On this day, let us all be proud of America

Hey Buz I really do hope that an ex-Gitmo detaineee becomes your neighbour. I hope that he is one of the many innocent victims that has indisputably been detained for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I also hope that you learn something from your new neighbour.Let us all hope that the many innocent victims of Gitmo, victims who had committed no crime before their detention and who had no intention of committing any acts of terrorism, are not now so filled with hatred as a result of the injustices heaped upon them that they have become the very thing they were accused of being.Let us also hope that the brothers, sons, uncles and nephews of those who were detained wrongly are not filled with hatred as a result of the hardship and loss heaped upon their families as a result of these unjustified imprisonments.Let us hope that the very thing you support has not resulted in the very thing you fear.I am not optimistic. How can we differentiate a "stealth warrior" from an innocent citizen? Did the crucifixion of Jesus have any negative "long lasting effects" on Jesus.....? Taking the side of his father in paradise after death.Was he not tortured?This is perhaps another conversation. Perhaps the Sacrifice thread? Can you claim moral superiority over those you fight if you are no better than they are? Did we fight Nazi Germany because they were morally wrong? Or because they threatened our survival? Are we fighting for what is right or are we fighting for our own survival no matter what the price to ourselves and our values may be?Which is more important? And thus went the justification of the "foreign powers" of which you speak who also committed atrocities in the name of necessity.Fearful and compromised? Or determined and righteous?Which is it to be? Because you cannot be both.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The fact that in the vast majority of cases there is no evidence to suggest anything else.The fact that there have already been widely reported cases of detainees declared innocent and eventually freed (after years of false imprisonment).I also thought that you broadly accepted that most Gitmo detainees have committed no actual crime?From Message 179So what percentage of Gitmo detainees do you think are actually guilty of terrorist acts? Or indeed anything else? On what basis do you make this judgement? In the same way that the military knew best as to whether Iraq possessed WMD?I was on the mass anti-war demo in London a few years back. Nobody believed that Iraq had WMD. It was obviously a politically motivated declaration rather than a purely military one.There is no clear distinction between where the government ends and the military begins. As such I no more trust the military to be always honest and correct than I do the government.With regard to Gitmo - I think the military take the same view to prisoners as they do to bombs. If a few hundred innocents get caught such that one valid target gets taken out then the ends justify the means.To some extent I don't entirely blame the military for this attitude. A soldier cannot do his job if he questions the morality of everything he is told to do at every opportunity. But somewhere along the line somebody has to decide what exactly it is that the military is protecting and where the line is drawn in terms of innocent victims and the compromise of principle.Are we fighting for our values and principles or are we fighting for survival no matter what the cost?Fear and compromise or determination and righteaousness in the face of adversity?Which is it? Because it cannot be both.Edited by Straggler, : Correct link error spoted by Huntard.

Buz
You have conveniently ignored most of the points made in my last post Message 171Well what are the facts? What facts are present to suggest that all but a tiny minority of Gitmo prisoners are guilty of anything?Innocent until proven guilty? Does this mean nothing to you? Is no part of moral law sacrecanct in this "war on terror" I have very little faith in what army intelligence knows. I have little faith in what the army intelligence thinks it knows. Throw in my scepticism towards army intelligence being confused with political desire and we have a recipe for which I have the deepest mistrust.Do you trust your government Buz? Where does your government end and your military start? All the cases brought into the public domain (kicking and screaming in many most cases) so far have implied deep miscrriages of justice. Answer me honestly Buz. Do you think the military are overly concerned with justice? Do you think that they care if 95% of Gitmo detainees are innocent?Do you think that the military honestly detained people on the basis of concrete evidence? Or do you think that people were rounded up on a "capture now question later" basis?Seriously? Honestly? What do you believe?Whether you believe that this was justified or not is another matter. But do you honestly think that the military care wheher the vast majority of Gitmo detainees are guilty or not?Fear and compromise. Fear and compromise, that is what you are indisputably advocating Buz.It is I, the morally compromised atheist (apparently), that is advocating determination and righteousness in the face of adversity. Principles in the face of expediency and compassion in the face of hatred. Surely this should be the Christian position?Go figure........

I don't doubt that. But how much effect do the views of individual soldiers have on military policy?It is as an institution and at the command level that I mean when I refer to "the military". But even then things are not so clear-cut.Earlier I wrote: The primary, if not sole, concern of the military overrall will always be the safety of the nation. That is it's job. That is right and proper.But when the methods of protecting the safety of the nation come into conflict with with the very principles upon which the nation is founded it requires someone outside, someone from above, someone with a different perspective than "safety at all costs" to step in and provide the checks and balances. It requires someone to draw the line that divides "safety at all costs" with "justice and principle at all costs".In short the military cannot just be allowed to apply it's narrow perspective unfettered.Gitmo is an example of what happens when the narrow military perspective is allowed to override the wider perspective of principle and justice.But in no way am I suggesting that every individual member of the army, people such as yourself, are either blind to this or necessarily in agreement with all of the politicised decisions made in the name of military necessity.

OK Buz have it your way.But let me ask - Would YOU care if 95% of Gitmo detainees are innocent? Is their imprisonment justified by the other 5%?What do YOU think?What do you think Donald Rumsfeld's answer would be to that question? GWB's answer?When I speak of "the military" and it's discarding of justice in the context of Gitmo I speak of the policies imposed by those who ran the military. Not individual soldiers like DA. I don't know what that means? So Buz you still have not answered this question:Fear and compromise or determination and righteousness in the face of adversity? Which is it to be? because it cannot be both.

Hey DA
I hope I have successfully cleared things up regarding the remarks I made that you found offensive.I am quite a fan of your contributions here at EvC in general and paricularly respect your comments in this topic as someone with direct experience of the military.It seems that we agree on much regarding the necessity of principled leadership, the need for a perspective that is wider than "maximum security at all costs" and on the practicalities that on the ground troops inevitably face.The only remark I would make in direct response to your last post relates to the following: As a general principle I find that if one needs to refer to lawyers definitions of what is or is not technically legal in the face of morally questionable actions - Then 9 times out of 10 those actions are going to be morally lacking regardless of legality.Such legal technicalities are just a mask used to justify the morally unjustifiable.The spirit of the Geneva convention has been breached regardless of whether or not specific actions are technically legal.That is what counts.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Aha! All becomes clear. Thanks for the clarification. Yes I had assumed that AI meant "Army Intelligence" in this context.I have dimly heard of Koolaid but never actually had the stuff.
I have heard of Amnesty International but am not sure why Buz keeps mentioning them in response to me. I claim to have no major insights or knowledge into what they do and have made no references to that organisation myself.So his derogatory references are somewhat wasted on me........ Oh! Well if I am drinking Koolaid of any sort it certainly isn't Amnesty International Koolaid that I am drinking. I didn't even recognise the reference to this organisation until Kerusu made things clear.I wonder what brand of Koolaid Buz is quaffing........?