I don't want to sound like an English teacher, but if you did not want to imply that holding people illegally would have prevented 9/11, then you should have restructured that sentence.

Furthermore, you say that "hamstringing" intelligence agencies will "serve no other purpose than preventing them from preventing another attack." It's funny how you convieniently leave civil rights out of the picture when people fought and died to create a government that guaranteed them.

First off, I'll be the english teacher then. You see to ignore the word another. I wrote it there big as day, another, which is an adjective meaning different or distinct from the one first considered. The 3000 was a number taken to recall the events of 9/11, the word another was added to consider an additional attack. You perhaps should have comprehended the sentence a little more carefully before criticizing it. Words have meaning, make sure you understand them before you challenge them, because obviously you didn't.

I have not forgotten about civil rights. A mistake was made, and now this individual will seek and more than like receive renumeration through the justice system. While our government should strive hard not to make mistakes, like everyone else, its members are people and sometimes error. The government has to weigh protecting the rights of the people while protecting the people. Once again what is more important, having the freedoms or having the life to exercise them??

dmk

dmk

Yes, there is something to be hidden, the location of the leaders. Our military moves prisoners to protect operational security and the security of the members of the armed forces. It is that simple. It is an effective tactic and strategy to remove the leaders of the opposing force.

And how would you suggest doing this??? The military is concerned with security, of the operations and the soldiers, the introduction of an outside source would only add another possibility of security being compromised.

And the checks and balances are still in place. You offer no proof other than the fact that Republicans control the Congress and the Presidency. You are crying wolf. The branches are still separate, and have defined powers.

But the outcomes are still the same. Furthermore, if you read the articles the individual was detained, he was pullen off of some street, he was detained by customs trying to enter a country and then turned over to the intelligence apparatus.

Actually it is not that hard to breath while blindfolded and having water poured over your face, I should know, I went through SERE school and was subjected to that treatment. Its a far stretch from torture, especially when considering, that we do not remove the heads of our captives on videotape.

And which standards do you wish that we apply??? That we need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt someone is guilty before we detain then, that we give them the right to remain silent? I am sorry but war doesn't work that way. You can't fight a war without killing people, and destroying things, or without getting information from detainees.

dmk

If the word was added to consider an additional attack, that's fine. But you still say you would rather see a man "inconvienenced" than "another 3000 American killed." Obviously you would not find it necessary to make that statement unless you somehow believe that holding people illegally can prevent "another" attack that kills 3000 Americans. You have said that the number 3000 is a direct correlation to 9/11. So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but you are saying that a terrorist attack that is on the level of 3000 dead can be prevented by holding people illegally. If you believe that, I find it hard for you to say that you don't think or didn't say that holding people illegally could have prevented 9/11.


How do you draw the distinction between holding people illegally and human error? I understand that human error will result in people being held illegally, but we're talking about this as an intelligence agency practice of taking people at their discretion and detaining them without justification. The point of civil rights is so this does not happen in the first place. You make it sound all better by saying that this person will "more than likely receive renumeration through the justice system." That's not the point. The point is that the government does not have the right to put any sort of undue stress of that kind on its citizens. Making everything sound all right in the end does not remove the mental, psychological, and physical stress that the government ILLEGALLY put on that citizen.

You may think it is ok to compromise what this country stands for in the name of military convenience. That is one of the reasons the war mongers of this world are slowly killing us all. What makes you think that it is right for the CIA to act as its own entity seperate from the rest of us.
We live by standards and these acts are jepordizing America and what it stands for. You are saying in the name of security, we should ignore our covictions as Americans. The point is there needs to be some checks and balances here to. We can simply put in a secret court, that can not expose the information pertaining to these prisoners, to anyone. If this alone would hamper our investigators, they need to find another job.

HEAR HEAR!!! Beautifully put. I definately see your point with not wanting to comprimise our convictions.