[Skunk]

Originally posted by Johnny: And a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter how old he is. 15 year old boys are potentially a bigger threat than their adult brothers in arms, because people might not regard them dangerous. I mean, who suspects a kid ?

And a terrorist is a terrorist **ONLY** when a civil court of law says so. Until then the concept, innocent until proven guilty applies.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: As for the concept that freedom is better than prison, no matter what conditions the person's freedom brings...our own justice system sees exceptions to this theory every day. I have a friend that works for the Police Department in Charlotte, NC and she has confirmed that they do have a certain group of people that are habitual offenders solely for the purpose of being caught and put in jail.

There is a world of difference between **choosing** to break the law in order to gain food and picking up a gun to defend your country from invasion. In the former, you exercise choice, in the latter you are a prisoner of circumstance.

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Also, the threat of imprisonment under Communist Russia was just a bit more frightening than at Gitmo. Since the gov't could grab anyone at anytime for any reason and kill them without any repurcussions. I realize the detainees at Guantanamo have also been held without any reason being given - and I oppose that. HOWEVER, NONE of the detainees have been subjected to physical torture or the threat of immediate execution for failure to cooperate. They also were not "grabbed for no reason" in the first place. They were CAPTURED during military combat and have received the treatment owed them by that status.

But they **ARE** being subjected to torture:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s962052.htm
and it is every bit as barbaric as anything that the old communist state could come up with - unless of course, being tied to a post and having rubber bullets fired at you counts as dignified and humane treatment