Debalic wrote:
That's a moronically simple-minded interpretation of the left's position. The argument was that these men were being held indefinitely with no explanation, or even clarification, of why they were being held. Some sort of established procedure would have been nice, instead of just "toss em in a hole and maybe at some point we'll figure out what to do with em".
Quote:
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
I've quoted this section of the fourth Geneva Convention dozens of times in the past. It allows for prisoners to be held under those exact conditions "for the duration", exactly as those at Gitmo have been held. Ignorance on your own part does not equate to a "lack of explanation".
The reality is that the Left's position has been nothing more than "attack Bush". Period. They don't have a better solution. They just point out things that to an ignorant person appear to be "wrong". They don't do this for some overarching ethical reason. They do it to help their "side" gain political power. Can you please stop being so naive about this?
The argument about Gitmo was crafted solely as a means to shift public support away from the GOP and to the Dems. That those making those arguments had no better solution was irrelevant, but is becoming increasingly problematic now that their party has gained power. The actions of those detainees who were released shows exactly why we *shouldn't* be releasing them.
Look. I'm more than willing to state clearly and plainly that Bush was wrong to release these detainees. Bush's mistake was to bow to public pressures over Gitmo. Are you willing to state clearly and plainly that those who created that pressure were wrong? Are you willing to also state that it's just as wrong to continue along that path now as it was then?
You seem to want it both ways. You want to yell and scream for a specific course of action, but then not admit to any wrongdoing when that exact action results in negative consequences. It's astounding to me how often the Left argues for something, the Right insists it's a bad idea and states what will happen, then when exactly what the Right said would happen occurs, we're blamed for apparently not winning the argument well enough.
We warned for years that if the situation in Iraq was not resolved somehow, it would result in a major terrorist attack on US soil. The Left decried those people as neo-cons with some evil plan. When exactly what we warned about happened, did the Left admit that they were wrong? Nope. They blamed Bush. Then they blamed the very folks who warned about this, as though by writing down that "no one will act until a major terrorist attack occurs" made them culpable.
We warned for years that if we continued to launder bad loans through the financial sectors via various HUD programs, it would lead to financial disaster? This was again met with derision and attacks on those sounding the alarm. They were called racists, and haters of the poor. And when exactly what we warned against happened, did anyone on the Left admit that they were wrong? Nope! They again blamed Bush. Then blamed the very people who sounded the warning. Yes. We must have caused it all out of spite or something...
How many times do we have to see this same pattern repeated? We can talk about the effect of welfare on society over time. We can talk about the failure of social security, medicaid, medicare, etc. All are actions which the Right warned would have negative consequences, would increase in costs, and would ultimately create a larger problem in the long run. And in all cases, the Right was correct and the Left was wrong. The poor are less able to help themselves today then they were before we created those programs. More people are reliant on the government today than ever before. We have not helped people into prosperity, but rather helped them become more dependent on the government.
Once again, we see this pattern played out. The Right says: "We have to hold these guys because otherwise they'll go back and continue to plot terrorist attacks on us". The Left disagrees, and creates a PR attack based on incorrect legal statements which appeal to the ignorant masses. We end out letting many of these guys go. Guess what happens?
It's irrelevant which person was in charge when the decision was made. We're looking at the decision itself. Who was pushing for the correct action, and who was pushing for the incorrect one. The Left seems to love to hide in the shadows pretending that their public manipulation on issues really shouldn't be tracked back to them in any way. It's ridiculous. You supported a position. That position is wrong. Why can't you just admit it? Why is it always about spinning it in a way which allows you to attack the "other side"?
Bush was wrong to let those guys go. But if he was wrong, so was everyone who argued that he should let them go. Doesn't that make sense? You can't sit there and pretend that public pressure doesn't figure into any of this, and you can't claim no responsibility for the results when you participated in that pressure. In our country we have this wonderful freedom of speech. It allows us to express our opinions. And it can be used as a powerful tool to influence public policy. It is therefore beholden on each of us to think an issue through *before* we pick a position and *before* we use that freedom. We are all collectively responsible for the actions of our leaders, doubly so when they are doing what we demanded of them.
Perhaps you should all think about this the next time you blindly pick up a protest sign, or chant a slogan, or repeat some bit of political rhetoric. It has very real world consequences.
