>>>Because prison is supposed to be a form of punishment.

Nope, can't disagree with that.
Jail is a neccesary evil where criminoids need to be housed til their time comes up for release.

But even if you do something stupid like buying some dope from an undercover cop,
Sometime down the line you get to stand in front of a magistrate to offer a plea:
Yes, Your Honor- I'm guilty, send me up the river, or
No, Your Honor- The arresting officer is my sister-in-law whose always had it in for me and it wasn't even dope.
It was oregano that she 'borrowed' from my own kitchen cabinet.

There seems to be a large difference to me between locking someone down for what they might have done or what they might do- and confronting them with evidence thereby initiating a course toward some type of hearing.

No matter how much we hate the enemy- it certainly should be required that some guilt be attributed before permanent lockdown without chance of parole or any contact with anyone aside from their jailors.

I'm aware that the president has declared himself the ultimate 'decider' on this matter, so there's not much anyone can do about it.

If a crime exists, then the punisment should fit it...cc

I'm aware that the president has declared himself the ultimate 'decider' on this matter, so there's not much anyone can do about it.

]Wrong. When they engaged Americans in combat, they became fair game. If I were to pull a gun on you, you would not wait for proof that I wanted to do you harm before you started squealing like a little girl. If these guys engage in combat with US forces, they can rightly be detained until they no longer present a danger. If that's forever, then so be it.

And Carl's error, that you so conveniently ignore, about giving these people some kind of "due process" is still erroneous and unaddressed by you. These guys are illegal foriegn combatants, not bank robbers.

Unlawful combantants? Like the guy who could prove that he was working in Curry's Superstore at the time he was supposed to be attending an Al Quida rally? Except he didn't get a chance to prove he was innocent because he wasn't given a trial.

Even Saddam Hussein has been given a trial.

Saenger certainly didn't deserve your emotional and personally insulting rant against him. In your logic if anybody has the temerity to criticise the policies of the American government this is used to insult people with "anti-Americanism". This is a cheap shot. There is a lot of criticism within the U.S. about what is happening.

You made a mistake once, therefore, you must only make mistakes. That, based on your logic, is a fair condemnation of you. By your logic, if a few mistakes were made, then the whole procedure is faulty. I'm talking about the program, not one error in its application. And even in the case you raise, the error was discovered and the person was relaesed. In other cases, people have been released and ended up back on the battlegrounds, fighting Americans. What about those mistakes?

My statement stands: When they engaged Americans in combat, they became fair game. And they do not, under any set of rules relating to combatants, whether they are legal combatants or not, get a trial.

If you make a mistake once then what is to ensure that you haven't made the mistake more than once? The case I cited was a British man who had family willing to fight his case. It still took over a year to get him released.

How do we know the other prisoners were picked up fighting Americans? (as supposedly the British lads were even though they were unarmed)

Start with the evidence in the very case that you have cited: a mistake was made and it was corrected. Nothing ensures that future mistakes will never be made, that's unrealistic. But when mistakes are made, there is a process in place that evaluates the facts and tries to correct it. You have given an example of that process working successfully. There have been other cases where this process worked correctly. But your position would lead to a wholesale release of prisoners who are not being held mistakenly, simply because they don't have a trial in a civilian court.

How do we know those British lads were unarmed? They were not in England, they were in or near a battleground with no other legitimate purpose for being there, so if they tossed their weapons before being captured, does that make them innocent? This is not a game of hide-and-go-seek where you just touch home base and you're free.

So the Americans are allowed to pick up anybody they want, tell people that they are illegal combatants and detain them indefinitely without backing up that claim?

.and you wonder why America isn't very popular internationally at the moment.

So the Americans are allowed to pick up anybody they want, tell people that they are illegal combatants and detain them indefinitely without backing up that claim?

We're Americans....we can do whatever the heck we want and we'll do it with full support from your government AND troops from your military.

...and I'm glad you don't like it....maybe that will help you realize just how insignificant your opinion is in the larger scope of things.

.and you wonder why America isn't very popular internationally at the moment.

Nope, don't wonder about that at all. It's been over 60 years since we kicked Hitlers butt and stopped him from bombing the crap out of your country.

[sarcasm]
It is obvious that the United States is at fault whenever an innocent civilian is caught up in a dragnet intended for al Qaeda, Taliban or Batthists. This is because everyone knows that al Qaeda, Taliban and Baathists all wear military uniforms and carry military identification cards as required by the Geneva Conventions. This makes differentiating a terrorist from a civilian extremely simple.
[/sarcasm]

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Start with the evidence in the very case that you have cited: a mistake was made and it was corrected. Nothing ensures that future mistakes will never be made, that's unrealistic. But when mistakes are made, there is a process in place that evaluates the facts and tries to correct it. You have given an example of that process working successfully. There have been other cases where this process worked correctly. But your position would lead to a wholesale release of prisoners who are not being held mistakenly, simply because they don't have a trial in a civilian court.

I have already posted the evidence in the political thread earlier. (possible the last edition..I can't remember when)

How do we know those British lads were unarmed? They were not in England, they were in or near a battleground with no other legitimate purpose for being there, so if they tossed their weapons before being captured, does that make them innocent? This is not a game of hide-and-go-seek where you just touch home base and you're free.

So the Americans are allowed to pick up anybody they want, tell people that they are illegal combatants and detain them indefinitely without backing up that claim? I see. Sure sounds like kidnapping to me.
..and you wonder why America isn't very popular internationally at the moment.

What a charmer.

Perhaps you should rename this thread, "World Politics by Americans (Bigotry and Propaganda)"

One things for sure politics is not DISCUSSED here....

You guys should get your own radio station! Perhaps TomK can DJ.

...LOL...

What a charmer.

Perhaps you should rename this thread, "World Politics by Americans (Bigotry and Propaganda)"

One things for sure politics is not DISCUSSED here....

You guys should get your own radio station! Perhaps TomK can DJ.

...LOL...

What a charmer.

Perhaps you should rename this thread, "World Politics by Americans (Bigotry and Propaganda)"

One things for sure politics is not DISCUSSED here....

You guys should get your own radio station! Perhaps TomK can DJ.

...LOL...

Please direct comments about specific posters to those posters; don't paint all Americans with a broad brush. So long as your comments about whoever specifically annoyed you are issue-based or structure-of-argument-based (not personal attacks) then it is a useful addition to discourse.

Perhaps you should rename this thread, "World Politics by Americans (Bigotry and Propaganda)"

Please direct comments about specific posters to those posters; don't paint all Americans with a broad brush. So long as your comments about whoever specifically annoyed you are issue-based or structure-of-argument-based (not personal attacks) then it is a useful addition to discourse.

..we'll get back to our regularly scheduled debate just as soon as Tom stops holding his breath and goes back to a healthier colour. I somehow don't think he liked being compared to Brainsmashr...