While I take issue with some things in your post (such as the clever way you called me a liar but said you wouldn't do so out of respect :p ), I will address just this.

They have no right to legal representation or hope of a trial. They are not being held as criminals, but as enemy combatants. This explains it far better than I could

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/itm/IMSO/F...nDetainees.pdf

Nevermind.

I thought you'd enjoy that.

But seriously, our corporate media has been trumpeting that exact same take all day long. "Durbin sez our leaders and military are like nazis". It's bull****. I explained why above.

My, that's a pretty document. No typos. Straight margins. A lot of work obviously went into it's production. Perhaps we should put as much work into getting this administration to actually abide by it. Or did I miss the part where it say it's A-OK to torture enemy combatants?

And as an aside, may I just say how offensive it is to me and many more like me to see the memory of 9/11 whored as it is in this document to support our illegal actions in Iraq.

I know my views are applauded and accepted by some, and considered majorly wrong by others, but I don't care anymore(I have my fire suit on). So, here is my view, if we keep this elitest attitdue that anyone that does anything against us from another country is an enemy combatant and a terrorist, then we will dig ourselves into a massively deep hole we will have a hard time getting out of. The bill of rights that have been so brilliant feel to me when I read them as basic rights of all humans. And when we don't allow such basic human rights to other humans based solely on country of citizenship, well to me that is a very elitest attitude. I know that if there were an american being held by a foreign govt in the same way we are holding these poor souls, there would be a major outcry, and probably military action, why would we expect any different action from other countries, or their citizens.

I am pissed that the leadership of the country has led us down this low road.

We have zero credibility in the world anymore. We do unto others as we would not have done unto ourselves, we preach a vague ideal of Democracy, and yet we do not practice it, and we do not set any sort of positive example in our treatment and behavior towards other countries and cultures. We do not have to stand idly by and let those that wish us harm do so, but neither do we have to stoop to their levels of inhuman behavior. We used to be better than that. Low road, indeed.

As far as the Brit document, the deafening silence is largely because we all knew we were being manipulated and lied to. It's hard to be all righteously indignant when we knew this was so all along.

This is usually where I jump in and say something to the effect that Clinton is to blame for all of this because he is the one who created the loopholes in the law which are being used against those prisoners...................but I don't do that any more')

Now, some might say calling our our actions in Iraq illegal is a lie, but I won't out of respect for those with whom I disagree. ;)

Very simple, and I've stated it over and over - an invasion of Iraq was completed justified and completely legal the first time Iraq violated the cease fire from Gulf War I.

On one other note, I'm with you on the torture. The Abu Ghraib stuff - prosecute those responsible. But what Durbin described is certainly not torture, and certainly nothing even close to comparable of the Nazis, Soviet gulags, or Pol Pot.

Stated over and over again doesn't change the fact that your position is highly debateable. For one thing, violation of the cease-fire was not our stated reason for going there.

We were told that he posed a threat. In reality, there are many other nations who happen to pose far more of threat. The weapons weren't there and many people have come to the conclusion that Saddam was in fact complying. He was letting the weapons inspectors in and all indications were that there were no WMD's. I know you disagree but the facts aren't there to support your belief.

Of course, the real reason we went in was regime change, and according to international law, that is illegal.

Yes, you're right. Some might say that. I would advise them to remember that lying to Congress is illegal. Mr. Bush went into this war by reporting to Congress, as required, that Iraq and Al Queda were in league (false) and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that threatened its neighbors and could threaten the United States (also false). And the mobile weapons labs and the drones and all that other stuff, but we don't have to go through all those lies again unless you just want to. More and more evidence is gathering that Mr. Bush knew it was all false... hell, may have even "fixed the intelligence" to force regime change if British reports turn out to be true.

Of course, it could be something else. Maybe it's this crazy across the pond language thing. Fixing the intelligence may mean something totally different over there.

Hmmm What you say doesn't square with the reports of the British government scrambling to put a legal facade on this whole mess. They knew this crap was illegal.

I'm very glad to hear you say that. Can I assume you mean no matter how high it goes?

Call it what you want. We all saw the pictures. America didn't like what it saw. It is immaterial to me at this point what you call it. Your attack on Mr. Durbin was unfair. Having stated that, I'm satisfied on this point.

Hey, did y'all see we're getting a new prison in Cuba. KBR's (Kellogg Brown and Root Services) gonna build it for us. I hear they're owned by Halliburton. I read we're gonna spend $30 million for it. It sounds like it's gonna be nice. For that price, I hope we get stainless steel restraint loops built in the floor. Those old steel ones start to degrade with long term exposure to air, blood, urine and feces.

:cheers:

MBC or Scrooge - why was it illegal? I can clearly cite why it was. There was a cease fire. it was repeatedly broken, thereby ending the cease fire. Saddam was not just to allow inspecters in, MBC, but full and unfettered access to anywhere without notice. This was clearly not happening. He also was violating no fly zones and shooting at our patrol aircraft, violations as well. He offered assylum to Osama.

No WMD. I am not familiar with the Downing Street memo, but I find it interesting that it came out days before the British election, just like the forged docs regarding President Bush came out. I cannot say it was forged, but the timing is similar. But to say that the British intelligence and American intelligence were lying is to say Egyptian and Russian intelligence was lying as well, just to name two others. I still wonder what Saddam did with the rest of what he used on his own people - no proof of destruction of what he had. What did he do with it?

Scrooge, the pictures you speak of were not what Durbin was referring to. He was referring specifically to Guantanamo, not the pics from Abu Ghraib. I stand by my criticism of Durbin 100%.