fighting against American troops, many were handed over from allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

38 out of 578 is not a lot.These conficting statements made you look like a hypocrite and an anti-American nutjob. This is why I said I couldn't take you seriously.

And your final link shows...

[ QUOTE ]
Searched for it, link claims that 29 has been sent home. 9 staying due to fear of religious persecution in China.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very, very different situation than what you had originally posted. So we were both wrong. I was wrong about there being no non-enemy combatants at Gitmo. And your characterization of what's happening at Gitmo was not even close. It looks like we both need to pay more attention to current events.

MMMMMM · #46 10-29-2005, 12:46 AM

ACPlayer, I'm not going to try to find them on Google since it was months ago. You don't need the poll I read to see that what I suggest is quite possible, but of course you're welcome to search for other polls yourself.

My POINT was that you are reading your linked poll too narrowly, and that there is NOTHING in your poll to contradict what I suggested.

ACPlayer · #47 10-29-2005, 06:06 AM

Next time you want to refer to a poll, please do so with a link. I have followed this very closely and have yet to see the conclusions you offered. Perhaps like Libby your recollection is a bit off.

I am reading the link I offered exactly as the link says, nothing more and nothing less. At the moment it appears that, among other things, a large percentage of Iraqi's believe that they were more secure prior to the occupation.

mmcd · #48 10-29-2005, 06:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The last point is telling, is it not. They feel less secure after the occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom and security are inversely correlated. When one goes up, the other goes down. Changes in either one of these areas will ALWAYS affect the other, but these effects can be minimalized.

The presence of strong and stable constitution-based democratic government greatly reduces the ill effects that increases in freedom have upon security, and that increases in security have upon freedom.

ACPlayer · #49 10-29-2005, 06:17 AM

According to a new poll 53 percent of Americans (the midwest farmer types who's opinions you admire a lot, most likely) believe that getting out of Iraq is more important than installing a democracy. They are right.

MMMMMM · #50 10-29-2005, 06:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am reading the link I offered exactly as the link says, nothing more and nothing less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite; you are drawing a conclusion that is not warranted.

[ QUOTE ]
At the moment it appears that, among other things, a large percentage of Iraqi's believe that they were more secure prior to the occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I'm arguing with you about; I AGREE with that.

I'm also saying that YES, a large portion of Iraqis wish the U.S. were gone, just as your poll says...BUT, they also fear that the U.S. will leave before the situation is secure and before Iraqi forces are equipped to deal fully with the insurgents on their own.

They want to be autonomous and responsible for their own security, and for the U.S. to leave, but it is also obvious to them that they aren't ready for that yet.

It's not exactly hard to believe, either.