Powell Urges Gitmo Closure

[Heibges]

From the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6739745.stm

From MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19153972/

Slightly different focus from Fox
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280457,00.html

[The Avon Lady]

They can move in with Paris. :p

I'm with Colin on this one...
Guantanamo should be closed and not opened again!

[Chock]

How much make up does Colin Powell have on in that picture on the first link?!!

He looks like he's made out of foam rubber in that shot (compare his face with his hands).

Chock

Originally Posted by Chock

How much make up does Colin Powell have on in that picture on the first link?!!

He looks like he's made out of foam rubber in that shot (compare his face with his hands).

Chock

You mean his lipstick?

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

They can move in with Paris. :p

You are sadistic..

Originally Posted by Happy Times

You are sadistic..

I wouldn't complain....

[robbo180265]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

They can move in with Paris. :p

HILTON - I get it! I thought you were having a go at the French

Jokes aside, if they did move in with Paris at least then they'd have the right to defend themselves

"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission."

I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by robbo180265

HILTON - I get it! I thought you were having a go at the French

Jokes aside, if they did move in with Paris at least then they'd have the right to defend themselves

"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission."

I couldn't agree more.

This isn't a legal issue. Its a war issue. We treated attacks on the US as a legal issue under the previous administration and for our efforts the attacks on the WTC occured. A change in policy is both needed and appropriate.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by waste gate

This isn't a legal issue. Its a war issue. We treated attacks on the US as a legal issue under the previous administration and for our efforts the attacks on the WTC occured. A change in policy is both needed and appropriate.

I almost agree. I think it is an intelligence issue, and not a military issue.

[robbo180265]

But surely you can see that innocent people could get detained by mistake,and if that happens America can hardly stand for "Truth and Justice" can it?


"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission."

That's exactly right.

Ok America isn't sawing the heads off it's captives,but it's not exactly treating them as a civilised society should either IMO.

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by waste gate

This isn't a legal issue. Its a war issue. We treated attacks on the US as a legal issue under the previous administration and for our efforts the attacks on the WTC occured. A change in policy is both needed and appropriate.

You make a few assumptions here to justify your point. You insist that it was the softy Clinton's fault for 9/11. But bymany accounts the Clinton Administration was tracking the 9/11 attacks and tried to get the Bush Administration to follow it up but weren't taken serioiusly.

Secondly what war? Who declared war and who is it against? You can't create a state of war where there is no concrete enemy, no country to attack, or conditon of victory. In the name of a war that is so vague and indefinite you could justify anything. But if it is indeed justifiable, why do they need to hide all of this in some country thats not a democratic haven? If its so legitimate then it should be justifiable on native soil. But since it is not then it obvioiusly conflicts with everything that the USA stands for. If the US were actually at war (which technically hasn't been true since Korea, though someone told me recently apparently that even then the US didn't declare) then those measures wouldbe justifiable AT HOME. In Canada we call this "War Measures". And even then alleged torture is still forbidden by ratified international law. The US signed them and is bound by them. So it is a dual logic. No state of war in actuality but a phantom one that is meant to frighten all dissent away.

Originally Posted by P_Funk

You make a few assumptions here to justify your point. You insist that it was the softy Clinton's fault for 9/11. But bymany accounts the Clinton Administration was tracking the 9/11 attacks and tried to get the Bush Administration to follow it up but weren't taken serioiusly.

Secondly what war? Who declared war and who is it against? You can't create a state of war where there is no concrete enemy, no country to attack, or conditon of victory. In the name of a war that is so vague and indefinite you could justify anything. But if it is indeed justifiable, why do they need to hide all of this in some country thats not a democratic haven? If its so legitimate then it should be justifiable on native soil. But since it is not then it obvioiusly conflicts with everything that the USA stands for. If the US were actually at war (which technically hasn't been true since Korea, though someone told me recently apparently that even then the US didn't declare) then those measures wouldbe justifiable AT HOME. In Canada we call this "War Measures". And even then alleged torture is still forbidden by ratified international law. The US signed them and is bound by them. So it is a dual logic. No state of war in actuality but a phantom one that is meant to frighten all dissent away.

All very good words P-Funk, unfortunately, they do not recognize the new reality. When they dump a bomb on your world you will see. Towing the DU line doesn't make you correct, only niave.