13 Spider Bloody Chain
Grandmaster Knight
kurczak said:
Hmm...I get the impression that, nowdays, many Americans wouldn't care at all about whether or not other countries look up to them...
What to do with Guantanamo Bay?
- Thread starter 13 Spider Bloody Chain
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Grandmaster Knight
Hmm...I get the impression that, nowdays, many Americans wouldn't care at all about whether or not other countries look up to them...
Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar
Master Knight
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
I am not so sure that, whatever America did, that any countries would look up to us. A lot of people just don't like Americans, whether from envy, ideology or whatever.
I don't know what your country is, but to what lengths would it go just to be "liked" or "looked up to" by other countries?
Lets just kill everyone we can't get enough evidence on to convict of crimes, that'll stop 'em from attacking us!Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar said:
Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar
Master Knight
Merentha said:
Well, the rate of recidivism will be nil.
I think you missed the point of everyone.
Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar said:
I am not advocating their release. If they commited what you say the commited and if they are so dangerous, why don't you simply try them just like you try any other murderes, just like you tried the Oklahoma guy? Sentence them for life, if they are that dangerous, I have no problems with that. But why do you have to keep them in a facility that maybe is not, but definitely smells totalitarian?
Maw says it's because you are allowed by the GC. I think that it is not only questionable attitude, but it is also contraproductive. The whole US campaign is about spreading freedom and democracy, about exterminating the evil or am I wrong? My point is that Guantanamo is not doing this aim a favour.
Summary: I do not advocate the release of the detainees, I question the necessity and the reason for an extrajudicial facility, where the US can do anything they like. I think the aim, which I think is to punish the terrorists, can be achieved by rergular means.
Well, I can understand the opinion of anything being questionable, or even offensive to some people - but is it legal?
It is legal, in this case, to kill the unlawful combatants. So I'm guessing a good many people should be praising the US for their legal restraint - giving these guys a chance to redeem themselve, releasing them on their promise they won't pick up arms again, trying to get them to understand tht the US is not what they think. So - 10% of the released go back to nastiness - that means, I guess, that as of yet 90% have renounced terror as a means of changing things.
Th US should be praised for not just shooting them out of hand, but forgiving them. Yeah, a bunch are detained, some probably with no reasonable hope of release, because of what they did or won't renounce. The alternative is to pay for a burial. To crticsiz Guantanamo shows a lack of knowledge of what the US is doing, and how it is probably the most humanitarian, long term influence on changing these terrorists minds.
I never advocated shooting them outta hand - really, if it wasn't resolved at the time of first contact, hey - the wars over for them. Killing someone is so final - and it seems a good portion of these detainees hav changed from being Jihad Bob to becoming regular people with lives.
So, I would think, Kurczak, having a unique view from experience f law, and knowing what is allowable (summary execution), and what is being done (reconditioning) - how can you criticize the two? Want the US to follow the law to the letter, and start using a bulldozer on mass graves? Or detain them, work them, convince them to change their minds, get them to provide information to stop other bad things from happening? maw
It is legal, in this case, to kill the unlawful combatants. So I'm guessing a good many people should be praising the US for their legal restraint - giving these guys a chance to redeem themselve, releasing them on their promise they won't pick up arms again, trying to get them to understand tht the US is not what they think. So - 10% of the released go back to nastiness - that means, I guess, that as of yet 90% have renounced terror as a means of changing things.
Th US should be praised for not just shooting them out of hand, but forgiving them. Yeah, a bunch are detained, some probably with no reasonable hope of release, because of what they did or won't renounce. The alternative is to pay for a burial. To crticsiz Guantanamo shows a lack of knowledge of what the US is doing, and how it is probably the most humanitarian, long term influence on changing these terrorists minds.
I never advocated shooting them outta hand - really, if it wasn't resolved at the time of first contact, hey - the wars over for them. Killing someone is so final - and it seems a good portion of these detainees hav changed from being Jihad Bob to becoming regular people with lives.
So, I would think, Kurczak, having a unique view from experience f law, and knowing what is allowable (summary execution), and what is being done (reconditioning) - how can you criticize the two? Want the US to follow the law to the letter, and start using a bulldozer on mass graves? Or detain them, work them, convince them to change their minds, get them to provide information to stop other bad things from happening? maw
Sir Timothi
Wow, you make it sound like it's a freakin hayride.
Maw,
Please tell me what stops the US - under Gitmo logic - from nabbing whomever they please and holding them indefinitely. (Really, I'd like this answered - this is the issue in my eyes).
Also, I was referring to the presumption of innocence of course. Traditionally, one doesn't have to be proven innocent. At least, not before they've been proven guilty in the first place (by meeting certain criteria, or by some fair trial).
By "stupid", I mean willful acts by people who should behave in a better fashion. The example I gave being the invasion of Iraq - a very poor process regardless of what one thinks of its outcomes. Apparently, there was no clear rationale, no measurable objectives by which to judge success, and no set conditions for invasion. It was basically, "we feel like it", then "oh, it seems to have gone alright" or "at least the intent was noble" or some other claptrap. The same seems to apply to Gitmo - willful nabbing of people that they claim are "enemy combatants" or some other totally subjective brand of person.
And yes, this is just "my standard". But so what? So is my view that it's generally a bad idea to kill people. There are fairly uncontroversial reasons for avoiding willful behaviour of this sort (i.e., behaviour with no clear rationale, and no criteria for evaluation).
But like I said, I'm fairly ignorant. Just going with reasoning from what I've picked up. Open to corrections.
Please tell me what stops the US - under Gitmo logic - from nabbing whomever they please and holding them indefinitely. (Really, I'd like this answered - this is the issue in my eyes).
Also, I was referring to the presumption of innocence of course. Traditionally, one doesn't have to be proven innocent. At least, not before they've been proven guilty in the first place (by meeting certain criteria, or by some fair trial).
By "stupid", I mean willful acts by people who should behave in a better fashion. The example I gave being the invasion of Iraq - a very poor process regardless of what one thinks of its outcomes. Apparently, there was no clear rationale, no measurable objectives by which to judge success, and no set conditions for invasion. It was basically, "we feel like it", then "oh, it seems to have gone alright" or "at least the intent was noble" or some other claptrap. The same seems to apply to Gitmo - willful nabbing of people that they claim are "enemy combatants" or some other totally subjective brand of person.
And yes, this is just "my standard". But so what? So is my view that it's generally a bad idea to kill people. There are fairly uncontroversial reasons for avoiding willful behaviour of this sort (i.e., behaviour with no clear rationale, and no criteria for evaluation).
But like I said, I'm fairly ignorant. Just going with reasoning from what I've picked up. Open to corrections.
maw said:
Once again, I am not challenging legality of Guantanamo, I have no intention of sinking into the shadowy depths of public international law. It gave me a headache back at university, had enough, so I just suppose you are right.
It is of course great that you didn't shoot them immediately, although you could have. But it would be even better if it was a "regular" prison, with "regular" trials. This is obviously no field military tribunal, where the justice is quick, because one cannot afford to try them regularly when there the enemy is shooting at him. No, they are safely guarded on "American" soil, far from the frontier, so what's the point of all the extraordinar military means?
It would be better in the long term not only for the detainees, but especiall for America, because as I said earlier, you are only losing international points.
Don't get me wrong, I still think that the US is the best thing available in this world, but there is always something to improve. Like not estabilishing extrajudicial facilities. Or electing Ron Paul president.
Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar
Master Knight
Papa Lazarou said:
Our morality and international law do not permit us to "nab" whomever we please and hold them indefinately. We nab terrorists, not innocent citizens and hold them until they are tried by a military tribunal, can no longer give us useful information or are released.
Well, Papa - nothing external prevents the US from 'nabbing whoever please and holding them indefinitely' except it first would be a waste of time and assets, secondly there is considerable review and inquiry process by interrogators before the guests are invited to vacation at Gitmo, and as seen by several hundred releases that it doesn't seem to be the blanket intent of the US to simply scoop up handfuls of people and let them rot in solitary.
And as pointed out, the boys at Gitmo were doing something to have earned it.
Unlawful combantants is subjective - it has to do with violent actions against military and civilians in a military zone of authority. If an armed entity attacks the civil or military authority, and does not have the oversight of a national entity to which it can be responsible (shown by command and control, or direction) the act becomes a war crime, and the actors are not POW or irregulars or anything else except unlawful combatants.
All wars are a poor process, and killing people is a bad idea since I think many people who do bad stuffe aren't true believers - probably at least some of the terrorists were doing it to impress the girls back home - so killing them outside of direct contact isn't what I'd do. I see the US program on Guantanamo detainees isn't how it's portayed by the critcis. It really does have a history of being fair and just to the detainees - not to the level of a civilian defense attorney, or to the extreme liberal position of treating them as civilian criminals - but the proof is the hundreds released, and really, the low return to violence of those released.
The ones that remain are pretty nasty.
Kurczak asked wouldn't that be better - regular prisons and regular civilian trials -which was what many thought our new President Obama would do with a stroke of the pen - which could easiliy happen. A few posts back I detailed what the military was doing with these guys, putting them in a condition that information could be extracted from them, or at least isolating them to such an extant that they were unlikely to give support to the jihadist cause. If they were trested as civs, with civ rights and priveliges, that would go away, and there'd be no leverage. Plus, there is something about life thats sweet that the threat of tribunal and death may be a lever.
If these guys were run-of-the-mill criminals, they should go to a run-of-the-mill criminal court. They are not - they have info on the way jihadis work and train, the way jihadis communication and with who, the way money is moved and who gives them weapons and explosives, they know who prides them a place to sleep, and who provides them food and medicine. And, if the open their soul, empty out that knowledge to the US at Gitmo, and renounce jihadism with a promise they won't do it again, they get to go (no necessarily home) but somewhere safe to restart their lives. So yeah, compared to having a three foot rope hold your feet a foot off the ground, it is a hayride.
And in case you haven't noticed, the US in general doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about a whole lot. Even our liberal presidents tend to put the protections and interests of the US before others. And really, for all our words - we don't care a whole lot for foreign opinion when it comes to people trying to kill us.
When they're released, they're mostly not trusted - because the US would never release anyone who didn't become a traitor to the cause. Plus, in the eyes of their former buddies they may be a spy for the US; at the very minimum, they wouldn't be contacted or given any kind of influence, because they lost their anonomynity and the US is probably keepping tabs on them. So in many respects, Juhad Joe has been neutralized without being killed - which the liberal alternative is violating what? Their human right to conduct jihadist volence?
Yet the cry goes out 'O Gitmo, O Gitmo! thou are a horrible hell and a damndable weight on our free souls, and thou must have an end!'. It is so telling that President Obama didn't just convert their status, but rather delayed any action for a year - I'm thinking even if Gitmo closes for detainees, the program will continue, probably in a foreign nation like Iraq or Afghanistan.
It just won't be as easy for the guys asking the questions. maw
And as pointed out, the boys at Gitmo were doing something to have earned it.
Unlawful combantants is subjective - it has to do with violent actions against military and civilians in a military zone of authority. If an armed entity attacks the civil or military authority, and does not have the oversight of a national entity to which it can be responsible (shown by command and control, or direction) the act becomes a war crime, and the actors are not POW or irregulars or anything else except unlawful combatants.
All wars are a poor process, and killing people is a bad idea since I think many people who do bad stuffe aren't true believers - probably at least some of the terrorists were doing it to impress the girls back home - so killing them outside of direct contact isn't what I'd do. I see the US program on Guantanamo detainees isn't how it's portayed by the critcis. It really does have a history of being fair and just to the detainees - not to the level of a civilian defense attorney, or to the extreme liberal position of treating them as civilian criminals - but the proof is the hundreds released, and really, the low return to violence of those released.
The ones that remain are pretty nasty.
Kurczak asked wouldn't that be better - regular prisons and regular civilian trials -which was what many thought our new President Obama would do with a stroke of the pen - which could easiliy happen. A few posts back I detailed what the military was doing with these guys, putting them in a condition that information could be extracted from them, or at least isolating them to such an extant that they were unlikely to give support to the jihadist cause. If they were trested as civs, with civ rights and priveliges, that would go away, and there'd be no leverage. Plus, there is something about life thats sweet that the threat of tribunal and death may be a lever.
If these guys were run-of-the-mill criminals, they should go to a run-of-the-mill criminal court. They are not - they have info on the way jihadis work and train, the way jihadis communication and with who, the way money is moved and who gives them weapons and explosives, they know who prides them a place to sleep, and who provides them food and medicine. And, if the open their soul, empty out that knowledge to the US at Gitmo, and renounce jihadism with a promise they won't do it again, they get to go (no necessarily home) but somewhere safe to restart their lives. So yeah, compared to having a three foot rope hold your feet a foot off the ground, it is a hayride.
And in case you haven't noticed, the US in general doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about a whole lot. Even our liberal presidents tend to put the protections and interests of the US before others. And really, for all our words - we don't care a whole lot for foreign opinion when it comes to people trying to kill us.
When they're released, they're mostly not trusted - because the US would never release anyone who didn't become a traitor to the cause. Plus, in the eyes of their former buddies they may be a spy for the US; at the very minimum, they wouldn't be contacted or given any kind of influence, because they lost their anonomynity and the US is probably keepping tabs on them. So in many respects, Juhad Joe has been neutralized without being killed - which the liberal alternative is violating what? Their human right to conduct jihadist volence?
Yet the cry goes out 'O Gitmo, O Gitmo! thou are a horrible hell and a damndable weight on our free souls, and thou must have an end!'. It is so telling that President Obama didn't just convert their status, but rather delayed any action for a year - I'm thinking even if Gitmo closes for detainees, the program will continue, probably in a foreign nation like Iraq or Afghanistan.
It just won't be as easy for the guys asking the questions. maw
Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar
Master Knight
Don't forget, too, that a lot of the Gitmo detainees arrived there sick. A lot of the Afghan ones had TB, most were malnourished, many had wounds healing improperly. In the first six months of their detention, detainees put on an average of 12 pounds each. The Afghans have had a bad time with TB in the refugee camps and throughout the Tribal Territories, for some reason. All the detainees got proper medical care, and halal food. They have Qurans and are allowed to pray, and wash before prayers. They have mullahs. There is an office of the International Red Cross (ICRC) right there, to which the prisoners have access. The ones with TB might well have died had they stayed in Afghanistan and kept on fighting and training to be terrorists.
maw said:
Maw, don't tell me you don't have organised crime in the US.
maw said:
I have no problems with you putting your interests before others. I am only curious whether this way is the least...harmful/restrictive. Maybe it is, don't shoot a curious girl for asking questions
Yeah that is a common feature of all civilised prisons. I have never said that Guantanamo is a crime against humanity, It is perfectly possible that the actual state of things there is quite good and comaparable to any other civilised prison and better than any Central Asian prison...just try them, they have been there long enough to collect the evidence, sentence them, forgive the rest of the sentence if they cooperate and I will have no problem. I am not asking much or am I?
hm.. i smell totalitarism. this all G. thing reminds me of Gulag only on a global scale. and who soviets called "enemies of the state" americans now call "terrorists".
basicly, soviets were always afraid of the outer threat. they were brainwashed that US and its allies are ever plotting to overthrow soviet regime, enslave russian people and kill their kids. only this tremendous FEAR could let generations of soviets to put up with deadly prison-camps where people were held without proper trial. the Party said - they are enemies of the state (terrorists), they receive money from the west, they incite revolts, they plan to commit terroristic acts - they are not even people, they're goddamn animals. and people (scared like **** as they were) mostly believed that and didn't mind all those atrocities. after all, they thought that the state was actually trying to PROTECT them.
i realized that the US was going to take up the same route of the fear policy right after 9/11. of course it costed them much less lifes so far, but they've achieved their aim. every american now thinks that there is an unseen force called "global terrorism" which plots night and day how to ruin their lives.
a disturbing image.
basicly, soviets were always afraid of the outer threat. they were brainwashed that US and its allies are ever plotting to overthrow soviet regime, enslave russian people and kill their kids. only this tremendous FEAR could let generations of soviets to put up with deadly prison-camps where people were held without proper trial. the Party said - they are enemies of the state (terrorists), they receive money from the west, they incite revolts, they plan to commit terroristic acts - they are not even people, they're goddamn animals. and people (scared like **** as they were) mostly believed that and didn't mind all those atrocities. after all, they thought that the state was actually trying to PROTECT them.
i realized that the US was going to take up the same route of the fear policy right after 9/11. of course it costed them much less lifes so far, but they've achieved their aim. every american now thinks that there is an unseen force called "global terrorism" which plots night and day how to ruin their lives.
a disturbing image.
We do have organized crime in the US, civilian crime that caters to the dark tastes of people, or seeks to make financial profit by conducting illegal actions. Collectively, organized crime doesn't seek to destabilize the political structure (although it may subvert individuals), doesn't declare war on an particular portion of government like police or military, doesn't inflict a generalized terror for those who don't support them by detonating bombs at Wal-Mart or the mall, and doesn't plant roadside bombs, sniper attacks, and wholesale revenge attacks.
Sure, you can say fear is a governments greatest tool, and political parties that 'fight for the people' tend to stay in power by creating an artificial enemy. However, at present, there isn't an artificial enemy - he's real, he has media releases, he conducts attacks. So not every bit of fear originates from those in power.
I do think the whole fear thing has been overdone - the patriot act, the creation of Department of Homeland security, the outrageously stupid standards of equality for aircraft passenger searches, the changes in access to personal financial records - all of which are created as a general law or guideline, should be specific so as not to allow for abuse but isn't because of 'political correctness' . Thank both the dems and the repugs, as well as GWB - there is more damage done to US culture in response to 9/11 than 9/11 itself. Gitmo is a necessary sideshow.
Weaver, those are good points. It is hypothesis and supposition at this point to create a concern of gulags, concentration, reeducation camps a la the game Half-Life or Soviet Union. And they are terrorists - individuals practicing attacks against mostly a civilians and civilian infrastructure to force political change, as opposed to an enemy of the state who could be anyone with any type of written or spoken criticism against a government policy. The US perspective is pretty much say all the **** you want, but your actions will be what convicts you.
I don't think every american lies awake at night or has to take medication for nerves because of the omnipresent threat of global terrorism. I have to say, most people I come in contact with don't even think about it - it's too far away, in Afghanistan, or Israel, or at best New York City. If it was an absorbing fear, I'd see it non-stop on TV, it'd be dominating discussions at work, college, or the local coffee shop. It's not happening. I'd say most people forget 99% of the day the US is involved in a shoot-em-up in Afghanistan. Heck - I bet most couldn't even explain what the Taliban believe, or what Al Queada's stated goals are.They're more disturbed when the cable goes out so they can't watch 24.
Back to Gitmo, though -its not perfect, and K. asks if its the least harmful/restrictive. I'd say it depends are how you look at the United States - if you view the US as an oppressive beast, insidiously wanting to dominate the world through violence and waterboarding, stripping rights from people at whim - well, I can't change that, any more than I can change a biased position of the US can do no wrong, the terrorists are scum with no rights, and the only problem we have is keeping them alive long enough to get some pleasure outta their daily torture and abuse.
It is demonstrably in the middle - selected individuals who have conducted some kind of jihadist act with some knowledge that would reduce further jihadist actions are held in mediocre detention and subjected to psychological pressures and deprogramming. And if the jihadists decide to change, we got a carrot for them, not some shallow soviet-style grave.
I just see a difference here when it is viewed as being 'wrong' to have an open-ended incarceration. Nothing in their acts or status require the US to charge them, sentence them, or punish them. It really is how the US authorities feel about each case. It isn't a violation of civil or humanitarian rights to keep them detained. If it was a war, as many of them claim, then they'll be repatriated when the hostilities are over - ok, that's how POW's are released. Lets do it that way - but wait - who is going to negotiate a peace? Who is going to hold them accountable? No one as it stands.
That's why they are unlawful combatants, and are treated the way they are treated, and why most won't be seeing any sentencing soon. maw
Sure, you can say fear is a governments greatest tool, and political parties that 'fight for the people' tend to stay in power by creating an artificial enemy. However, at present, there isn't an artificial enemy - he's real, he has media releases, he conducts attacks. So not every bit of fear originates from those in power.
I do think the whole fear thing has been overdone - the patriot act, the creation of Department of Homeland security, the outrageously stupid standards of equality for aircraft passenger searches, the changes in access to personal financial records - all of which are created as a general law or guideline, should be specific so as not to allow for abuse but isn't because of 'political correctness' . Thank both the dems and the repugs, as well as GWB - there is more damage done to US culture in response to 9/11 than 9/11 itself. Gitmo is a necessary sideshow.
Weaver, those are good points. It is hypothesis and supposition at this point to create a concern of gulags, concentration, reeducation camps a la the game Half-Life or Soviet Union. And they are terrorists - individuals practicing attacks against mostly a civilians and civilian infrastructure to force political change, as opposed to an enemy of the state who could be anyone with any type of written or spoken criticism against a government policy. The US perspective is pretty much say all the **** you want, but your actions will be what convicts you.
I don't think every american lies awake at night or has to take medication for nerves because of the omnipresent threat of global terrorism. I have to say, most people I come in contact with don't even think about it - it's too far away, in Afghanistan, or Israel, or at best New York City. If it was an absorbing fear, I'd see it non-stop on TV, it'd be dominating discussions at work, college, or the local coffee shop. It's not happening. I'd say most people forget 99% of the day the US is involved in a shoot-em-up in Afghanistan. Heck - I bet most couldn't even explain what the Taliban believe, or what Al Queada's stated goals are.They're more disturbed when the cable goes out so they can't watch 24.
Back to Gitmo, though -its not perfect, and K. asks if its the least harmful/restrictive. I'd say it depends are how you look at the United States - if you view the US as an oppressive beast, insidiously wanting to dominate the world through violence and waterboarding, stripping rights from people at whim - well, I can't change that, any more than I can change a biased position of the US can do no wrong, the terrorists are scum with no rights, and the only problem we have is keeping them alive long enough to get some pleasure outta their daily torture and abuse.
It is demonstrably in the middle - selected individuals who have conducted some kind of jihadist act with some knowledge that would reduce further jihadist actions are held in mediocre detention and subjected to psychological pressures and deprogramming. And if the jihadists decide to change, we got a carrot for them, not some shallow soviet-style grave.
I just see a difference here when it is viewed as being 'wrong' to have an open-ended incarceration. Nothing in their acts or status require the US to charge them, sentence them, or punish them. It really is how the US authorities feel about each case. It isn't a violation of civil or humanitarian rights to keep them detained. If it was a war, as many of them claim, then they'll be repatriated when the hostilities are over - ok, that's how POW's are released. Lets do it that way - but wait - who is going to negotiate a peace? Who is going to hold them accountable? No one as it stands.
That's why they are unlawful combatants, and are treated the way they are treated, and why most won't be seeing any sentencing soon. maw
Fawzia dokhtar-i-Sanjar said:
maw said:
So basically you're saying "we can take whomever we like, and hold them for as long as we like"?
Well, Papa - having the ability to do something, and actually doing it are two distinct things. And you pose your question as if it's the most horrible thing.
You could have easily asked
So basically you're saying "we can take whomever we like, and kill them as we like"?
Which would actually be the most horrible thing for the unlawful combatants.
As far as taking whoever we like - its more like take somebody who has done something really, really naughty and prolly shouldn't be allowed to continue. You framed it in a manner that some random innocent walking their cute little dog eating an ice cream cone on a sunny day with birds singing sudenly would have Delta Team sweep down on a whim from black helicopters to whisk them away, leaving a melted, crushed cone and a frightened, crying puppy. Furthest from the truth.
Notice, they are not designated as terrorists - nor do I think they all are - some detainees in the past actually were convinced they were fighting an US-Infidel-Crusader occupation - but changed their tune, and have been released. Many more are die-hard al Quaeda types, who will die before they renounce their particular cultish faith. Oh, well - maybe next year, or five years, or ten years from now they'll change their minds. Or maybe the DOD will get tired of holding them, and either convict and sentence to death, or cut them loose. Who knows?
If it was me, I'd make them watch I Love Lucy re-runs non-stop.That would break them. maw
You could have easily asked
So basically you're saying "we can take whomever we like, and kill them as we like"?
Which would actually be the most horrible thing for the unlawful combatants.
As far as taking whoever we like - its more like take somebody who has done something really, really naughty and prolly shouldn't be allowed to continue. You framed it in a manner that some random innocent walking their cute little dog eating an ice cream cone on a sunny day with birds singing sudenly would have Delta Team sweep down on a whim from black helicopters to whisk them away, leaving a melted, crushed cone and a frightened, crying puppy. Furthest from the truth.
Notice, they are not designated as terrorists - nor do I think they all are - some detainees in the past actually were convinced they were fighting an US-Infidel-Crusader occupation - but changed their tune, and have been released. Many more are die-hard al Quaeda types, who will die before they renounce their particular cultish faith. Oh, well - maybe next year, or five years, or ten years from now they'll change their minds. Or maybe the DOD will get tired of holding them, and either convict and sentence to death, or cut them loose. Who knows?
If it was me, I'd make them watch I Love Lucy re-runs non-stop.That would break them. maw
