Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:22 pm

Devil505 wrote:
jpete wrote:
KLook wrote:I will not vote for the same reasons stated above. I have no idea what they did to get there. It is not for us to judge actually.

Kevin

I have to disagree. I think in a country that alleges to have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" don't you think it's our RESPONSIBILITY to know how and why our government does things?

The Federal government is the EMPLOYEE of the people. If you owned a business, would you take a hands off approach to running it? Just say, "I don't care what you do or how you do it?"

Too many people share your sentiment to all of our detriment.

Like it or not jpete........I agree with you 100% here. "We The People" have the ultimate responsibility for things done in our name.

Are you KIDDING?!?! I LOVE when people agree with me!!

Dann757 · By: **Dann757** On: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:42 pm

2:I am not the general public. I would tell the Arabs in general that the next major attack on innocent people on American soil would cause a city to be name later to be destroyed. Not nuked, we can do it with conventional methods just as well. It does not take much to knock down mud houses. We cannot find/control the terrorist but the Arabs could/would with the right motivation.

That's kind of the way I feel. The Japanese in WWII were absolutely ruthless, a homogenous society, ready to fight to the last man woman and child, with bamboo sticks if necessary. We had decimated their country before we dropped the atomic bombs. I believe the atomic bombs saved thousands of American soldiers lives- we didn't have to invade. The point is, we vanquished the enemy. I think an unbelievably overwhelming response to a future terrorist attack would do the trick for a while.

This is a contentious topic. I lean toward the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out approach. Maybe that way of thinking just gives me a false sense of security, as events seem to become more threatening to our way of life all the time. But also trying to understand where the importance of upholding the Constitution comes in.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:51 pm

Dann757 wrote:2:I am not the general public. I would tell the Arabs in general that the next major attack on innocent people on American soil would cause a city to be name later to be destroyed. Not nuked, we can do it with conventional methods just as well. It does not take much to knock down mud houses. We cannot find/control the terrorist but the Arabs could/would with the right motivation.

That's kind of the way I feel. The Japanese in WWII were absolutely ruthless, a homogenous society, ready to fight to the last man woman and child, with bamboo sticks if necessary. We had decimated their country before we dropped the atomic bombs. I believe the atomic bombs saved thousands of American soldiers lives- we didn't have to invade. The point is, we vanquished the enemy. I think an unbelievably overwhelming response to a future terrorist attack would do the trick for a while.

This is a contentious topic. I lean toward the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out approach. Maybe that way of thinking just gives me a false sense of security, as events seem to become more threatening to our way of life all the time. But also trying to understand where the importance of upholding the Constitution comes in.

But WHO do you bomb? A dozen Saudi Arabians pulled off 9/11 so we invade Iraq and Afganistan? Heck, we should have invaded Canada and Mexico. It would have made as much sense and the supply line would have been much shorter.

If you go around bombing random places for the actions of some people, how can you claim to be better than the people you are fighting?

Dann757 · By: **Dann757** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:09 am

jpete wrote:[If you go around bombing random places for the actions of some people, how can you claim to be better than the people you are fighting?

I guess ya caint. But ya can claim to more alive than them that wants ta kill ya.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:10 am

Dann757 wrote:But also trying to understand where the importance of upholding the Constitution comes in.

I detect a note of..."Let the liberal Harvard Law School professors worry about the Constitution, we are facing maniacs who want to kill us!"

Problem is this.....You have much more of a chance of having you rights & freedoms taken away by perhaps well intentioned but dumb government officials than you ever will at the hands of foreign terrorists. The USA PATRIOT Act, signed into law on October 26, 2001 will potentially cause more loss of freedoms for law abiding U.S. citizens than ever will a group of terrorists.
Our Constitution is not a meaningless, abstract, archaic bunch of rules that have no relation to YOUR quality of life & indeed your very freedom & life itself in some cases. It is the protection from a tyrannical government that our wise founding fathers drafted in order to keep us safe, free & able to enjoy life.

Our worst enemy is not Al Quieda often times.....It is very own government!
The founding Fathers understood that & so should we.

(getting late...time for bed)

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:18 am

Here is something to think about.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36765.html

Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.

I'm far more concerned about what my government does in response to terrorist attacks than the attacks themselves.

Dann757 · By: **Dann757** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:23 am

No, Devil, I just meant I hope to contemplate your point of view. The Constitution is more important than the government, right? What can I do as a common citizen?

We had an open society, a great experiment in tolerance. How can the Constitution be preserved, the evil bureaucratic juggernaut kept in check, and our country made healthy? I don't know man.

You know Farrakhan got the million man march together. I don't know what for but that was impressive. There were scattered demonstrations worldwide when oil went through the roof. What if a couple million citizens marched on Washington when oil was unaffordable? I was sitting around dejected and resolved to suffering.
Sorry to drift.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:32 am

Dann757 wrote:The Constitution is more important than the government, right? What can I do as a common citizen?

Here's a start Dan : http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html

It's contact info for all our Congressmen/Women...Contact them & tell them what you think! They have staff that does nothing but tabulate what their constituents are saying & want them to do.

(I write to Bill Delahunt...My Congressman so often that he won't make a move without my approval!! :lol:

...yeah right!)
But......it all gets taken into consideration.....These guys NEED our votes!

Here's The White House site http://www.whitehouse.gov/ with a new contact them by email to express your views
Contact President Obama's office.....they tabulate reaction too.

How long does it take to write an email?
If enough of us get active...they will listen to us!

Edit: Keep in mind one thing:
Senators have 6 year terms
Presidents have 4 year terms

But.......,Congressmen only have 2 year terms...by design! (to make them more dependent on popular opinion to get re-elected every 2 years. A senator not facing election for almost 6 years is much less a target of opportunity for us average citizens. They figure we'll forget how they voted by then!

But congressmen have no such luxury!!...They need to be popular every 2 years!

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:49 am

Devil505 wrote:
Dann757 wrote:The Constitution is more important than the government, right? What can I do as a common citizen?

Here's a start Dan : http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html

It's contact info for all our Congressmen/Women...Contact them & tell them what you think! They have staff that does nothing but tabulate what their constituents are saying & want them to do.

(I write to Bill Delahunt...My Congressman so often that he won't make a move without my approval!! ...yeah right!)
But......it all gets taken into consideration.....These guys NEED our votes!

Here's The White House site http://www.whitehouse.gov/ with a new contact them by email to express your views
Contact President Obama's office.....they tabulate reaction too.

How long does it take to write an email?
If enough of us get active...they will listen to us!

I'll second this. No matter what your opinion was, enough people contacted Congress about the McCain "amnesty" bill that it was killed. SOMETIMES they do actually listen. Probably because an election was coming up. Lots of people called about the bailout bill and look how far that got us.

I'll go one further on the e-mails. I have all my reps on speed dial in my cell phone.

I listen to talk radio all day at work. If I hear something that makes me mad enough, I call them on the spot.

coalkirk · By: **coalkirk** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:01 am

jpete wrote:But WHO do you bomb? A dozen Saudi Arabians pulled off 9/11 so we invade Iraq and Afganistan? Heck, we should have invaded Canada and Mexico. It would have made as much sense and the supply line would have been much shorter.

If you go around bombing random places for the actions of some people, how can you claim to be better than the people you are fighting?

We invaded Afghanistan because that was where the Taliban and Al Qeada were. That's who attcked us. I don't care where they were born, I want to go where they are hiding. I'm not going to defend the invasion of Iraq here although I still believe at the time with the information and intelligence available, it was a reasonable thing to do. Your comment that we should have invaded Canada and Mexico is of course ridiciulous and suggests your knowledge of this whole topic is limited. Afghanistan was a country without any real government. The Taliban, a group started by ISI, the Pakistan secret police along with tribal leaders in the border regions, stepped in where there was a void and insititued strict Islamic law throughout the country. It also encouraged and fostered Al Qeada who trained there openly.

jpete wrote:Here is something to think about.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36765.html

Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.

I'm far more concerned about what my government does in response to terrorist attacks than the attacks themselves.

I'm glad to hear you've worked out the acctuarial tables of what your personal risk is of being hurt or killed in a terrorist attack. What about your friends, relatives and co-workers? An attack on our country is an attack on everyone. Maybe the next attack will be alittle more personal for you. My wife and I knew a women on flight 93. Made it pretty personal for us. I would have flet the same way regardless. I can't say I really understand your lack of concern about our enemies but so much concern about what your country does about them. Maybe you could elaborate on that.

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:59 am

AQ is in at least 60 countries around the world. When do we invade the other 58?

The GWOT is like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". A waste of time and money.

From what I know, the intel used to authorize the invasion of two countries was pretty thin. That fact that you are hedging and qualifying means you haven't looked into it all that much. Some members of Congress actually took the time to look at it for themselves and based on that, voted against giving the president the power to unilaterally go to war.

As far as the risk of getting killed, it's ANY persons risk. I know people who died in the Pan Am bombing. It's tragic, but is it any more tragic than if they died in a car accident? I know people who died in car accidents. Should we invade Detroit?

I am concerned not about what the government does to our enemies, I worry about what they do to me under the guise of defeating our enemies. Everything in the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, HSPD 51 and several other new laws passed after 9/11 apply equal to you and me as well as our enemies.

And don't say "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" because that's not the point and that's not America.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Thomas Jefferson

Which one of those do you think the country currently resembles?

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:41 pm

jpete wrote:Which one of those do you think the country currently resembles?

I think it fair to say that individual, law abiding U.S. citizens have much more to fear from our own government (if not closely watched every day) than we ever will from all the prisoners at Gitmo.
I forget who said it but "The road to ruin is paved with good intentions."

coalkirk · By: **coalkirk** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:54 pm

jpete wrote:AQ is in at least 60 countries around the world. When do we invade the other 58?
Under pre 9/11 thinking, when a group of them mounts and attack on our military or civilains that results in the death of thousands of innocents. In the current environment, when we see them planning and training for such an endeavor.

The GWOT is like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". A waste of time and money.
Apples and oranges. The war on drugs was lost before it started. Can't legislate morality. War on poverty is trying to fix a problem largely caused by the government in which whole populations of society are indoctrinated to live their lives soley on the government teat. Provide incentitives not to get off of that teat and punish those that try. Another whole debate. The GWOT is not a waste of time and money. So your contention is we should ignore the terror threat, consider it just another risk in life like drunk drivers or defective consumer products and just clean up the mess afterwards and move on like everything is fine??? That seems like an ostrich approach to me. We pass laws and rigorously enfore drunk driving laws. We have a gov't agency to study, test and regulate products to prevent our citizens from being hurt or killed. I don't see why we wouldn't also do everything in our power to mitigate the risk of terrorist attacks also. You under estimate the will and fanatical resolve of our enemies to do us harm. I don't know where you live as your profile leaves that blank. I'm a real short downwind from DC, one of the more likley targets of an attack. I chose to be proactive, not just wait for it and clean up afterwards chalking it up to unavoidable risk.

From what I know, the intel used to authorize the invasion of two countries was pretty thin. That fact that you are hedging and qualifying means you haven't looked into it all that much. Some members of Congress actually took the time to look at it for themselves and based on that, voted against giving the president the power to unilaterally go to war.
I guess the operative words there are "from what you know." There was undisputable evidence that the planning and training for the 9/11 attacks was in Afghanistan. That was 100% confirmed after the fact as well. Iraq is a different story and I don't have the time or strength today to debate that one with you. Congress voted overwhelmingly to give Bush that power. Or you could say they voted overwhelmingly not to take their consitutional mandated responsibility to make that decision just as they have in every conflict since WWII.

As far as the risk of getting killed, it's ANY persons risk. I know people who died in the Pan Am bombing. It's tragic, but is it any more tragic than if they died in a car accident? I know people who died in car accidents. Should we invade Detroit?
Another ridiculous comparison.

I am concerned not about what the government does to our enemies, I worry about what they do to me under the guise of defeating our enemies. Everything in the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, HSPD 51 and several other new laws passed after 9/11 apply equal to you and me as well as our enemies.

And don't say "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" because that's not the point and that's not America.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Thomas Jefferson

Which one of those do you think the country currently resembles?

When Al Qeada is sucessfull at smuggling in dirty bombs or Russian suit case nukes and detonates them in DC, NY, Boston and LA, it won't matter too damn much how much your goverment fears you. Jefferson was brilliant and his warnings still are relevant. But Jefferson never envisioned non-state entities with the ability to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people. This isn't the 18th century. Technology gives groups like Al Qeada global reach. Ponder the sheer brilliance of the 9/11 attacks. They haven't just been hanging around the old cave watching dancing with the stars since 9/11 like most mushy brained Americans. They are busily planning and putting into motion the next attack. If you no anything about Al Qeada, you know they are patient, relentless and always up the ante. Our efforts in the GWOT have averted attacks you don't even know about yet. The old saying in this game is we have to be successfull 100% of the time, they only have to be sucessful 1% of the time. To sit back and worry about the Patriot act and any EXTREMELY UNLIKLEY AFFECT ON YOU and do nothing about trying to mitigate attacks is a foolish strategy. You like to use percentages when stating the risk of a terrorist attack on you but apply that same math to the likelihood of the Patriot act or the Military Commsions Act having a negative affect on you. I'll take those odds any day. We live in very dangerous times. Obama has a very dangerous path to walk these next few years. Iraq is far from over, Afghanistan is a huge complicated problem, Iran is rising and flexing it's muscle and worst of all but rarely discussed is Pakastan. They actually have nuclear weapons and are not exactly stable. A huge percentage of their military is sympathetic to Al Qeada and the Taliban. If that country were to fall into the hands of the extremists, they can and will use their nukes. We can't just try to pretend these dangers don't exist and hunker down. You might as well just bend over and grab your ankles if that's your foreign policy strategy.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:07 pm

Simple answer to you Terry:

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
Ben Franklin
(just as true today as it was 200 years ago)

jpete · By: **jpete** On: Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:08 pm

Yes, AQ was trained in Afganistan. Guess who gave them the training facilities? You and me with our tax money through the CIA.

Yes Pakistan has nuclear capability. Guess where they get the money? From you and me with our tax dollars through foreign aid.

My foreign policy calls for not giving money to people who might potentially kill us.

If your foreign policy is to continue to do so, you might as well put a bullet in your head now.

Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Of the remaining detainees at Gitmo, how many do you believe had any role in the 9/11/2001 attack?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?

Re: Poll: Gitmo Detainees - Involved In 9/11?