Kitt:

Comparing tried and convicted sex offenders to never tried, convicted or even accused so called terrorists?

In many states, a sex offender does not even have to be tried, simply arrested or indicted, for the host of restrictions to be placed on them. If they are never acquitted, the restrictions can stay on them for life.

(n.b., as a foster parent, some of the children we have hosted have been under such restrictions--from as young as 9--which carry with them for life in many jurisdictions)

...but since this is literally virtual (;~) territory, we can't use any hand or eye signals... We can limit direct address, however.

I fully believe that on some level, the trolls come here because they "need" to be abused. Not because they are into that, necessarily, but because their self-image is not complete unless they feel persecuted for their beliefs. Chris Hedges' "American Fascists" paints a pretty clear picture of the personality type.

And what would the "charges" be? An enemy soldier, captured on the battlefield fighting against our forces, is not a criminal to be charged with violating this statute or that. He is an enemy of our country--a prisoner of war.

But you see, George W. Bush has gone to a great deal of trouble to claim that these people aren't prisoners of war. If they are prisoners of war, then they have certain rights and privileges under the Geneva Conventions (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). They cannot be imprisoned or kept in a cell or shackled (except for actual offenses), they cannot be interrogated. They cannot be tortured or punished (except for actual offenses. If these people are prisoners of war, then Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and assorted military officers are guilty of war crimes for their treatment of them.

On the other hand, if they are not prisoners of war but criminals then they need to be tried for their crimes. You cannot have it both ways. If they are prisoners of war, then they can't be treated like criminals. If they are criminals then they should be brought before the bar of justice. If they are both prisoners of war and criminals, then the Geneva Conventions provide for this as well:

III. Judicial proceedings

Article 99

No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced for an act which is not forbidden by the law of the Detaining Power or by international law, in force at the time the said act was committed.

No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.

No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

for your [back to back] posts about 10:37.

Godfrey - my sentiments exactly. Sharter26%'s leavings do not merit a response. The stench becomes nearly unbearable sometimes, though, so I can sympathize somewhat w/ those who lose their self-control.

And Glenn's book just arrived in the mail. Yippee!

...the rights afforded Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded enemy combatants in military tribunals. from the NYT op-ed

He followed with a paragraph devoted to the topic of hearsay -- which gave the impression that constraints on the admission of hearsay evidence is the only significant "right afforded Americans" that isn't given to enemy combatants in these tribunals. Is that so? I'd kind of suspected otherwise, or else he would have said it plainly, rather than just implied it.

It's clear that shooter shares our outrage at the falling standards of American justice under George Bush, albeit for different reasons. From shooter's clear and objective viewpoint, in America only Republicans go to jail. This might explain why shooter thinks Osama would be set free on a technicality if he were captured and brought to America for trial. After all, Osama isn't really a Republican, is he?

Of course, shooter is very comfortable with the fact that Americans are dying in support of an Iraqi Government whose standards of justice include kangaroo trials, ethnic cleansing and punishment-by-death squad, so his point of view may not be as clear and objective as it appears to be at first blush.

The people in Gitmo are not criminals in the traditional sense nor are they POWs, since they do not fight in uniform under a recognized state. That is why a new category has been created for them: foreign enemy combatant.

They are not afforded protections of the Geneva Conventions because they do not remotely meet the definition of "soldier" or "combatant" as defined in those treaties, and clearly they are not civilians, either, under the same definitions.

They are not "criminals" in the traditional sense, either, since their acts took place outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction. In effect, there is no "crime" to charge them with other than general accusations of murder and mayhem.

But because they fight under an ideology and a loose affiliation of an organization that wishes to destroy our country, that makes them especially dangerous; there is no central power we can defeat to make them stop fighting.

The only alternative is to hold them, well, forever. We already know what happens when we release them; they go back to fight us again, as evidenced by recapturing some guys who had previously been released from Gitmo.

And frankly, "Frankly my dear," I simply don't believe most of these accusation of torture. Remember, al Qaida types were trained to claim they were tortured if captured, and credulous press types and blinkered "crusaders" like Glenn Greenwald simply ignore that and gullibly lap up whatever propaganda they've been fed.

Morris Davis: “Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals.”

Shameless, shameless, shameless. It takes my breath away.

Bebop-o: “Don't get to a familiarization with darkness where one remains perpetually lost?....

The better option:

*The Mental Traveler-- Full filled with gems & gold, which he by industry had got. And these are the gems of the Human Soul, and the rubies & pearls of a lovesick eye. The countless gold of a ageing heart, and the martyrs groan and lovers sigh.

They are his meat they are his drink. He feeds the Beggar & the Poor and the wayfaring Traveler ever opens his door.”

This is beautiful and moving, Bebop-o. The hell with Bush, I want to have a beer with YOU. Thanks to you, I always have ripe summer berries on my mind….and Wednesday is farmer’s market day and I am going to take my sweet discarded hound with me to fill up on the juicy things. I hope that you keep writing here and that when the summer passes, your musings turn to the rich seasonal crops of autumn.

Paul R: “the approach is similar in terms of playing with opposites in multiple ways, with gritty, loving little details to cherish and grand abstractions slipping on banana peels”

Paul R, I cannot think of a better way to tempt me than to describe a show in this way! You have done it—I am off to add season 1 to my netflix queue.