Gore

We all know that the people who were rounded up and put in prisons were people who were caught fighting, enemy combatants, not people who were in the country illegally because their green cards were expired.

On January 28, 2002, Dr. Raman Aziz al-Abi, a university professor, went to work. He was teaching a class to some 100 students when, suddenly, a group of men burst into the lecture hall, shackled the professor and whisked him away. Professor al-Abi's students said he pleaded with the men to let him speak to an attorney but they physically dragged him off. The men who took him away refused to answer any questions and Professor al-Abi disappeared. This isn't an abduction story from some distant land run by a tin pot dictator or a scene from a Hollywood thriller. This event took place right here in the United States. Professor al-Abi was a teacher at the University of Northwest Central Texas at South Pantego. He had lived in the United States for 27 years and had been accepted for citizenship just a week before. His naturalization ceremony was two weeks later.

Professor al-Abi was arrested and no one knew where he was, local police denied having any information of his arrest. His friends and family hired a lawyer and started making inquiries: the US Attorney General's office, the US Department of Justice, and the Office of Homeland Security. There was no response. The case went to court. It turned out that Professor al-Abi had been transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for interrogation and possible trial by military commission. Part of the evidence against him was that the he had an 18 year-old half-brother who was allegedly a member of a terrorist organization. The brother was being held in an undisclosed location as well. Professor al-Abi was, therefore, a terrorist because he associated with terrorists.

In the UK, we had many years of a mainland bombing campaign by the IRA. We never had a mass internment camp for Irish sounding people. we detained people strictly under the limits of law, and allowed them legal representation. Trials were held, and yes, there were miscarriages of justice, but not in the wholesale fashion the Bush administration hes perpetrated.
OK, the US was inexperienced in dealing with terrorism (or so they claim), but cant people learn from the experiences of other nations?

Whether you agree with what Al Gore said or not, do you think, morally, that he should be over there bashing America and their policies and making people even more angry at America than they already are? I think this could and will eventually lead to more violence and/or terrorist attacks and that maybe he should've considered that before making his statements(which I still believe is for political gain).

I think that him saying these things might, MIGHT, give them pause, might make them think "hey, maybe we shouldn't be killing the people who are not actually against us. Maybe we should try to make our point another way."

He doesn't provide any proof of the horrible abuses that he claims. Yes Saudis were held in custody, but abused? When? Where? How? He won't answer those questions.

Edit: This is what really bugs me. Both parties are thrashing and trashing each other, but no one comes up with a real solution, they keep dwelling on the past. The left will say we need to pull out, GW says he's going to start pulling troops and then the left will say we need to strengthen not pull out. All each party does or stand for is whatever is opposite of the other party.

Their agenda is death to the western world and they want to wipe western culture off the map. The few innocent people are not going to give terrorist pause. We are talking about people that do honor killings and kill innocent little girls that are their own flesh and blood. You can't reason with insanity.

What, the Saudis?

I am confused as are you

is it the saudis we are at war with?

who is this enemy we are helping?

or are we really having a discussion of "brown muslim = terrorist"

I certainly hope an entire country, or even religion, is not being called terrorists here

You all learned your lessons well from GWB

Different = terrorists

Oooooh yeah! I had forgotten when Bush came out of the closet! Isn't it nice that they can display such obvious public affection?

Perhaps he's trying to say to the Saudi's and Arabs in general, "Please don't attack the innocent people who don't even agree with what the administration is doing. When you make terrorist attacks, you're not hurting the people who are doing things against you, you are actually hurting the people who DISAGREE with the things our government is doing against you."

I think that him saying these things might, MIGHT, give them pause, might make them think "hey, maybe we shouldn't be killing the people who are not actually against us. Maybe we should try to make our point another way."

Also, it's not like he's telling them something they don't already know. Owning up to the failures of our government is better than trying to sweep things under the rug and could cool their tempers a bit. Pretending it doesn't exist can only make them more pissed off.

So yeah, basically I think the opposite of what you think Spinner. I see that it may help matters rather than making them worse.

Well, next election should be good. I think McCain and Hillary are both centrists, so we should start to see less division which really is hurting the world, not just America.

Hopefully a third wheel doesn't show up and ruin the party.

I am confused as are you

is it the saudis we are at war with?

who is this enemy we are helping?

or are we really having a discussion of "brown muslim = terrorist"

I certainly hope an entire country, or even religion, is not being called terrorists here

You all learned your lessons well from GWB

Different = terrorists

Do a Google News Search for this. It's effing hilarious. One or two mainstream media reports, many many right wing wacko headlines like "Gore Speech Sponsored by Bin Ladin, Thorazine" and "Al Gore Personifies Liberal Disloyalty to America". What a load of caca.

Talking about something that's already happened doesn't make it worse. Avoiding the subject makes you look either callous or guilty. Al Gore is a private citizen, and he's free to express his views just as any other American.

Yes he is free to express his views, I just think he would have better judgement on the time and place.

When we look at the complete f*ck-up in Iraq, the complete f*ck-up after Katrina, the bribery scandal, the White House's criminal invasion of Americans' privacy, what do the wing-nuts say about all this? "Look! Look! There's Al Gore saying something bad! Really bad! No, stop reading about the war, the problem is Al Gore! He's making things worse! Stop looking at those new photos of Abu Ghraib! Look at Al Gore! Ignore the news about hunger strikes in Guantanamo, Al Gore is the problem!"

So I take it that's a no

When you can't win the argument you can only try to change the subject.

Happens all the time from both sides. Unfortunately the major story of the week was a non-story about VP Cheney. Blown out of purportion by the a media jealous because they weren't the ones to break the story about the bad Republican. But thats a whole different thread

Wow. What a load. The media is jealous because they didn't break the story? How does that make any sense at all?

The Vice President is involved in a hunting accident. That's news.
The accident was kept quiet for a day. That's news.
The accounts of the events preceding the accident differ. That's news.
The White House blames the victim. That's news.

An ex-vice president speaks at a conference in Saudi Arabia. Might be news.
He says the same things he's said many times in the US. Probably not news.

See? Shooting a man = interesting. Talking at a conference = boring.

Reporting about the accident in Texas isn't a media conspiracy to attack Dick Cheney. If that were the case the media was really out to get Clinton. Was the media conservative then and liberal now?