Cornell Students Counter-Protest Liberal Wackos

[Paul]

There was an anti-Guantanamo Bay protest here at Cornell this week, which was not going to slide with us. We, at the Cornell Review, Cornell’s conservative paper, decided to hold a counter-protest. It has made many people laugh endlessly. Here’s the link to the story, with plenty of pictures. Enjoy!!! www.people.cornell.edu/pages/pme8/review.html

[ItWillNeverWork]

It's all very amusing I have to say. One thing strikes me though. The content of the protest seemed to imply that if Guantanamo Bay inmates were given their rights then terrorism would increase. The truth of the matter is that the utter stupidity of your government’s actions have made the entire world more unstable than it has ever been by turning vast amounts of people against us.

In what way would granting the inmates legal representation and access to family pose a risk to our safety? We are achieving the opposite of what we are setting out to do.

[Walter]

ItWillNeverWork said:

<snip>
In what way would granting the inmates legal representation and access to family pose a risk to our safety? We are achieving the opposite of what we are setting out to do.

IWNW, give it a few minutes' thought. Communication is an incredibly powerful weapon and any ability for these killers to coalesce and develop a cooperative ability bodes for the direction of Al Qaida activities directly from the Gitmo cell.

Before you raise paranoia as a response, perhaps you should review the history of drug rings and organized crime being directed from prisons all over the country.

Legal counsel and family are very effective intermediaries in all such communications.

[ItWillNeverWork]

I'm not convinced by this argument. For one, it presuposes that that people are guilty (somthing that cannot be determined without access the legal council).

Secondly, there is no reason why legal advisers cannot be vetted before being given access to the prisoners.

A third point is that Al-Qaida does not operate with a center of control like other terror organisations have done in the past, attacks take place through the actions of individual cells who do not require the nod from someone in Guantanao Bay.

Terrorist attrocities will take place regardless, only now we have created a whole new generation of militants by our actions.

[ItWillNeverWork]

Putting is another way, the chances that a terrorist attack could be directed from inside Guantanamo Bay (if a well though through vettuing procedure was in place) are slim. The chances that our actions would spur on a disilusioned kid to blow himself up are very very large.

[MO]

At least they haven't been burned to a crisp and dragged down the street.

Terrorism is at its lowest point since 1969. We're winning.
www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/31569.htm

[Walter]

My responses are in bold...

ItWillNeverWork said:

I'm not convinced by this argument. For one, it presuposes that that people are guilty (somthing that cannot be determined without access the legal council).

No. It presupposes that enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are the enemy and are entitled to be treated in a manner prescribed by the Geneva Convention. Period.

Secondly, there is no reason why legal advisers cannot be vetted before being given access to the prisoners.

Yeh. Right. And what happens when Jonnie Cochrane is vetted and refused by the Military? I'll give you 3 guesses.

A third point is that Al-Qaida does not operate with a center of control like other terror organisations have done in the past, attacks take place through the actions of individual cells who do not require the nod from someone in Guantanao Bay.

Where do you get that from? Are you saying that 9/11 was not coordinated by a "center of control?" Can you elaborate how 19 bad guys all came together magically? Was it serendipity?

Terrorist attrocities will take place regardless, only now we have created a whole new generation of militants by our actions.

As if they weren't already? Why, then, are they in Guantanamo Bay in the first place? They were captured while they were innocently peddling lox and bagels to our troops on the battlefields of Afghanistan? [/quote]

[ItWillNeverWork]

Terrorism is at its lowest point since 1969. We're winning.

Hardly conclusive proof that this drop is due to the actions of your government in Cuba. Taking a quick look at statistics cannot give an accurate picture without reading into them.

For a start, there has been a general decrease in global terrorist attacks since the late 80's. The drop in terrorist attacks from 2001 till 2004 is a continuation of this decline. To attribute a continuation of this trend to the 'war' on terror is simplistic at best as it does not take into acount the years preceding 2001.

Secondly but most importantly there is no indication in these statistics about the motivation of the attacks. A closer look will reveal a drastic drop in terrorist attacks in latin america in the last few years. Latin American attacks are in the large part down to political factions not religious extremism.

On the other hand there has been a general upwards trend in middle eastern terrorism (A region whose terror groups are in the most part religiously motivated)

Source: US Department of State

So my point stands.

[MO]

What point is that? Terrorist attacks are also down because of US Patriot Act. We are freezing their money supply.

[ItWillNeverWork]

No. It presupposes that enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are the enemy and are entitled to be treated in a manner prescribed by the Geneva Convention. Period.

Fine piece of double speak there but aren't you actually saying 'The issue of guilt is irrelevant because under the geneva convention we have the right to hold them'?

The issue is not the legality of what you are doing it is the productivness.

Well done in avoiding telling me why their indefinate detention does not presuppose guilt BTW. Deny that it does then swiftly change subject, good tactic.

Yeh. Right. And what happens when Jonnie Cochrane is vetted and refused by the Military? I'll give you 3 guesses.

I am not familiar with this incident but never the less there will always be the odd example of vetting procedures being bypassed.

However, for a terrorist attack to be planned and coordinated from INSIDE 'Gitmo' would require just an incy wincy bit more than simply a breach.

Have you ever thought about how much planning has to go into an attack? Maybe the prisoners could hide internet ready computers, maps, building plans and information on the local embassys security guard changover times up their asses and secretly plan an attack in islamabad whilst their prison guards arent looking?

I'm sorry to be fasicious with you but I really cannot see your worries coming to pass. In this case I think it IS paranoia.

Where do you get that from?

I got it from what we have been told about Al-Qaida by our governments since septermber 11. A loose connection of groups under a banner but working independantly remember? What do you think all the reference to 'cells' is about?

Are you saying that 9/11 was not coordinated by a "center of control?" Can you elaborate how 19 bad guys all came together magically? Was it serendipity?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that almost every attack is carried out by different cells. Their might be a hierarchy of power within[/] each cell but the cells all work independantly, therfore locking up a few indivduals will have minimal effect on the overall situation. Other cells will continue on.

The problem with the current arrangement is that it is creating more individuals willing to create cells making us appear indifferent to judicial procedure.

We should be destrying cells whilst applying consistant standards to the people ACCUSED of being in those cells by putting them on trial with legal aid.

That way we would be able to take out one threat without creating another threat elsewhere.

As if they weren't already? Why, then, are they in Guantanamo Bay in the first place?

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. My point is that if the people in Guantanamo Bay have commited crimes then there is no reason why they cannot be put on trial with legal aid.

If the prisoners are guilty then the US government has nothing to fear by doing so. If we refuse to abide by fair standards of justice then more people in the world will be turned against us.

[ItWillNeverWork]

What point is that?

My point that our actions in Cuba are creating more terrorists than we are taking out.

Terrorist attacks are also down because of US Patriot Act. We are freezing their money supply

The Patriot act was initiated in the late 1980's then was it? Because that was when OVERALL terrorist attacks started to decrease.

I emphasize 'overall' because, as i explained in my previous post which you appeard not to have read, overall attacks have decreased (due to a drop in the intensity of South American conflict) but there has been an increase in Al-Qaida related attacks. That is what you would have found if you took a broader look at the report you linked to.

Some advice when reading statistics; pay attention to what isn't said, that says a lot more than what is.

[MO]

The lefties can ring their hands like they always do, but I think it's absurd to think that otherwise "peaceful Muslims" will decide to become terrorists because of Guantanamo. If they're that unstable we need to just start dropping nukes.You seem to neglect to mention other pertinent facts, like the fact that al qaeda declared war on us and promised more attacks in the US that have not been forthcoming.

It sounds to me like we are being too sensitive to their cultural needs. We should get rid of the clerics and start serving pork bbq.

I think I'll just be careful where I get my "advice."

[ItWillNeverWork]

The lefties can ring their hands like they always do, but I think it's absurd to think that otherwise "peaceful Muslims" will decide to become terrorists because of Guantanamo

Why is it absurd?

If they're that unstable we need to just start dropping nukes.

I'm sure that would help the situation immensley MO

You seem to neglect to mention other pertinent facts, like the fact that al qaeda declared war on us and promised more attacks in the US that have not been forthcoming.

This is what your call 'pertinent' is it? This proves that the war on terror is being won? LOL!!

[rush22]

No. It presupposes that enemy combatants captured on the battlefield are the enemy and are entitled to be treated in a manner prescribed by the Geneva Convention. Period.

And where is the battlefield in the "war on terror"? Oh yes, that's right, your backyard. I hope someone doesn't deem YOU an enemy combatant:

"But officer, all I did was rent a truck to the guy!"

"Tell it to the judge... oh wait there is no judge. Well, then off you go!"

[Ian Dudfield]

Jus like to say well in to ItWillNeverWork from across the boarder in England for clearly showing how ridiculous the arguments from MO are. The Red Cross and other international human rights groups have clearly expressed their concerns at human rights abuses breaking the geneva code. The war in Iraq was officially ended last year - the prisoners according to rules of the geneva convention should have been released. If they are being held for charges of terrorism then they should be given immediate access to lawyers and should be tried in court. It is completely wrong to hold these prisoners as they are currently being held.