If Horowitz is so squeemish about it, we can always let the Afghan police handle it. Of course the prisoners will most likely not see the next morning, but what the hey...OUR hands will be clean.

Of course, if you WANT the prisoners to stay ALIVE, you may want the US Soldiers to hold them.

BTW, it is a little known fact that prisoners would MUCH rather have the US soldiers capture and hold them than other members of the UN...or the Afghan National Police for that matter. That's mainly because we treat them MUCH better than the others would.

"If we're ever going to get an improved health care system, we've got to write off the "Dr. No" party and do what the majority of Americans want."

Ah but the majority of Americans don't want THIS bill to pass. And btw, if the Republicans are "written off" then I hope we NEVER get health care changes! We are all Americans and should work together to reach a compromise.

So I'm GLAD this failed and I hope it CONTINUES TO FAIL until we ALL get together and make a good, legal document!

"Are you saying our detention policies at Bagram aren't having an adverse impact on our relations with the locals, despite Horowitz's on the ground report?"

Did I SAY that? No...I said that as bad as you think our procedures are, the Afghans and the other UN countries would eat prisoners for breakfast! And more, I'm saying the terrorists KNOW that.

"Are you saying that prisoners captured in combat would rather be captured by Americans? That I can believe."

That is exactly what I am saying.

"But if someone is falsely accused because of a tribal squabble and sent to Bagram, why would they be grateful? Wouldn't they rather we actually investigate such accusations properly and thoroughly? Are you saying "other members of the UN" are also doing this? If so, which countries are we talking about?"

I know there are some soldiers over there from UN countries that don't even take prisoners...or at least show up fight after fight with no prisoners at all. By sheer statistics alone, you'd think they'd get at least one or two every once in a while. As for which countries, not going to go there, thanks.

"What is your source for your "little known facts"?"

Um, me...been there done that.

"Do you think there is no way to improve our policies at Bagram to maximize our effectiveness in dealing with the local populace? Or do you not think such an effort critical to our mission?"

Of course not...I'm saying ours are much preferrable to others...not that they can't be improved.

"Is a prison that is staffed and operated by Americans "that only a select few Afghan members of government" are even allowed entry into, an Afghan prison or an American prison?"

I can answer this one. It is a prison in Afghanistan, located in Bagram which is located in the northern part of the country surrounded by mountains in an almost bowl shape. The prison belongs to the Aghans but it is run by the US...so I would guess you would call it a US military prison.

Now, if the American people would like, I'm sure we could put the Afghan National Police (ANP for short) in charge of the prison. However, when the prisoners start turning up dead, I wouldn't want to hear a word about it.

Then again, one has to wonder why we would take any prisoners at all anymore. I mean, think about it...what would be the point? We can't get information from them anymore because we can't torture them...so OK, that's out. They get cut loose if we don't read them their rights...and who has time to do that on the battlefield anyway...so that's out.

So really, there's no advantage to taking prisoners anymore, is there? So the alternative is to instruct your soldiers to shoot to kill, EVERY time...one shot, one kill. Hey, I didn't set this up...but I can guarantee you me and my guys are coming home!

Hey, I didn't set this up...but I can guarantee you me and my guys are coming home!

Of course, higher HQ won't be ordering this, so it's really a moot point.

All this breast beating over the detainees. So give them a military trial and be done with it.

Know what I find MOST interesting about all this? We have now said we cannot torture prisoners. So ok...we can't get information from them, no matter how critical it would be. Fine.

Now, we are actually talking about giving them a trial, giving them rights, etc. So I assume we will cut them loose if they weren't read their rights. Fine.

So NOW, would someone please tell me ONE reason we have to take ANY prisoners now? So what I expect to happen now is, we WON'T be taking any more prisoners and our military will be shooting to kill anyone shooting at them.

So...we won't have any prisoners but we will be taking out the terrorists permanently.

That work for ya?

You got to live until you were 30, with every want satisfied...but once you turned 30, you die. That way the balance of the society was maintained. And all children were clones.

Yep. That's what the ultimate in socialism is headed towards...until it turns to communism.

Government Health Care---you gotta LOVE it.