Ahh - thanks for clarifying all issues that might be viewed as problematic so elegantly. lol.

Wow, this is so wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start.

First, we were told by the administration that we had to do the stimulus packages because if we didn’t unemployment would go to as high as eight percent. This is true, because every time we have had a bad recession we never got higher than eight percent unemployment before things started moving in the right direction. That is to say that if we did nothing we would peak at around eight percent and the market would correct itself and things would get better, this usually takes about five to nine months.

What president pencil dick did was perpetrate a fraud on the American people. He said that if we act now, right away and give him the money the unemployment rate would not top six percent. Historically when government stimulus is done correctly, that is what happens.

So doing nothing we have eight percent and doing something we have six percent at best. Usually we peak at eight percent no matter what we do because the market self-corrects regardless what the government does.

Our fearless leader took that basic information and used it to get a pile of money he could spread around to get votes and maintain power. What he did to expect was when he injected himself into the free market system he stopped the market from correcting itself. Businesses became frightened and started shedding jobs to protect the businesses. This caused a cascading effect that started with real estate and moved into banking, and insurance. We went from between four and five percent unemployment, which is statically everyone that wants a job has a job to officially ten percent unemployment unofficially it is closer to twenty percent. During the great depression, we had twenty-five percent unemployment. We are still shedding jobs so we are not too far from that right now. All because President Obama wants to take control of the private sector. The president and his advisors have no clue how business works, they seem to think that you just order money from a business in the form of taxes and they get the money with no effect on the business because they are all rich and can afford it. He is finding out now only now that his foolish beliefs on how business works might be a little flawed. He believes that big business is doing this to HIM on purpose just to make him look bad and the American people are starting to see that they have a better grasp on how things work than he does.

The government does not need to get its hands involved in business. Each time they monkey with the system the make things worse. When asked by CNN Money, (an extreme right wing news organization) how this happened the administration finally told the truth. Worse case scenario was eight percent and they thought they could not get any worse than that. Meaning that they knew that doing noting would only hurt the country for a few months never more than sixteen months, and they could blame Mr. Bush for that and claim the glory of fixing it. When they started to take over the private sector, they caused a ripple effect that has prolonged the recession and spinning us into a depression. They had no idea that this would be the result but people in business did. They ignored them and that is why we are at seventeen percent unemployment with the government saying it is only ten percent.

The reason social security is bankrupt is because they tried this same game in the 60’s with President Johnson. There was a trillion dollar surplus in social security, they took it and placed IOU’s to cover it. Now those IOU’s are due and Congress says we don’t have the money. The banks were told in the last decade that Congress would cover their losses if they loaned money to people that could not pay it back. When the people defaulted, the banks ran to Congress and Congress said the banks were greedy and refused to honor their agreements as prescribed by the laws they wrote. This is why banks are failing now. The foolishly trusted our Congress to honor their agreements. Ford asked for money to help them for a few months till they could get back on their feet. In fact all three big auto makers did this. GM and Chrysler accepted the money and are now bankrupt. Ford saw the writing on the walls and opted out. They are now at the top of the heap, and proof that doing things Mr. Obama’s way will lead to ruin.

The liberals in Congress have no concept of how things work. During Mr. Clinton’s administration, they found that with the tax cuts of the Reagan era, they were projected a ten trillion dollar surplus. That was a trillion dollars a year for the next ten years. They spent it all in one year, changed the tax codes, and raised taxes. The problem is that the projections were based on no administrative changes for the next ten years. Once they made changes like raising taxes those projections were void. Congress borrowed money against those projections and are surprised that they are taking in less money. Did they say oops we made a mistake? Nope! Tax cuts don’t work we need to raise taxes again to make up the shortfall.

I will take your bet because I am old enough to see what happened 40 years ago and watching it happen again only ten times as worse.

obama commissioned an investigation of gitmo which he expected to taut around... but it found that the US exceeded all the requirements of the geneva convention in their treatments of the gitmo detainees. Naturally the mainstream press said little about their findings... so did our president.

The GC was written with "traditional" war in mind, where you have armies fighting  with soldiers in uniform. A civilian in these circumstances is suspicious and thus treated a spy. In the war against terrorism declaring everyone in civlian clothes a spy does not seem to  be in the terms of the GC because terrorists wear no uniform.

I find it ethically problematic to detain people you suspect of being a terrorist without having the proof nor the need to proof so either (until the conflict is over - but it isn't like there is a clearcut frontline in asyemtrical conflicts). Even though I know that most of you think differently, that practice violates human and constitution rights. And in the brief research I did, admittedly only on wikipedia, there had been information on issues with shortcomings and deficienies with the tribunals.

I know that this whole topic brings out strong polaraized oppinions and emotions as everybody who utters criticism is automatically viewed as defending terrorists or describing them as victims of an evil system. That isn't my intention though.

The fact that terrorists are waging "untraditional" war by hiding among civilians is a strike against them, not against the armies who follow the international conventions of protecting civilians rather then using them as shields.

Liberals have often said "if the USA was invaded, then the american military would do the same"... No it would not, it is a war crime to do so. It is despicable, and anyone who does that is sentenced to death in almost any military in the world.

But the terrorists don't care, they shield themselves with the bodies of innocent civilians. And liberals call it just and say that for some reason the GC does not apply here because of their circumstances (which are, Muslim religious extremist terrorists "fighting" against free democracies by murdering civilians)

Which isn't what we are doing, we make sure we have some proof, and we let a whole lot of them go... a fair number of them go right back and join their terrorist cells.

No, we happen to think that you should have proof of some sort.

It explicitly does not violate either.

Wikipedia is horribly biased, especially on this issue. Remember that it is privately controlled by one single liberal individual.

Much longer than that...they use to through animal carcasses into wells (bio-warfare) to incapacitate populations.

Forgot about that one.  Yes, a lot longer.  Of course only Muslims seem to be afraid of the pig bomb these days.

Hope you're feeling better quick, utemia.

LOL

I never once said that terrorists are the victims. And if the system with the tribunals works so well, and that only actual guilty suspects are detained, then why are there dozens of former suspects who are still detained and why does it take so long to set them free? Should it not be the case that only guilty suspects arrive in Gitmo in the first place?

Basic human rights - you use that phrase like it leaves a foul taste in your mouth. I know that you'll just roll your eyes, but the enlightenment movement brought many achievements, and acknowledging that is apolitical. The idea that every person is born with inalienable rights was pretty radical 300 years ago.

Nobody cares much what happens to civilians in wars. As far as I know, the US are the first country that actively try to avoid civilian costs.

'Basic human rights' are fine conceptually.  The rub comes in the definition.  Right now, they're whatever you want them to be.  The jihadist believes it is his 'basic human right' to slaughter infidels.  I think I have a 'basic human right' not to be slaughtered.

Now what?

You answered your own questions - no one would take them.  If they had been released back to their host country, they would have been shot on arrival (again, erring on the side of human rights).

It is not the US Legal system, but again international treaties regarding armed conflicts (war).  Indeed, the biggest debate in the US is whether to move them to the US legal system or not, a move that is controversial in itself since it could very well be a violation of those treaties.