Enemies of the State
One of the foremost questions that the US currently faces is what to do with the “detainees” at Guantanamo Bay. There are a number of issues that surround this topic. I am going to try and touch upon them and we’ll see if this turns into a discussion, rant or just a long rambling post.
1) The US has many “detainees” incarcerated at this time. Some of them have turned out to have been captured because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. While many if not most have been a part of groups that are engaged in a war against the US.
2) Since this “war” is being fought against stateless groups, it is a different type of war and in some ways more difficult. It is not the convention type in which you can physically take over a capital and force the leadership to sign armistice papers.
3) Many of the “detainees” that have been released have gone back to their old units and resumed fighting against the US. There are number of accounts of these people.
4) They are currently being held in a state that is not ideal. There is a question of rights and what they deserve.
5) We know that some of them would not hesitate to butcher anyone, man/woman/child. They have no distinction between soldier and civilian.
6) The US likes to think of itself as being a moral beacon, and in many ways we are. What standards do we hold ourselves to and how do we work this in conjunction with protecting the nation.
7) Is torture ever acceptable? If it would have prevented 911 would you have approved it’s use? Or do you think that people will say anything to make it stop.
8) If a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood, would a woodchuck chuck?
Grace October 20, 2004 at 1:23 am
p.s. i think killing is more humane than torture.
Grace October 20, 2004 at 1:21 am
8. more than how many licks it takes to make a lolly-pop
7. not acceptable under any circumstances- not negotiable.
5. is that what they said about the Japanese, when there were “internment” camps?
have u seen this
Jack's Shack October 19, 2004 at 7:24 pm
Makes sense, but here is the rub. What do you do when your enemy ignores the rules of warfare. He doesn’t fight as a gentleman should, but uses any means at hand.
Do you drop the gloves to try and save lives or is it better to continue to occupy the moral position even though it risks more death than the other.
ricknight October 19, 2004 at 7:05 pm
“Enemy of the state” is highly subjective, and states tend to find it hard to distinguish enemies from legitimate dissent.
Combatants are Combatants… Either you abide by the “laws of war” or you chuck it and say it’s open season (if you do you loose the right to complain when monsterous things are done to you return). Pick one or the other, but choosing both at the smae time is just greedy.
Anonymous October 19, 2004 at 5:56 pm
When western governments start legitimizing torture as means for interrogation than democracy will be officially dead. There will be no difference anymore between ‘the west’ and arab dictatorships.