- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 1048
Sir, there are many very, very bright folks that comment here, and you rank high amongst them. But I respectfully submit that you are mistaken.
— kyleben
No, he is correct.
See:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2155631_use-imply-infer-correctly.html
http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/implygloss.htm
http://grammartips.homestead.com/imply.html
The correct use of imply/infer is a matter of the direction of the action and is similar to other pairs that are so oriented such as borrow/lend or teach/learn. Basically, the speaker or writer implies, the hearer or reader infers. Inanimate objects can only imply, not infer, because inference requires the use of understanding and logic. Hence saying that a book or a word "infers" something is like saying "borrow me five dollars" or "I'm gonna learn you some grammar."
In all cases, the source implies/lends/teaches and the recipient infers/borrows/learns. If you ever see a dictionary define infer as "imply" then it is a codified misuse of people who can't understand the difference.
As far as charging them with a crime, what crime should it be. These people were not captured on American soil therefore are not bound by our civil laws. They were captured on a battlefield and should therefore be tried in military courts. However Military or World courts are used to prosecute crimes against humanity. The people in Gitmo are POW's. We didn't prosecute German or Japanese soldiers in WWII or Vietcong or even Iraqi's during desert storm.
This is either near-Amity-quality satire or it is the stupidest thing that has been posted here since Shooter was banned.
If the people at GTMO are POWs then their treatment by the US amounts to war crimes since more provisions of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war have been violated there than can be counted.
Very few of the people in GTMO were captured on any battlefield. Most were sold to the US for bounty or kidnapped off the streets of other countries.
This is not a criminal issue this is a war in which taking prisoners is necessary. If you want to see what harsh treatment of POWs is look at photos of people leaving the Hanoi Hilton and compare that the Uighurs swimming in the ocean and eating ice cream on our tax dollars.
— superputz
The Uighurs held for six or more years by the US were never in combat against US or allied forces. They do not come close to any definition of POW. In fact, most of them were judged not to be enemy combatants as early as 2004. But they've still been locked up from then until just recently. They deserve more than just ice cream from our tax dollars. They are not the criminals, they are the victims of crimes and deserve compensation for their treatment.
The president's overriding duty is the protection of the American people.
That being the case, why wasn't Bush impeached and imprisoned for dereliction of duty on 9/12/2001?
Bush said often (as a justification for his lawbreaking) that he took an oath to "protect the country". Perhaps he did, but if so it must have been after 9/11 because he sure wasn't much on protecting the country before that, and one wonders why he didn't take this oath publicly.
If the president's overriding duty is the protection of the American people, then he should outlaw motor vehicles. There were 37,313 traffic fatalities in the US last year.
Anyway, traffic fatalities are just a drop in the bucket. In adequate health care causes far more deaths in America than traffic accidents:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
The president can't protect the American people any more than you can protect your family or yourself from natural or man-made disasters. The people who wrote the constitution realized this. That's why they didn't write any such silly requirement into it.
