<p>Well, for one, what war is it that he is being held till the end of? Iraq War, Afghanistan War, the War on Terror? Not at all clear.</p>
<p>Secondly, aren’t those held as such usually called POWs, with Geneva Convention oversight?</p>
<p>Yes, when they are part of an army run by government of a nation with authority to negotiate and surrender and treat our captured soldiers with equal restraint. Obviously that has not been the case with captured US soldiers and civilains being horribly killed and dumped. What we have now is a unique situation of organized non-governmental fighters who know no bounds. To offer them any quarter is stupid and useless. It will not help our captured people one iota.</p>
<p>Though for sure, we didn’t bother to call the Japanese-Americans held in internment camps POWs, or give them trials. So, you’re right–we should be used to this.</p>
<p>This is getting circular, Barrons. Without trials, how can we make these accusations with confidence? Especially as we know that many, many people held at Guantanamo were finally released, often after years, once we finally admitted we had no reason to hold them.</p>
<p>Thank you, ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad, for posting!</p>
<p>Reading the headlines today about the Israeli-Hezbollah trade of a convicted murderer (of a man and his 4 year old daughter) for the REMAINS of two soldiers, and then the posts that argue that we should be even more just, started to make my head hurt.</p>
<p>garland write:
“Especially as we know that many, many people held at Guantanamo were finally released, often after years, once we finally admitted we had no reason to hold them.”</p>
<p>OR after we felt they would no longer be a danger to us, which unfortunately isn’t always true, as some who are released are captured in action again.</p>
<p>From another source:
"Most of the detainees have lawyers. That must be a first in the history of warfare. No government is required under the laws of war to charge enemy combatants with any crime; anyone picked up on a battlefield may be held until hostilities end.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the Geneva Convention does not require that detainees be allowed to speak to lawyers and does not give them the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. By any measure, the U.S. government has extended our deadly enemies unprecedented legal rights."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it might be because so many of those originally being held have been released. People may also be surprised because it is pretty clear that some of the treatment received has not been humane. Even McCain has acknowledged that, as well as the fact that if he was asked, as president, to release Khadr to Canadian authorities, he would do so.</p>
<p>I think this is a very sad case of a boy growing up in an extremist family and never really being given a possibility of a ‘normal’ life.</p>
<p>
But remember that the circumstances for all of those being held are not the same. Not all of them were caught on a battlefield attacking that military. It’s not unusual for a military to hold people suspected of attacks or collaboration with the enemy and eventually decide they don’t pose a risk and to release them. Likewise, it’s not unusual for a military to hold people known to have attacked the military and hold them until the action is concluded. Again, this has happened in virtually every hostile action throughout history.</p>
<p>Of course it’s a sad case of a boy growing up in an extremist family but what else is there to do once they actually become an extremist and attack us? The same holds true for criminals who were abused as children - it’s a shame but at some point we still need to protect ourselves from them.</p>
<p>‘alwaysamom’ - What does the Canadian military say about turning Khadr over to Canadian civil authorities (I assume that’s what you meant by ‘turning over…’)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the contrary, the factions that held the greatest promise for some form of rule of law (the Islamic Courts Union, the Taliban) were the ones that enjoyed the greatest popular support, at least in the initial waves of support that put them in power. </p>
<p>Sharia rule of law … arguably an inferior one compared to Lockean rule of law, but still a form of rule of law.</p>
<p>galoisien: your posts are very interesting. you seem to have a very good understanding of the dynamics of islamic societies. too bad some people don’t take the time to go beyond the mindset of: “they are barbarians, they hate us, they attacked us, and they want to kill us because we are not muslims”. that mindset doesn’t do anyone any good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For years…and you don’t have a problem with that ?</p>
<p>vicariousparent writes: “too bad some people don’t take the time to go beyond the mindset of: “they are barbarians, they hate us, they attacked us, and they want to kill us because we are not muslims”. that mindset doesn’t do anyone any good.”</p>
<p>And unfortunately it’s reality. </p>
<p>You are correct that it didn’t take much mental effort to reach this mindset. Rather, all I had to do was listen, or rather read the transcripts of what is being said in mosques to know they want to kill us because we’re not Muslim. </p>
<p>When someone says this, I don’t search for alternate meanings.</p>
<p>Someone could also draw the same conclusion about Americans by listening to Pat Robertson call for the death of his enemies. And of course, Obama’s former pastor is clearly representative of all blacks, or at least Christianity as practiced by blacks…</p>
<p>A major difference being that Robertson’s speech was roundly criticized and denounced, while sermons inciting jihad aren’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You clearly have not been part of the Muslim community (not a surprise, but…)</p>
<p>Maybe you should actually READ their newspapers, the harsh editorials, the caustic blogs – or get someone to read them for you if you don’t have the language skills?</p>
<p>You must at least know of Riverbend, right?</p>
<p>(Also, was Robertson “roundly” criticised? Countless Americans supported his stance…)</p>
<p>galoisien, WOW, that counts for discussion?</p>
<p>Questioning my ability to read because I don’t agree with you? Clearly I must be an imbecile, because anyone with basic language skills would have to recognize your superior point of view? </p>
<p>Does that actually ever work in convincing someone, or is it only to make you feel better?</p>
<p>There are a few Islamic reformers who have been critical, and they are met with threats and jihads themselves. And “countless Americans” supported Robertson’s speech? LOL. Glad you didn’t try counting!</p>
<p>No because apparently you have never attempted to understand others who do not share your culture. You have not read Iraqi blogs, Iraqi newspapers, Iraqi editorials, or the media of any other culture with a strong Muslim presence. </p>
<p>I’m not questioning your ability to read. I’m questioning your ability to not be a cultural frog in the well.</p>
<p>Not having read Riverbend when talking about policy in the Occupied Territories is like not having read 1984 when talking about totalitarianism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I remember more Americans supporting his sentiments than Americans being against them. It seems that you have distorted and inaccurate perceptions of peoples you are unfamiliar with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know of many reformist Muslim politicians in Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Northern India, Central Asia, the Maghreb (Algeria, Morrocco, Tunisia), East Africa, Reunion, and yes, even Iran and Iraq. </p>
<p>Tell me, do you know any Iraqis? Do you correspond to any Iraqi teenagers? Added them on Facebook? Have you even bothered researching the peoples you make blanket accusations against?</p>
<p>The one where I know they are most persecuted most is in Saudi Arabia, because there is no real rule of law there – everything is on the whim of the Saudi monarchy. </p>
<p>The funny thing though, is that the United States is HELPING the Saudis prosecute reformist politicians, because they are working against the Saudi monarchy’s absolute authority. So when you talk about reformers being persecuted for speaking out …</p>
<p>I bet you probably (typically) thought that Iraqi is so backward that most Iraqis don’t even have internet access, right? (Here, you are wrong). Do you know the ins and outs of the Iraqi baccalaureate, and the benefits of taking the three most popular language subjects of French, English and Arabic in the Iraqi education system against the disadvantages of an increased trilingual courseload? Did you know that girls’ average test scores for those wanting to go to engineering in Iraq are so much significantly higher than boys that to get into engineering the cutoff for girls is 96%, rather than the boys’ 92%?</p>
<p>And most importantly, do you even have an idea how the common citizen views the incendiary remarks of wannabe-demagogue clerics?</p>
<p>Do you even KNOW the cultures that you condemn? Are you even reasonably familiar with them?</p>
<p>So many kids on this forum want to attend some elite college and become successful i-bankers, doctors, engineers, and lawyers amongst all the other high-roller professions. Because of economic development carried out in the 1970s and 1980s, Iraqis are often no different.</p>
<p>Of course the chances of Iraq reconstructing itself grow dimmer every day because the future of the country – you know, the hordes of Iraqi schoolchildren, who like some CCers, complain about getting a high B in Chemistry (their coursework is taken in Arabic, no less!) and wonder if it will dash their chances at getting into the elite colleges – are constantly prevented from attending school. </p>
<p>And unlike some of the spoiled upperclass prep school kids here, these schoolchildren must endure car bombs, mines in the road, crossfire hitting their parents while driving, being prevented from taking the school bus, and being told by teachers that missing a week of school (because of government curfews and street violence blocking the only road to school) is no excuse for doing badly on a test.</p>
<p>Of course, you would know this if you even took a reasonable amount of effort to even understand the mechanics of the cultures you condemn.</p>
<p>You’ve actually lost me with your bullying and your rants. Feel welcome to follow up with more, it’s your time.</p>
<p>I don’t need to share with you my credentials for having an opinion. In my early years I may been intimidated by your list of everything I should know and read in order to engage in a conversation. Now, not so much, thank goodness!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You reap what you sow.</p>
<p>Think twice before YOU bully my allied cultures with your blanket statements that show no understanding of the subject at hand whatsoever…not even human empathy.</p>
<p>Funny that you mention “ranting,” because that’s what you have done continuously throughout the thread, with heaps of prejudice (you know, pre-judging entire peoples before proper investigation…)</p>
<p>You weren’t engaged in conversation, you were engaged in an all-out attack such that I finally could not tolerate being polite in the face of such hostility anymore.</p>