Doh!!!

[bobman0330]

Now let's get it straight here. Are you in favor of detaining suspected terrorists without evidence, or are you against it?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Now let's get it straight here. Are you in favor of detaining suspected terrorists without evidence, or are you against it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I am opposed to detaining people without evidence. But I am supportive of figuring out whether people picked up in dragnets are in fact local public enemy #1. Apparently Zarqawi had a decent disguise going. But the fact that the Iraqi forces themselves, much less some ordinary American soldier, have very little ability to match suspects with known terrorists or to tell a Jordanian from an Iraqi, augurs poorly for the security situation.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now let's get it straight here. Are you in favor of detaining suspected terrorists without evidence, or are you against it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I am opposed to detaining people without evidence. But I am supportive of figuring out whether people picked up in dragnets are in fact local public enemy #1. Apparently Zarqawi had a decent disguise going. But the fact that the Iraqi forces themselves, much less some ordinary American soldier, have very little ability to match suspects with known terrorists or to tell a Jordanian from an Iraqi, augurs poorly for the security situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear then in line with the question asked of you and your response, you do advocate detaining such suspects until we can be sure that they are not a threat, is that correct? Like we have done with some suspects for 2 or 3 years?

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear then in line with the question asked of you and your response, you do advocate detaining such suspects until we can be sure that they are not a threat, is that correct? Like we have done with some suspects for 2 or 3 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll answer for him, even though you already have -

Yes, it's a good idea to detain people for 2 or 3 years to make sure they're not a threat. Then when we let them go, they'll have spent so much time in US custody and around our friendly interrogation officers that we can be sure they'll love the United States and everything it stands for.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear then in line with the question asked of you and your response, you do advocate detaining such suspects until we can be sure that they are not a threat, is that correct? Like we have done with some suspects for 2 or 3 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two questions here, one about the initial detainment and one about keeping them. In this instance, I think some form of initial detainment was very reasonable, since we were conducting major military operations in Fallujah and these people were picked up running around in the streets. There was a curfew and a state of emergency and everything and so there were some very extenuating circumstances. Ordinarily, I don't think we should be hauling people in en masse like this.

As far as keeping them around, I think if there is no evidence that the person has committed a crime, then we should not hold them longer than a short time period.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as keeping them around, I think if there is no evidence that the person has committed a crime, then we should not hold them longer than a short time period.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the question is for how long? Their prints aren't going to be in our databases most likely nor their faces. So the only way to be sure is to interrogate them and also others about them, and that takes time. So a vague answer won't do here. Give a time frame you would be comfortable with and state that is the max even if it should prove not long enough to identify them. And then don't plan on criticizing the administration if it turns out that someone important was released at the end of that time frame before they could be identified.

[tolbiny]

"And then don't plan on criticizing the administration if it turns out that someone important was released at the end of that time frame before they could be identified"

There is a hell of a difference between an average joe not being recognized as part of a military group and only being identified later, and THE MOST WANTED MAN IN IRAQ WITH A 25 MILLION DOLLAR BOUNTY ON HIS HEAD. I hope that's clear to you.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is for how long? Their prints aren't going to be in our databases most likely nor their faces. So the only way to be sure is to interrogate them and also others about them, and that takes time. So a vague answer won't do here. Give a time frame you would be comfortable with and state that is the max even if it should prove not long enough to identify them. And then don't plan on criticizing the administration if it turns out that someone important was released at the end of that time frame before they could be identified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't know. Maybe a week or two before charging them or releasing them? The issue shouldn't be about identifying them anyway. It should be about finding evidence that they committed a crime. If you have evidence, then their identity shouldn't really matter. If there is no evidence, then worrying about correct identification should be beside the point. The much bigger question anyway is what constitutes evidence, and that just depends so don't bother going down that road.

Also, please see Tolbiny's response.

[BluffTHIS!]

So in other words, we have a bounty on a guy whose name we know, but whose prints and picture we might not have, or at least not enough of a good such record to make a quick idenitity, and then we release them in a week or two. But you libs STILL get to bash the administration for not identifying him in that artifical time frame. And of course if the administration holds the guy too long, then you bash them for that too! So you get to bash Bush no matter what the outcome. Man ain't that great.