@johnpe1 I second what jdg just said. You're just saying it's okay to dehumanize people.

@sjatkins Yes. It's amazing people fall for it. It's the oldest trick in the book to get more power for people in gov't and less power for the law.

"Terrorists caught in action are "not just people accused of being criminals". You are very confused."
'caught in action' and 'accused' are the same thing, except the first one presumes guilt.

Thank you for your service!!! This particular administration seems to be just about 1600 mils (that's artillery talk for 180 degrees) out of kilter with my thin\king on practically every subject. They do not value the military or the lives of others, only their own. I too cannot see how anyone could volunteer today when the Commander In Chief just lets the enemy go. The liberals that still agree with this administration would point out that the military still gets the volunteers it needs. But, just how many of them are of the same mindset as this president? It's beyond my comprehension. In the past we've had disagreement with administrations, but I don't even remember any that put down the military and tried to destroy it like this one. My only saving faith is two more years. I don't think the top military will allow him to totally destroy our military. It's like his anti-gun nonsense has actually made him the worlds best gun salesman. I almost think we needed him to wake up the people of just how bad it could get here. We need to remove those that still support him from their government offices.

I'm a navy veteran, honorably discharged. I served under Reagan and my life was never put at risk by my government. That said, I would move Heaven and Earth - even forfeit my life - keeping my children from the clutches of this government. Its obvious to me that this gOvernment, and probably future administrations, do not value American lives as they once did. There is no chance I will ever recommend, condone, or, if it were in my power, permit them signing up for military service.

I see we agree on most things today, I just don't agree with you on Vietnam. I'm actually glad I went, it taught me not to trust even my fellow Americans. Today we are being divided again, only in a different manner. As far as what we did over there and the outcome of the war, the book, "An American Amnesia" by Bruce Herschensohn sums up my feelings precisely. My comment about going to Canada was more facetious than anything else.

I wrote that congress did authorize the use of force, twice. They did not write a declaration of war. Obviously that is just as confusing to those that wish to close gitmo and send those combatants back to the battle.

My reference to insurance was simply to point out that words matter, actions matter, and while the feeling may be the same, the parsed words of lawyers and politicians can be wildly different in meaning.

I'm all for the Bush doctrine. Shoot 'em over there before they bring the terror over here. After 9/11 GW Bush should have asked for a "Declaration of War" rather than congressional approval of the war powers act. It not only would make a difference in POW treatment, but it probably would make a difference in how we prosecuted the war. Playing to a tie is not the same as winning. Just my opinions. I have noticed they are not calling me for advice these days. I guess they are doing fine without my help.

read up on Saddam Hussein...then think about he recent revelation that he indeed had chemical weapons, then recall that he used those weapons on his own people, and then remember the large nuclear materials he had (which we removed without UN consent). He didn't fill those mass graves with onions. lastly, the terrorists were contained until O took office. You can say what you want, I knew people there.

It was not limited to the handful of thugs responsible for 9/11.

A Congressional declaration of war does not have to use those terms. You wrote that Congress didn't authorize it and now change the subject to insurance companies. Congress authorized it twice. Court trials are irrelevant.

You wrote that Congress did not approve it. It did, twice. War is always a travesty. It doesn't go away by refusing to fight back.

Terrorists caught in action are "not just people accused of being criminals". You are very confused.

The "fine state" resulted from Obama not finishing the job and Bush pretending that the job was "nation building".
"Turning the other cheek" does not save lives from Islamo-fascists.

One regards vermin as vermin when they declare themselves to be vermin. Deliberately treating the guilty as innocent is morally reprehensible. You are an apologist and facilitator for Nazis.

What a waste of good ground, poisoning compost like that. The belong in the local toxic dump.

They were caught in the act in a war. They don't get a "trial". Prisoners captured in war are not "tried". You have confused war with criminals in a civilized society. They are also not subject to the Geneva convention, for whatever that is worth at all. They are terrorists, not soldiers in uniform, acting as cowardly murders terrorizing a population of civilians for the explicit purpose of killing and terrorizing them.

You first said they are "put under torture", and now changed it to "why wouldn't they be". The fact is that they are not.

The "type of being they are" is responsible for its actions. "People first" do not remain innocent after they have committed acts of terrorism, which is why they have surrendered their right to be treated as normal human beings. You are an apologist for terrorist thugs, which contradicts the very possibility of defending a moral, free society.

Please tell which specific international convention is being broken/ignored? Please be sure to include TERRORISTS in this wording of this convention.

The war powers act is different from a Declaration of War. There is wiggle room in the interpretation. For example: since there was no declaration of war, for a time acts of terror were covered by insurance. After the tragic experience of 9-11, insurance companies drafted "act of terror" exemptions from coverage. Had the US declared war after the 1st bombing of the trade center, or the marine barracks, or the US Cole, no claims would have been paid for acts of war after that declaration.
Bush had the right, via congress, to use military force in the Bush Doctrine of fighting them preemptively over there rather than defensively over here. Progressives and liberals can argue about enemy combatants, because there is no war and therefore no enemy combatants.
Their argument almost holds water until considering the magnitude of their acts. These are not assault or battery or robbery/murder. These are mass killings, battlefield killings, genocide, and they have declared war against the US. So, with tongue in cheek, I can say it makes perfect sense to try them in open court in the juris diction of their offense, with the rest of the freaks in lock up. Perfect sense.

A war on the technique of asymmetric warfare that we could never actually define in ways that satisfies our own government. A war declared to be without end and against nebulous enemies and that is taken to justify anything and everything including destroying our own freedoms. This is not anyone's idea of a legitimate "war". It is a travesty.

We would have saved a lot more lives, American and about 200,000 Iraqis if we didn't invade Iraq. And look at the fine state we have left it in.

They are alleged terrorist who never had a decent trial. They are being held in a manner against international conventions. Why wouldn't they be tortured since this administration as well as the previous one has basically said that torture is ok?

There are many that would beg to differ with you what actually goes on at Gitmo. These prisoners are in fact people first and foremost and they have inalienable rights that we as objectivists acknowledge by the nature of the facts of reality concerning what type of beings they are.

I am just holding a mirror up, so that they can
see what they are. . if my defensive armor
reflects their evil back onto them, I consider
that it is their evil and not mine. . please remember
that the initiation of force is bad. Nazis did a
lot of that, also, just like the beheaders. . -- j

sheesh...these people are not criminals, they haven't committed a crime. The are not Americans and are not under American civil law.They are not soldiers since they are not an army or acting like an army. They were caught committing acts of terrorism and deserve death. The fact that they live in a prison and are not being abused is far better than they deserve.

Regarding humans as vermin is what the Nazis did. I refuse to be one.

Limited to those behind the 9/11 attacks. We already got them, and except for Moussaoui they're already dead. That authorization has expired.