technically they are prisoners of war I think, the difficulty of this being that many of them are citizens of countries with which we are not at war. It's not as simple as being at war with Germany and having German prisoners. This is the administration's point. However, where would be the harm in allowing Red Cross visits and so forth? Not doing so simply comes across as mean-spirited.... we don't have to allow this so therefore we don't. I believe the excuse is security; however the Red Cross has a good deal of experience with this and while I was not impressed with their disaster relief efforts (a tarp, forsooth) it's a built insulting to imply that they are ripe for manipulation.
The other problem of course is as Gruss says... if you define an infinite war it really does amount to eating up the rest of someone's life without trial. Dana On 7/3/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sam wrote: > > My point was when Gruss rehashes the Left's ratings that are used as > > propaganda by al-Jazeera and others against America then it is > > demoralizing America, in my opinion. > > There's 2 things here, and I'll take the second one first, > "demoralizing America": > > (1) > The greatest things an American can do is speak out against his > government - it's the ultimate patriotic act, besides dying for that > right. > > The concept that publicly disagreeing with your gov't in times of war > is wrong is the principle every dictatorship throughout history has > used to control its people. First you say, "because of war you cannot > speak free." Then we say, "because of war, you cannot act free". > Finally, "because of war you cannot live free." > > This extends to GitMo where we hold prisoners without due process. > Legally they aren't owed it, even by the Geneva Convention, IMO, and > typically during war POWs have no rights unless a crime is committed > within the camp. That is all reasonable. > > The problem comes in when you define war as forever. Now the act of > denying due process becomes a state imposed policy. It is for that > reason that I would say the "war on terror" is not a "war" and we > should be demonstrating to the world the principles we hold dear which > the terrorists are opposing. This is what won the Cold War. > > > (2) > What's a Liberal? > Typically talk radio defines it in a simplistic, and therefore wrong, > way: if you oppose Mr. Bush you're a liberal. > > It's a bit trickier and you have to split it up even to be simple: > > * Fiscal liberals believe that the federal gov't should use tax > revenue to solve social problems such as poverty, for example Social > Security or Welfare, education, or racism. > > * Fiscal conservatives believe that the free market is the best place > for this and only in the case of a demonstrable, repeatable market > failure should the federal gov't step in. > > * Social conservatives believe the federal gov't should be used to > impose an arbitrary morality on citizens. > > * Social liberals believe freedom is the ultimate morality and > therefore only those acts which violate "pursuit of happiness" should > be legislated, and on a local level. > > Mr. Bush is fiscally liberal and socially conservative. I am the > opposite so I oppose him, but, as Robert pointed out, I'm libertarian > rather than liberal. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:162729 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
