Utemia, your post betrays your convictions. You are convinced they were innocents and that the horrible USA made them turn terrorist via torture.

What does that mean? it means you actually believe terrorism is a justified reasonable response for a person to being abused; and that abuse and suffering are the ONLY thing that can make someone into a terrorist. You couldn't be further from the truth.

Nobody turns into a terrorist from being abused. You think to yourself "what would make me become such a monster", you actually come up with something and then you conclude that this must be what they suffered through; or you assume that they suffered through something worse then you can even imagine. Because you can't imagine any reason to do what they do OTHER than suffering unbeleivable horror.

What you fail to understand is that not all cultures are the same, not all religions are the same, and not all people are the same. That a deeply religious person will do things that might be abbhorrant or simply senseless to people of a different religion or atheists like me (are you one too?). You need only look at some of the more "bizzare" (to us) things that people do in the name of their religion that the left always preaches is normal and we should accept and tolerate. Or even look at the things that religious people do that the left preaches are evil and senseless... like their views on abortion and homosexuality.

They are terrorists because their imam told them that this is the will of GOD. Not because they suffered something so horrible as to turn them into terrorists. They likely had a good safe life with no real suffering and were then sparked up into a holy zeal... kinda like during the crusades where knights with a cushy life decided to go to war for god, or in any of the many many other times people have done it.

By your convoluted logic, christians oppose abortion and homosexuality because they must have suffered through some horrible torture by the hands of an evil organization which made them turn into "monsters" (in your view). Since it is utterly impossible for you to see a well adjusted person with a good life doing something you consider abhorrent because of their religious convictions.

While a "significant portion" is rooted in principles, the majority is of different design.

A significant portion of the things the constitution sets up are done so because of balances of power and limiting potential for abuse by would be tyrants. Every aspect of the USA government is intentionally divided in inefficient manner called seperation of power and balance of powers to protect against misuse. We don't have two houses of congress and a balance between executive, judiciary, and legislative because it is more MORALLY RIGHT to do so. We have such things in place because they are more prudent if you are trying to prevent abuse.

If the founding fathers were as concerned with "the morality of freedom" they would have seen fit to ban slavery.

Yeah yeah go on  and mock me.. You can be sarcastic all you want, the problem is real enough or there wouldn't be detainees still locked up of which no conncetion to any terrorist activity was proven. That makes them innocent of what they were accused of and they were locked up without a trial and they were explicitly NOT pow's and granted any rights besides fresh air and food.

I didn't deny genuine captures - don't put words in my mouth.

I don't live in a lib fantasy lala land as you so poetically called it lol nor did I say that everybody that was released was turned into a terrorist by the US.

I was looking for the right terminology concerning your question what my definition of justice would be - it is rooted in jurisprudence. It is also part of a philosophical discipline. The reason I cannot give you an answer is that  both are complex. What is law, what is the relationship between law and justice, relationship between justice and other socials norms like morals, the reason laws are valid, how laws developed, what content they should have.. I have not occupied myself with those questions - I did not study law nor that particular philosophy. I wasn't trying to skip out of answering, but the fact is that there is a whole theoretical philosophical and ethicak background to that question that I am aware of and that I would want to recognize and since I am not a student, it is impossible for me to do that without research and study.

    my bad, right-wing Hollywood   That made my day! All kidding aside. They very proud of their left tilt. Here's an interesting article for you from the Washington Post. I could list hundreds of links for you, but what good would that do, right? You've made up your mind to believe it doesn't exist and I'm not here to tell you what to believe. 

Off topic a bit. - As I've said, every person has their own definition of torture. Tal, personally I believe you're wrong, suggesting what the US has done is torture at all. These few high level prisoners (your average combatant, is given a cursory interrogation), that have knowledge of operations are giving every opportunity to cooperate, the easiest methods are used first. If they CHOOSE to be uncooperative, harsher methods are used, but hardly life threatening. They even have a doctor on hand. These so called "tortures" are mostly psychological. Hell, I've sat on a block of ice in my underwear above the Arctic Circle as part of an initiation and lived in places that wouldn't meet standards for a stateside US prison. I guess if you still believe it, shouting surprise at a birthday party is "torture", the person may have a heart attack and die, this just for a groups amusement. Now if you believe the prisoners cause is righteous, and they should withhold as much information as possible. then I guess getting only 4 TV stations instead of cable in the enemies prison cell is torture.

A friend I served with sent me this LINK today. This is more in line with what I'd like to see for these terrorists (can't call them soldiers, since they don't follow the rules of war, such as no uniforms, hiding among civilians, and purposely targeting them). If you open the link, be sure to read the paragraph below it. And to the terrorists, you have been warned what will happen to you, unlike those folks in the towers on 9/11. It is also good to see what your tax dollars have bought, and why some, even within the US, are jealous of US military power and seek to dismantle it.

There was support and parades for hamas and bad ole hizzy (hizbuallah) during Israel Apartheid Week.  That is when Hollywood had their little parade supporting hamas and other terrorist groups.  Yes, people support al-qaida in this country because they feel that States is the big bullies and that al-qaida is being suppressed.

During this past Israel Apartheid Week, I had a friend tell me that 2 young republicans at San Franisco State U were demonstrating and having an ant-hamas rally while ant-israel protests was going on.  Some people decided to assault the two having the anti-hamas rally.  The police eventually arrested two individual for assaulting the anti-hamas rally participants.  The two were from the campus's Palestinian student club and its Socialist union  now insist not only that the charges against them be dropped, but that the university re-educate its students to ensure that they understand that criticizing Hamas and other genocidal terror groups is a form of prohibited hate-speech.

Bush was in the process of releasing prisoners and shutting it down.  This refutes people that say that Bush was able to do what ever the sheol he wanted.

I didn't interrogate any of them but the fact that most were afraid to go back to their home countries should say something. Not all of them were tortured.  They all got 3 meals a day.  You bring up Iran and Iranian prisons.  I have a friend who was in an Iranian prison. He wrote a book about it.  He was beaten several times a day and actually gotten beat more than he was a fed a day.

Again, I'm willing to say not all prisoners were tortured there.  I am also willing to bank on that 50% of them probably had a better living conditions there unlike in their home country.

I want to clarify something. For most of the part I was not accusing the US of torture. That wasn't really the maingist of what I said - it was rather system oriented. All that stuff about principles etc. I was reacting to Tals statements that "under specific circumstances torture would not be immoral" and tried to show that torture is always immoral as it violates human rights and there are no legal circumstances that allow that violation anywhere, and for good reason. That reason is systeminherent, if you change the pinciples that govern the state, the constitution, you will end up having a political and legal system that is near to a dictatorship or opens to door for one. I had an argument about that with a friend who studied political science and she was rather forceful to explain to me why "Human dignity is inviolable" is the first paragraph of the german constitution and what could happen if that was altered. It is part of legal philosophy and jurisprudence as well and has nothing to do with political ideology, conservative or liberal.

The problem with Gitmo is not specifically that detainees were allegedly tortured there but the legal vacuum that was deliberately created in order to be able to do what would otherwise be illegal, namely detaining someone for years on end without a trial and legal consult. It took a while until that had been granted and military tribunals started.

It does not matter what I was convinced of, it is part of US law that nobody is guilty until proven in a court of law. It should not be the other way around - everybody is guilty until they can prove that they are innocent or everybody is guilty PERIOD.

My post  was specifically about detainees that could not be proven guilty of association with terrorist activity and what to do with them and the problems that might arise from releasing them and a response to The_Peoples_Party's comment. Don't twist it around to paint me into a corner. I never called the US a monster and evil organization and I speculated why someone would be pissed off after being detained in a legal vacuum for a long time, not why a person would become a terrorist in general. What exactly is convoluted about that?

And that is the reason for Gitmo, not because we need a place to "torture", there are plenty of other places without where real torture could be preformed, and nobody to cry about it. If you could transpose WWII events to today, liberals would be fighting to have the 250,000 German and Italian prisoners of war interned in the US to "lawyer up" (Provided they would even let FDR declare war). People outside the US do not abide by US law. You give the rights of a US citizen away too easily. Travelers assume the laws of US when they present their visa's or by treaty with their passports. These thugs are not travelers to the US and are not bound by our laws. I'm all for the rest of the world declaring the laws of the US to be the worlds law, until then these pukes don't qualify.

Interesting idea about the german and italian POW's in the US during WW2. But they weren't accused of being terrorists or criminals, they were held in accordance with the Geneva Convention that regulates rules of war. I never really read the Landkriegskonvention so I am not so firm on the details.

It is sort of a frightening precedence to limit the application of US law only to a select group, or rather select a group that doesn't qualify. For example, you can't just round up illegal immigrants and put them in huge detention camps in Texas or California - it violates the law, doesn't it? Even though I am sure that there are people out there that wouldn't really mind such an approach. If you start once to make exceptions there is no way you can predict where it all might end up. It changes the foundation of the state if you start making exceptions to the law possible based on demands for national security. You can not just allow it in one instance and not allow in others. That is why they had to use Gitmo - to avoid US law. I find an institution basically acting outside any law a bit troublesome, though.

Just a comment on liberal sensibilities here. I'm so sure it would occur that, if it were possible, I would wager money on it...and I don't gamble. Liberals here are that predictable.

Yes we afford so many stupid rights to people that set foot on US soil illegally. I'm not against legal immigration. I have nothing against the people that want to come her. It took me a year and a half and a big stack of cash to get my wife over legally. Why should we welcome people that as a first act break the law? Personally I thing they should be shot dead the minute a leg goes over the fence. It's really the only way to stop it. That or the courrupt Mexican Government patrol their own side of the boarder (Truth is they make money from illegals in the US). Then maybe these people will consider legal avenues. Maybe others can afford to be more generous, but then I don't see a big cruise ship pulling into Mexico with an offer to take them to their countries.

Utemia, I understand your point about laws and that they should be followed.  Both your example here with illegal aliens and terrorist are not playing by the rules. Both are openly (intentionally) breaking laws.

For Islamic terrorist, they DO NOT VALUE life.  With this in mind, how do you stop something like that?  Asian/Middle Eastern thought is that the group is greater than the individual.  The 9/11 hijackers (disregard everything that was thought about Paradise) felt that their sacrifice was for the greater good for all Muslims. Another example is in Asia when a business fails its usually due to the whole business.  Just for reference: Western thinking is the individual is more important than the group.  The individuals rights are more important than the groups rights no matter if it affects the whole group adversely.  In the West, when a business fails its usually due to an individual making a bad decision.  Now, those ARE NOT ALL statements. You can just look Madoff, he was more concerned about himself than the impact that it would have on the whole (being society).

Way back in the day like 1300 or before that, if an individual did something that could affect the whole there would be no thought to what to do to that individual: correct or get rid.

We've gotten to a point were the individual attitudes that I am more important than the group are now really affecting and having an impact on society.  Especially considering there are so many with that attitude.

Nitro Cruiser, I just got off on a tangent to discuss the inherant morality of torture as a technique... I am well aware and I thought I said so, that what the USA is doing to less than 1% of gitmo detaines isn't REAL torture.

It does matter actually, it matters a whole lot. And that principle never applied to POWs, and doesn't anywhere in the world. A nation cannot survive if it does apply it. That doesn't mean assume people are guilty and not look for evidence. But it doesn't mean "court of law" for every enemy combatant, especially enemy combatants who blatantly violate international laws of engagement like the terrorists do.