...........SNIP.....

Given that one of our allies has already expressed "some concerns" about impartiality and the methods used to extract information from the detainees, should we be similarly concerned about the use of military tribunals as the judicial venue for 9/11 prosecutions?

Personally I believe ALL trials should be governed by 'public' law.

The military have every right to stop and hold combatants but they have zero right to judge.

If the police in my country started to hold court I would happily riot.


It will be a sad day for America when it allows the military to judge those that society should judge.

Although I suspect the world will forget this trial quite quickly as most people are tired of both the issue and the US and Western response.


How does this situation compare to the Nuremberg trials?


.

Last time I checked, the US Constitution only applied to American citizens. Not illegal immigrants or foreign prisoners of war.

Wrong. From Wikipedia:

Equal protection under US law
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants. It established that regardless of legal status, illegal immigrants are still “persons” and thus protected as such under some provisions the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, notably the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments…The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation. That objective is fundamentally at odds with the power the State asserts …to classify persons subject to its laws as nonetheless excepted from its protection."

(Emphasis added)

Here in my neck of the woods, we've seen, first-hand, what the suspension of the rule of law can do to a nation. Detention without trial was a favourite tool of the apartheid regime, and it was all done in the name of a war against so-called "terrorists". History has a way of repeating itself.

Suspension of the rule of law, no matter how elegant the semantics, can never be condoned.

Fortunately, we settled this argument long ago. The apartheid regime collapsed under the weight of its own folly well over a decade ago.

"some provisions" being the key phrase...

The right of illegal aliens to due process is noted above, whether you choose to accept it or not is irrelevant, nothing you have said in this thread suggests the Supreme Court agrees that illegal aliens have no rights under the Constitution. Though if you want to carry on a conversation on this issue I'd prefer it be off this thread, it's not really pertinent to this one.

You seem to confuse basic human rights with Constitutionally protected rights. Furthermore, I clearly pointed out for you, via the link you provided, that illegals can be held indefinitely at the request of the Attorney General. Something which cannot be done to American citizens.

No, you found a piece where the Supreme Court said that if it found that Congress gave the Attorney General such a power, then provided due process had been applied (i.e. the illegal had been ordered to be removed) the Attorney General would be at liberty to use such power. This is commonly called a hypothetical situation.

Funny that, as a conspiracy theorists, you see this as a hypothetical situation rather than a potential abuse of power. Never the less, you do seem to now understand that, however hypothetical you deem the situation, it is in fact within the power of our government to legally do so

As for:

So you're arguing that the people held at Guantánamo should be treated as POWs?

C'mon Bobby, you're not that dim. My argument is that they do not have the protection of the US Constitution that you and I enjoy.

I'll concede from a current legal standpoint Constitutional rights don't apply to the Guantánamo Six, firstly, they're not held in US sovereign territory and secondly, due to the powers given under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 which the Supreme Court decided on in Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195.

I think the NYT editorial I quoted is suggesting that even though the administration is legally allowed to proceed in the manner it has chosen, with the process so stacked against the defendants it may look to external observers as if we're merely conducting show trials. And my apologies for any misunderstanding, in fairness it was you that equated enemy combatant with something from a definition of PoW, though I can understand why you would want to suggest it is my being dim rather than you're supporting such a position. Given the violations of the Geneva Convention protections committed during the detention of those at Guantánamo, it might be said that you'd be suggesting the US is guilty of war crimes.

99.999% of POW's ARE enemy combatants regardless of which side they fight for. As for the implication that the US is guilty of war crimes...that's called projection, Bobby, as in projecting YOUR beliefs onto other individuals.

The current administration has stated that the Guantánamo detainees are not PoWs and as a result Geneva Conventions protections do not apply. It could be argued this was done precisely so that interrogation methods may be employed that would otherwise be prohibited (i.e. torture which I believe is considered a war crime when committed on PoWs).

BTW, is that the same NYT who exercised their freedom of the press to divulge military plans to the enemy? That's called creditability.

Rather than actually divulging military plans in the midst of a war, for that you need Fox News. In the opening post I also noted that one of our allies had expressed "some concerns" regarding the process, is a member of HMG as easy to dismiss?

When did it become a requirement that everyone agree with our actions, ally or otherwise?

---

No, you found a piece where the Supreme Court said that if it found that Congress gave the Attorney General such a power, then provided due process had been applied (i.e. the illegal had been ordered to be removed) the Attorney General would be at liberty to use such power. This is commonly called a hypothetical situation.

Funny that, as a conspiracy theorists, you see this as a hypothetical situation rather than a potential abuse of power. Never the less, you do seem to now understand that, however hypothetical you deem the situation, it is in fact within the power of our government to legally do so

I think you may be confusing me with somebody else, the only recent conspiracy theories I subscribe to is one where a group of terrorists conspired to hijack a group of commercial airliners, or use explosives on mass transit systems, etc, etc. On the abuse of power front, I suspect that's exactly why the Supreme Court prefixed the hypothetical with "Despite the constitutional problem here", and it is not legal until Congress makes it so.

BTW, is that the same NYT who exercised their freedom of the press to divulge military plans to the enemy? That's called creditability.

Rather than actually divulging military plans in the midst of a war, for that you need Fox News. In the opening post I also noted that one of our allies had expressed "some concerns" regarding the process, is a member of HMG as easy to dismiss?

When did it become a requirement that everyone agree with our actions, ally or otherwise?

Whoever said it was a requirement? And if your method to "easily dismiss" an ally is simply to pay them no regard when they disagree with you, that's fine, though I wonder if, in the long run, whether this may result in the loss of allies.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

No, you found a piece where the Supreme Court said that if it found that Congress gave the Attorney General such a power, then provided due process had been applied (i.e. the illegal had been ordered to be removed) the Attorney General would be at liberty to use such power. This is commonly called a hypothetical situation.

Funny that, as a conspiracy theorists, you see this as a hypothetical situation rather than a potential abuse of power. Never the less, you do seem to now understand that, however hypothetical you deem the situation, it is in fact within the power of our government to legally do so

I think you may be confusing me with somebody else, the only recent conspiracy theories I subscribe to is one where a group of terrorists conspired to hijack a group of commercial airliners, or use explosives on mass transit systems, etc, etc. On the abuse of power front, I suspect that's exactly why the Supreme Court prefixed the hypothetical with "Despite the constitutional problem here", and it is not legal until Congress makes it so.

As I stated before, you now seem to realize it IS within the power of our government to do so

BTW, is that the same NYT who exercised their freedom of the press to divulge military plans to the enemy? That's called creditability.

Rather than actually divulging military plans in the midst of a war, for that you need Fox News. In the opening post I also noted that one of our allies had expressed "some concerns" regarding the process, is a member of HMG as easy to dismiss?

When did it become a requirement that everyone agree with our actions, ally or otherwise?

Whoever said it was a requirement? And if your method to "easily dismiss" an ally is simply to pay them no regard when they disagree with you, that's fine, though I wonder if, in the long run, whether this may result in the loss of allies.

Miliband is an individual and does not speak for his entire country.

---

No, you found a piece where the Supreme Court said that if it found that Congress gave the Attorney General such a power, then provided due process had been applied (i.e. the illegal had been ordered to be removed) the Attorney General would be at liberty to use such power. This is commonly called a hypothetical situation.

Funny that, as a conspiracy theorists, you see this as a hypothetical situation rather than a potential abuse of power. Never the less, you do seem to now understand that, however hypothetical you deem the situation, it is in fact within the power of our government to legally do so

I think you may be confusing me with somebody else, the only recent conspiracy theories I subscribe to is one where a group of terrorists conspired to hijack a group of commercial airliners, or use explosives on mass transit systems, etc, etc. On the abuse of power front, I suspect that's exactly why the Supreme Court prefixed the hypothetical with "Despite the constitutional problem here", and it is not legal until Congress makes it so.

As I stated before, you now seem to realize it IS within the power of our government to do so

Just because you say it is so does not make it so. The Supreme Court found that it would be constitutional for Congress to provide the Executive with the power, not that the power had been granted. Thus it is not currently legal for the Attorney General to hold indefinitely an illegal alien following a hearing in which s/he is ordered to be removed from the US. But no matter, this does not remove the illegal alien's right to due process, which is the Constitutional right we were talking about in the first place and the only one worthwhile mentioning in this thread. I'm sure there are innumerable hypothetical powers which I would argue would be an abuse of power should they ever be legislated for, but I really don't want to spend my time debating the pros and cons of them either. Now let's move on, please.

BTW, is that the same NYT who exercised their freedom of the press to divulge military plans to the enemy? That's called creditability.

Rather than actually divulging military plans in the midst of a war, for that you need Fox News. In the opening post I also noted that one of our allies had expressed "some concerns" regarding the process, is a member of HMG as easy to dismiss?

When did it become a requirement that everyone agree with our actions, ally or otherwise?

Whoever said it was a requirement? And if your method to "easily dismiss" an ally is simply to pay them no regard when they disagree with you, that's fine, though I wonder if, in the long run, whether this may result in the loss of allies.

Miliband is an individual and does not speak for his entire country.

He is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, so in this regard he speaks for the Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom (hence my earlier reference to "one of our allies") until his opinion is contradicted by either Parliament, the Prime Minister or the Monarch. Further, unlike his equivalent in the US Cabinet, he is also an elected official, which means he speaks on the behalf of his constituents. While I'll grant this is not quite the same thing as speaking for his entire country I'd suggest his statement carries a little more weight than other "individuals". Again with a dismissal rather than addressing what he said, why so evasive?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

No, you found a piece where the Supreme Court said that if it found that Congress gave the Attorney General such a power, then provided due process had been applied (i.e. the illegal had been ordered to be removed) the Attorney General would be at liberty to use such power. This is commonly called a hypothetical situation.

Funny that, as a conspiracy theorists, you see this as a hypothetical situation rather than a potential abuse of power. Never the less, you do seem to now understand that, however hypothetical you deem the situation, it is in fact within the power of our government to legally do so

I think you may be confusing me with somebody else, the only recent conspiracy theories I subscribe to is one where a group of terrorists conspired to hijack a group of commercial airliners, or use explosives on mass transit systems, etc, etc. On the abuse of power front, I suspect that's exactly why the Supreme Court prefixed the hypothetical with "Despite the constitutional problem here", and it is not legal until Congress makes it so.

As I stated before, you now seem to realize it IS within the power of our government to do so

Just because you say it is so does not make it so. The Supreme Court found that it would be constitutional for Congress to provide the Executive with the power, not that the power had been granted. Thus it is not currently legal for the Attorney General to hold indefinitely an illegal alien following a hearing in which s/he is ordered to be removed from the US. But no matter, this does not remove the illegal alien's right to due process, which is the Constitutional right we were talking about in the first place and the only one worthwhile mentioning in this thread. I'm sure there are innumerable hypothetical powers which I would argue would be an abuse of power should they ever be legislated for, but I really don't want to spend my time debating the pros and cons of them either. Now let's move on, please.

I didn't say it was so, the link YOU provided said it was so

BTW, is that the same NYT who exercised their freedom of the press to divulge military plans to the enemy? That's called creditability.

Rather than actually divulging military plans in the midst of a war, for that you need Fox News. In the opening post I also noted that one of our allies had expressed "some concerns" regarding the process, is a member of HMG as easy to dismiss?

When did it become a requirement that everyone agree with our actions, ally or otherwise?

Whoever said it was a requirement? And if your method to "easily dismiss" an ally is simply to pay them no regard when they disagree with you, that's fine, though I wonder if, in the long run, whether this may result in the loss of allies.

Miliband is an individual and does not speak for his entire country.

He is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, so in this regard he speaks for the Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom (hence my earlier reference to "one of our allies") until his opinion is contradicted by either Parliament, the Prime Minister or the Monarch. Further, unlike his equivalent in the US Cabinet, he is also an elected official, which means he speaks on the behalf of his constituents. While I'll grant this is not quite the same thing as speaking for his entire country I'd suggest his statement carries a little more weight than other "individuals". Again with a dismissal rather than addressing what he said, why so evasive?

"While I'll grant this is not quite the same thing as speaking for his entire country"

Are you intentionally trying to prove my points for me or just unaware of the things you say?

---

No, you found a piece where the Supreme Court said that if it found that Congress gave the Attorney General such a power, then provided due process had been applied (i.e. the illegal had been ordered to be removed) the Attorney General would be at liberty to use such power. This is commonly called a hypothetical situation.

Funny that, as a conspiracy theorists, you see this as a hypothetical situation rather than a potential abuse of power. Never the less, you do seem to now understand that, however hypothetical you deem the situation, it is in fact within the power of our government to legally do so

I think you may be confusing me with somebody else, the only recent conspiracy theories I subscribe to is one where a group of terrorists conspired to hijack a group of commercial airliners, or use explosives on mass transit systems, etc, etc. On the abuse of power front, I suspect that's exactly why the Supreme Court prefixed the hypothetical with "Despite the constitutional problem here", and it is not legal until Congress makes it so.

As I stated before, you now seem to realize it IS within the power of our government to do so

Just because you say it is so does not make it so. The Supreme Court found that it would be constitutional for Congress to provide the Executive with the power, not that the power had been granted. Thus it is not currently legal for the Attorney General to hold indefinitely an illegal alien following a hearing in which s/he is ordered to be removed from the US. But no matter, this does not remove the illegal alien's right to due process, which is the Constitutional right we were talking about in the first place and the only one worthwhile mentioning in this thread. I'm sure there are innumerable hypothetical powers which I would argue would be an abuse of power should they ever be legislated for, but I really don't want to spend my time debating the pros and cons of them either. Now let's move on, please.

I didn't say it was so, the link YOU provided said it was so

Umm, it was you that said that illegals had no constitutional rights and it was you that said the Attorney General could legally detain indefinitely illegals following a hearing where they'd been ordered to be removed from the US, neither of which is currently true. Now, for the third time, please move on.

BTW, is that the same NYT who exercised their freedom of the press to divulge military plans to the enemy? That's called creditability.

Rather than actually divulging military plans in the midst of a war, for that you need Fox News. In the opening post I also noted that one of our allies had expressed "some concerns" regarding the process, is a member of HMG as easy to dismiss?

When did it become a requirement that everyone agree with our actions, ally or otherwise?

Whoever said it was a requirement? And if your method to "easily dismiss" an ally is simply to pay them no regard when they disagree with you, that's fine, though I wonder if, in the long run, whether this may result in the loss of allies.

Miliband is an individual and does not speak for his entire country.

He is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, so in this regard he speaks for the Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom (hence my earlier reference to "one of our allies") until his opinion is contradicted by either Parliament, the Prime Minister or the Monarch. Further, unlike his equivalent in the US Cabinet, he is also an elected official, which means he speaks on the behalf of his constituents. While I'll grant this is not quite the same thing as speaking for his entire country I'd suggest his statement carries a little more weight than other "individuals". Again with a dismissal rather than addressing what he said, why so evasive?

"While I'll grant this is not quite the same thing as speaking for his entire country"

Are you intentionally trying to prove my points for me or just unaware of the things you say?
[/quote]

Umm, no, you labelled Miliband "an individual" who did not speak for his entire country, I pointed out that while strictly speaking the second point is valid (afterall no one person speaks for an entire country), this does not speak to the entire truth of his position, in that he does speak on behalf of his country in his Governmental role. It seems you're more interested in semantic points than a genuine discussion of the threads main topic, again I ask you why so evasive?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Umm, it was you that said that illegals had no constitutional rights and it was you that said the Attorney General could legally detain indefinitely illegals following a hearing where they'd been ordered to be removed from the US, neither of which is currently true. Now, for the third time, please move on.

Not only is it true, you have more or less conceded that fact in every post you've made during the last 24 hours

Umm, no, you labelled Miliband "an individual" who did not speak for his entire country, I pointed out that while strictly speaking the second point is valid (afterall no one person speaks for an entire country), this does not speak to the entire truth of his position, in that he does speak on behalf of his country in his Governmental role. It seems you're more interested in semantic points than a genuine discussion of the threads main topic, again I ask you why so evasive?

You say it's semantics, I say it's your refuse to admit defeat, after all no one person speaks for an entire country.

---

Umm, it was you that said that illegals had no constitutional rights and it was you that said the Attorney General could legally detain indefinitely illegals following a hearing where they'd been ordered to be removed from the US, neither of which is currently true. Now, for the third time, please move on.

Not only is it true, you have more or less conceded that fact in every post you've made during the last 24 hours

If what you mean is that "conceding a hypothetical situation is entirely plausible" is the same as "conceding a hypothetical is true", then we agree, anything more and we don't. There is a difference between what you said is true and what is true, when you said :

that illegals can be held indefinitely at the request of the Attorney General. Something which cannot be done to American citizens.

while the Supreme Court said that it would be constitutional for Congress to provide the Attorney General with such a power, not that such a power had been granted. Given that the Supreme Court has not found congressional intent, if the Attorney General were to act in such a fashion he would not be acting legally, until Congress passes law otherwise.

Further, I certainly have not conceded that illegals have no Constitutional rights and you have not provided any evidence to the contrary, while I and others have provided plenty to support the claim that they do. Indeed your first statement on the matter was the the Constitution only applied to citizens, only later did you focus on illegal aliens, I guess you have conceded that your initial statement was not correct.

Umm, no, you labelled Miliband "an individual" who did not speak for his entire country, I pointed out that while strictly speaking the second point is valid (afterall no one person speaks for an entire country), this does not peak to the entire truth of his position, in that he does speak on behalf of his country in his Governmental role. It seems you're more interested in semantic points than a genuine discussion of the threads main topic, again I ask you why so evasive?

You say it's semantics, I say it's your refuse to admit defeat, after all no one person speaks for an entire country.

I never said Miliband did speak for his entire country, I said "one of our allies" and "a member of HMG", and once again you chose semantics over substance. I don't feel the need to admit defeat, unless you're talking about my attempts to engage you on the matter at hand, which you repeatedly refuse to do.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

...........SNIP.....

Given that one of our allies has already expressed "some concerns" about impartiality and the methods used to extract information from the detainees, should we be similarly concerned about the use of military tribunals as the judicial venue for 9/11 prosecutions?

Personally I believe ALL trials should be governed by 'public' law.

The military have every right to stop and hold combatants but they have zero right to judge.

If the police in my country started to hold court I would happily riot.


It will be a sad day for America when it allows the military to judge those that society should judge.

Although I suspect the world will forget this trial quite quickly as most people are tired of both the issue and the US and Western response.


How does this situation compare to the Nuremberg trials?


.

wikipedia says the Nuremberg Trials were conducted as military tribunals. The article makes for interesting reading, for instance:

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."

I wonder what Stone would make of the current situation.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I'm not an US citizen - as most of you know meanwhile - but I want to add my 2 cents worth to that topic.

In my opinion, Guantanamo should be closed down, all detainees should get an ordinary trial - and IF they are guilty of the alleged crimes (which I doubt at either single one of these) they should get the proper punishment. But the actual and former guardians and the persons responsible for that camp should also be sued - each single one - for war crime and power abuse, since even though re-defined as "enemy combattands" the detainees are actually POWs (of a criminal war, caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals) and have to be treated according to the Geneva Convention!

---

Account frozen...

I'm not an US citizen - as most of you know meanwhile - but I want to add my 2 cents worth to that topic.

In my opinion, Guantanamo should be closed down, all detainees should get an ordinary trial - and IF they are guilty of the alleged crimes (which I doubt at either single one of these) they should get the proper punishment. But the actual and former guardians and the persons responsible for that camp should also be sued - each single one - for war crime and power abuse, since even though re-defined as "enemy combattands" the detainees are actually POWs (of a criminal war, caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals) and have to be treated according to the Geneva Convention!

While I agree with you on how those held at Guantanamo should be treated, I'm not sure what you're referring to with "caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals". To my knowledge most of those held at Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan, and characterizing the war/invasion there as "a criminal war" seems a little strange to me.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I'm not an US citizen - as most of you know meanwhile - but I want to add my 2 cents worth to that topic.

In my opinion, Guantanamo should be closed down, all detainees should get an ordinary trial - and IF they are guilty of the alleged crimes (which I doubt at either single one of these) they should get the proper punishment. But the actual and former guardians and the persons responsible for that camp should also be sued - each single one - for war crime and power abuse, since even though re-defined as "enemy combattands" the detainees are actually POWs (of a criminal war, caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals) and have to be treated according to the Geneva Convention!

While I agree with you on how those held at Guantanamo should be treated, I'm not sure what you're referring to with "caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals". To my knowledge most of those held at Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan, and characterizing the war/invasion there as "a criminal war" seems a little strange to me.

That's not strange to me - since Afghanistan never attacked the USA. and to invade a country without being attacked by it in the first hand is, strictly spoken, criminally starting a war.

---

Account frozen...

I'm not an US citizen - as most of you know meanwhile - but I want to add my 2 cents worth to that topic.

In my opinion, Guantanamo should be closed down, all detainees should get an ordinary trial - and IF they are guilty of the alleged crimes (which I doubt at either single one of these) they should get the proper punishment. But the actual and former guardians and the persons responsible for that camp should also be sued - each single one - for war crime and power abuse, since even though re-defined as "enemy combattands" the detainees are actually POWs (of a criminal war, caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals) and have to be treated according to the Geneva Convention!

While I agree with you on how those held at Guantanamo should be treated, I'm not sure what you're referring to with "caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals". To my knowledge most of those held at Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan, and characterizing the war/invasion there as "a criminal war" seems a little strange to me.

That's not strange to me - since Afghanistan never attacked the USA. and to invade a country without being attacked by it in the first hand is, strictly spoken, criminally starting a war.

Quite wrong, were the allies that fought against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait acting criminally, or had their war been sanctioned by the U.N.? Was Briatin acting criminally when it declared war on Germany following Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939?

Even so, the Afghan leadership (Taliban) actively supported those that conspired (Al Queada) to attack New York and Washington in 2001, and as such were held to be allies. The USA was attacked first by groups operating at liberty within the borders of Afghanistan and the UN saw it that way too. Or do you believe one of the many other conspiracy theories of 9/11?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I'm not an US citizen - as most of you know meanwhile - but I want to add my 2 cents worth to that topic.

In my opinion, Guantanamo should be closed down, all detainees should get an ordinary trial - and IF they are guilty of the alleged crimes (which I doubt at either single one of these) they should get the proper punishment. But the actual and former guardians and the persons responsible for that camp should also be sued - each single one - for war crime and power abuse, since even though re-defined as "enemy combattands" the detainees are actually POWs (of a criminal war, caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals) and have to be treated according to the Geneva Convention!

While I agree with you on how those held at Guantanamo should be treated, I'm not sure what you're referring to with "caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals". To my knowledge most of those held at Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan, and characterizing the war/invasion there as "a criminal war" seems a little strange to me.

That's not strange to me - since Afghanistan never attacked the USA. and to invade a country without being attacked by it in the first hand is, strictly spoken, criminally starting a war.

Quite wrong, were the allies that fought against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait acting criminally, or had their war been sanctioned by the U.N.? Was Briatin acting criminally when it declared war on Germany following Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939?

Even so, the Afghan leadership (Taliban) actively supported those that conspired (Al Queada) to attack New York and Washington in 2001, and as such were held to be allies. The USA was attacked first by groups operating at liberty within the borders of Afghanistan and the UN saw it that way too. Or do you believe one of the many other conspiracy theories of 9/11?

You really think that all of them are just conspiracy theories? Why? Because those in power who are afraid that people begin to think for themselves tell you so?
Though it's off-topic, according to the title off this thread:
I try to always get an independant view on things, a view neither controled by government nor the MIC, so when I stumble over a topic I would read all sources available, from indymedia reports to articles of big newspapers, from German to English (about two dozen bookmarked media meanwhile, in doubt then there is Google & Yahoo) - it takes me a while though to make up my opinion... But I don't blindly follow the suggestions of the corporal opinion-builders, be they "democratic" or "republican", "red" or "black" ...
Have you ever watched the movie "Why We Fight"? Might be interesting for you.

---

Account frozen...

I'm not an US citizen - as most of you know meanwhile - but I want to add my 2 cents worth to that topic.

In my opinion, Guantanamo should be closed down, all detainees should get an ordinary trial - and IF they are guilty of the alleged crimes (which I doubt at either single one of these) they should get the proper punishment. But the actual and former guardians and the persons responsible for that camp should also be sued - each single one - for war crime and power abuse, since even though re-defined as "enemy combattands" the detainees are actually POWs (of a criminal war, caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals) and have to be treated according to the Geneva Convention!

While I agree with you on how those held at Guantanamo should be treated, I'm not sure what you're referring to with "caused by invasion ordered by a bunch of criminals". To my knowledge most of those held at Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan, and characterizing the war/invasion there as "a criminal war" seems a little strange to me.

That's not strange to me - since Afghanistan never attacked the USA. and to invade a country without being attacked by it in the first hand is, strictly spoken, criminally starting a war.

Quite wrong, were the allies that fought against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait acting criminally, or had their war been sanctioned by the U.N.? Was Briatin acting criminally when it declared war on Germany following Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939?

Even so, the Afghan leadership (Taliban) actively supported those that conspired (Al Queada) to attack New York and Washington in 2001, and as such were held to be allies. The USA was attacked first by groups operating at liberty within the borders of Afghanistan and the UN saw it that way too. Or do you believe one of the many other conspiracy theories of 9/11?

You really think that all of them are just conspiracy theories? Why? Because those in power who are afraid that people begin to think for themselves tell you so?
Though it's off-topic, according to the title off this thread:
I try to always get an independant view on things, a view neither controled by government nor the MIC, so when I stumble over a topic I would read all sources available, from indymedia reports to articles of big newspapers, from German to English (about two dozen bookmarked media meanwhile, in doubt then there is Google & Yahoo) - it takes me a while though to make up my opinion... But I don't blindly follow the suggestions of the corporal opinion-builders, be they "democratic" or "republican", "red" or "black" ...
Have you ever watched the movie "Why We Fight"? Might be interesting for you.

If you'd like to talk about 9/11 I, as the thread originator, have no objection, it is a related topic, were it not for the attack on my adopted home town, the six mentioned in the threads title would most likely not be prisoners of the US. However, if you are going to continue, please do not do so on the basis that the "Official Story" cannot be trusted simply because it is the official story.

FWIW the "Official Story" is "just a conspiracy theory", but it's one which the vast majority of the evidence supports.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Thanks, bobby.
But the US would have invaded these countries anyway - the plans and a lot of "reasons" laid in the drawers months before 9/11, so even IF 9/11 was no inside job, it was a welcome excuse to run into these countries without having to come up with a made-up reason. Why would they have done it even without 9/11? The profits of the weapon system producing companies were going down, they urgently needed a push. And how can you sell new weapon systems when no-one even wants to use their old ones? Like every weapon retailer they needed to build a need, an urge to buy their latest new bombs and missiles, jets and tanks.
As far as I know, the context "Al Qaeda" (which is nothing than a quite loose network of autonomus little phantom groups with similar ideology, according to the consense of the definitions I've read - and I'm not content with them!) is mostly used as an excuse for the own deeds and agendas.
Like:

The police of a country on our list doesn't manage to crack this network? Let our military march in - they host terrorists!
The government of a country is good friend with a persn the own secret service consider to be involved in terrorism? Let our military march in, to show them what we think of terrorism.
What? Some civilists dare to stand up in our way? Let's abduct them and break them in our camps. We won't allow to be stopped by some foreign civilians, and - maybe we'll find out these persons are terrorists themselves?
They better are, else they will regret the efforts we needed to find out they're not!!!

---

Account frozen...

Thanks, bobby.
But the US would have invaded these countries anyway - the plans and a lot of "reasons" laid in the drawers months before 9/11, so even IF 9/11 was no inside job, it was a welcome excuse to run into these countries without having to come up with a made-up reason. Why would they have done it even without 9/11? The profits of the weapon system producing companies were going down, they urgently needed a push. And how can you sell new weapon systems when no-one even wants to use their old ones? Like every weapon retailer they needed to build a need, an urge to buy their latest new bombs and missiles, jets and tanks.
As far as I know, the context "Al Qaeda" (which is nothing than a quite loose network of autonomus little phantom groups with similar ideology, according to the consense of the definitions I've read - and I'm not content with them!) is mostly used as an excuse for the own deeds and agendas.
Like:

The police of a country on our list doesn't manage to crack this network? Let our military march in - they host terrorists!
The government of a country is good friend with a persn the own secret service consider to be involved in terrorism? Let our military march in, to show them what we think of terrorism.
What? Some civilists dare to stand up in our way? Let's abduct them and break them in our camps. We won't allow to be stopped by some foreign civilians, and - maybe we'll find out these persons are terrorists themselves?
They better are, else they will regret the efforts we needed to find out they're not!!!

It was well known before 9/11 that Osama was operating out of Afghanistan, and that people affliated with him had attacked US interests overseas (US embassies in Africa, the Cole, etc). That the US government had plans ready for an invasion given these facts does not suggest to me that the US wanted an excuse to invade, rather that should a further attack occur of sufficient magnitude, there would be no delay responding to the general public's quite unsterstandable call for a response. Simply put, I would be shocked if our leaders did not ask on a regular basis:

"Where are our enemies? Do we have plans should they decide to attack?"

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Thanks, bobby.
But the US would have invaded these countries anyway - the plans and a lot of "reasons" laid in the drawers months before 9/11, so even IF 9/11 was no inside job, it was a welcome excuse to run into these countries without having to come up with a made-up reason. Why would they have done it even without 9/11? The profits of the weapon system producing companies were going down, they urgently needed a push. And how can you sell new weapon systems when no-one even wants to use their old ones? Like every weapon retailer they needed to build a need, an urge to buy their latest new bombs and missiles, jets and tanks.
As far as I know, the context "Al Qaeda" (which is nothing than a quite loose network of autonomus little phantom groups with similar ideology, according to the consense of the definitions I've read - and I'm not content with them!) is mostly used as an excuse for the own deeds and agendas.
Like:

The police of a country on our list doesn't manage to crack this network? Let our military march in - they host terrorists!
The government of a country is good friend with a persn the own secret service consider to be involved in terrorism? Let our military march in, to show them what we think of terrorism.
What? Some civilists dare to stand up in our way? Let's abduct them and break them in our camps. We won't allow to be stopped by some foreign civilians, and - maybe we'll find out these persons are terrorists themselves?
They better are, else they will regret the efforts we needed to find out they're not!!!

It was well known before 9/11 that Osama was operating out of Afghanistan, and that people affliated with him had attacked US interestes overseas (US embassies in Africa, the Cole, etc). That the US government had plans ready for an invasion given these facts does not suggest to me that the US wanted an excuse to invade, rather that should a further attack occur of sufficient magnitude, there would be no delay responding to the general public's quite unsterstandable call for a response. Simply put, I would be shocked if our leaders did not ask on a regular basis:

"Where are our enemies? Do we have plans should they decide to attack?"

Since Osama was trained by the CIA himself, I would not be astonished if it turned out that all these attacks on the embassies were set up to awaken a fear of terrorists. Like a German polititian said back in the 80's when there was a terror group called RAF, "... as for our safety measurements: If the RAF weren't there already, we had to invent them."

---

Account frozen...

Justice and Guantanamo??? Those two words don't go together in my mind. I have two words ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT. When our government starts locking people up indefinitely it is time to be very worried. You might be next.