Alleged British Hacker Fears Guantanamo

Magnifico writes "The BBC is reporting that Gary McKinnon, a British man accused of breaking into the U.S. government computer networks, could end up at Guantanamo Bay. His lawyer is fighting his extradition to the United States arguing, 'The US Government wants to extract some kind of species of administrative revenge because he exposed their security systems as weak and helpless as they were.'"

Comments

Interesting...

[the_humeister]

At an earlier hearing his lawyers suggested his actions were not malicious - he had been trying to expose lax computer security and access what he believed was withheld information about UFOs.

Did he find any?

At least he gets a trial...

[gamer4Life]

That's more than most of the prisoners at Guantanamo get.

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[meringuoid]

Technically, I believe they are prisoners of war.

No they aren't. If they were prisoners of war, then the Geneva Convention would apply. If they were prisoners of war, they would have been released once the war ended (are we still at war with Afghanistan? Didn't think so...)

They're 'unlawful combatants', a new classification invented by the Americans which is roughly synonymous with 'unpersons'.

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[Bromskloss]

Armed militants captured on the field of battle don't merit a trial.

Really? Does that apply for both sides in a conflict, or just the ones you consider to be your opponents?

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[forgotten_my_nick]

What about say a taxi driver who drives a 100 or so miles to drop a guy off in an area, is then picked up because he is a stranger in said area and handed over to the US troops saying he is a member of the taliban, the troops who give a $5000 reward for capturing him.

Meanwhile this guy spends a year or so in a camp in Afganistan, survive a train ride of hell (where many die), only to be shipped off to gitmo for 9 months to live in a cage and only then being released back to his country never once being charged of anything or going to trial.

Of course hes the lucky one. There was another reported incident of a person being held for two years. When returning home to find because no one knew where he was he had no job, no home and his family were poor.

And there have been over 200 such people let go from that camp and there are still many more in that camp under the same conditions not to mention children.

But as Bush says "They are there because they are bad people". We also won't have to worry when they finally get approval for the death chamber because any mistakes can be removed.

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[Niten]

The problem is that the people held at Guantanamo Bay weren't simply captured on "the field of battle". According to information released under court order last month, fewer than half of the detainees were actually captured in battle against US forces. The majority were turned over by Pakistan, often for a cash bounty.

Few of these "combatants" are even accused of having fought; most simply lived in a house or worked for a charity associated with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. And you would propose that we have the right to indefinitely detain these people, held only on the grounds of a suspicion, without a fair trial? What, again, are these freedoms and principles that we are fighting so hard to defend in this "war on terror"?

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[Anonymous Coward]

Either Al Qaeda is an entity that the US is at war with, in which case they are POWs, or it is a criminal organization, in which case they are criminals.

You can't say "they are neither, so we can treat them how we like". They are either POWs or criminals, and should be treated as such.

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Just to shoot this meme down,

There is no "meme" to shoot down. Under the Geneva conventions you are either a combatant (in which case you are entitled to a POW status) or a civilian (in which case the occupying power has another set of obligations towards you). There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant". That is an invention of the Bush administration and indeed blatantly in violations of the conventions. Under the Conventions, a non-uniformed individual who does not qualify as a combatant, and who is conducting combat operations is simply a civilian criminal to be dealt with using civilian court system.

It is that simple.

There is no such thing as an "unlawful" combatant, who has no rights whatsoever and who is to be shipped to a Gulag. The whole idea is a pathetic admission on the part of the US that it is no longer even pretending to uphold its so-called "ideals" and is simply now engaged in "might is right" approach to building a hegemony.

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[Dutchmaan]

Al Qaeda operatives, officials note, did not fight according to the laws of war and, as a consequence, are not entitled to the privileges of honorable soldiers -- one of which is trial before court-martial.

You make a dangerous assumption.. the assumption that if they are being held then they are guilty. Trials exist for a reason.

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

but as terrorists, they are not mere criminals

Yes they are mere criminals, just as every terrorist was since, pretty much forever, like say when somoene tried to set the Colliseum on fire in Ancient Rome.

This whole idiotic American mindset of "The Commies are coming! Throw away all laws! The Commies are coming! Give up all your rights! The Comm... The Terrorists are coming! ..." is truly infuriorating. Only piss-covered coward idiots, or assholes hell-bent on using those idiot's animalistic fear to get in power, would engage in such "thought".

in addition, full criminal trial protections could compromise investigations and interventions needed to stop future terrorist attacks

Total bullshit. Terrorist attacks can happen everywhere, all the time, anytime, nearly any public place, and there is nothing you, or the DHS, can do about it, short of locking the whole population up, or establishing a 24/7 surveilance of all citizens. Any idiot can get a can of gasoline and a spray gun and march into a mall setting people on fire. Any idiot can rent a truck and drive into a park running hunderds of people over before he can be stopped. Any idiot can get a truck, load it with rocks and slam into an Amtrack train. And so on, ad infinitum! Terrorism is a tactic and there is no way one can win a "war" on a tactic!

And the only reason to claim that "9/11 changed everything" (besides spoiled brats, otherwise known as Americans, believing that the whole universe revolves around their asses and that when terrorism happens everywhere else, that's just sad but normal, but when it happens in the US its the end of the world and all rules have to be thrown out) is to deprive poeples of their rights under a pretense of protecting them from some bogeymen. That is the very same reason Stalin and Hitler have used on their countrymen!

The way to fight terror is courage and cosistency, demonstrating to the terrorists that they cannot affect one's ideals and principles, no matter what they do. But what does Al-Queda get for the cost of 19 pairs of box cutters? Wholesale abandonment of the supposedly most cherished American principles of "habeas corpus", freedom of the press, unreasonable searches, personal liberties and the like in favour of fascist surveilance and arbitrary imprisonment in a Gulag. Osama must be laughing his ass off at such a spineless attitude.

Or do you want to be in the next September 11?

You are far far far more likely to die in a car accident (47,000 deaths a year in the US) then anything like 9/11, which by the way, took 10 years of planning, culminating in the apex of Al-Queda's technology: the $1.25 boxcutters, and that was before your stong, steely eyed, swaggering "protectors" were around to "protect" you from these boogeymen.

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[greenrom]

No, it's not that simple. Here's how the Geneva Convention defines a civilian:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause

So if you're taking an active part in the hostilities, you're not entitled to geneva protections as a civilian. The definition of combatants are somewhat more involved, but here are the ones that pertain to people who are not members of a government's organized standing military:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

So if you're a combatant, but you don't follow the laws and customs of war or you don't identify yourself as the enemy, then you don't get Geneva protection. That's what "unlawful combatants" are. They're people who are participating in an armed conflict who aren't eligible for Geneva protection because of how they are conducting their combat operations.

Now, in this case, I don't think anyone is suggesting that this hacker was participating in a war against the U.S. government. If he's extradited, he'll get a trial and probably go to prison if he's convicted, but he's not going to end up in Guantanamo.

Re:At least he gets a trial...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So if you're taking an active part in the hostilities, you're not entitled to geneva protections as a civilian.

No you are only not entitled to being a protected person, who is granted additional rights to a mere civilian.

So if you're a combatant, but you don't follow the laws and customs of war or you don't identify yourself as the enemy, then you don't get Geneva protection.

Which again, makes you a mere civilian, or more specifically, a civilian criminal.

That's what "unlawful combatants" are.

See above. That would make them criminals to be tried in a civilian court, and afforded all the same rights as any other civilian accused of a crime.

They're people who are participating in an armed conflict who aren't eligible for Geneva protection because of how they are conducting their combat operations.

That only removes their "protected persons" status, not their rights as civilians.

Not Guantanamo

[Kohath]

After reading the article, I think he's more likely to end up at Area 51.

Plead insanity

[October_30th]

he had been trying to expose lax computer security and access what he believed was withheld information about UFOs.

Uh... OK. He should plead insanity.

Re:How would he like it....

[jonnythan]

Having a trial by jury, then being convicted by them, then going through sentencing, and then having the option of appeal..... that's one thing.

Getting shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp for an indeterminate sentence for something you weren't convicted of... that's something else entirely.

Re:How would he like it....

[eln]

He's not whining about the time he would have to serve if found guilty in a federal court which followed due process. What he's complaining about is that current US anti-terror laws make it possible for him to be held indefinitely without trial.

The US has claimed he will be tried in federal court just like any other criminal, but the very idea that he COULD be held indefinitely without any sort of due process under the current law is troubling.

If other countries believe the US will refuse to allow due process in any case it can label "terrorism," they will be unwilling to extradite criminals to us, which is a net loss for the cause of criminal justice.

The real story

[acvh]

is that his actions are said to have caused $5000 of damage to each PC he connected to, which, coincidentally, is the threshold at which he can be sentenced to a year in prison, which, coincidentally, is the threshold at which he can be extradited.

The US government is gaming the system to get its hands on this guy. That's why it's news.

Funny thing is, I live a half mile from the base he is said to have "disabled" and this is the first I've heard of this story.

Re:How would he like it....

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I seriously hope you arn't suggesting that you think it would be ok to indefinitly hold the burglar in your basement, exacting various forms of torture? If not, your analogy fails to be analogous. If you do, well...

Not liking the actions of others does not give you a carte blanche to exact punishment of your choice.

Extradition

[Anonymous Coward]

Us Brits consider the idea of being extradited to the USA's rape prisons, Gitmo or no Gitmo, to be about on a level as you Yanks regard being extradited to an Iranian prison.

Isn't there something about "cruel and unusual punishment" in your constitution? And the sad thing is that this story is likely to get you guys making rape jokes instead of realising how shitty your country has become. You were once a great nation and you are throwing it all away.

And no, I have no sympathy for this stupid script kiddy kook. But, as Dostoyevsky once wrote, "the degree of civilisation in a society can be judged by entering its prisons".

Re:I disagree with 'the bay' as much as anyone

[elliotCarte]

And am not exactly a fan of the Us Government, but you've got to be a bit of an idiot to 'test weaknesses'/hack the Us government's property. they're not gonna take it lying down are they?

I agree with parent completely. I mean, whether or not you agree with the US's tendencies to be (overly) vengeful, you're still an idiot to ignore those tendencies when deciding whether or not to 'piss them off', no? This holds true for other governments, terrorists, etc. as well. Like the US or not you're still an idiot to intentionally piss them off. Now, don't tell me the guy didn't think this would upset those responsible for the US gov. networks that he allegedly hacked. Please! What did he expect?

If you poke a grizly bear in the ribs with a stick is it a fair response for the bear to tear your head off? No, that's not fitting to the offense at all, but if you know the bear will react that way and you poke the bear in the ribs anyway... that's just stupid. The US enjoys power driven at least in part by fear. If they overlook offenses against them that fear goes away. Do you think the US is going to send that message and give up that power? No, they like being feared and the power that goes with it.

Amnesty International

[Spy der Mann]

Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that one.
Unless you call three squares a day and 5 prayer breaks torture.

Sorry, but Amnesty International disagrees with you. OK, maybe I exaggerated, Guantanamo isn't one of the worst prisons in the world. It's one of the worst AMERICAN prisons in the world. According to Amnesty Intl, "Guantánamo Bay has become a symbol of injustice and abuse in the US administration's 'war on terror'. It must be closed down".

There, happy now?

Disproportionate

[golodh]

I think that he has reason to believe that he would not face justice but the equivalent of gang-justice if he were extradited.

Guantanamo Bay was called into being to exploit a juridical loophole in order to hold people without accusation, without legal representation, and without trial for as long as the authorities need to either build a case against them or to clear them. The reason this was done was to get at people considered to be the equivalent of enemy combatants but without a state that you could hold responsible, without a "home front" which would moderate their actions, and which on balance were considered potentially far too dangerous to let walk around free. In other words: for real terrorists who threaten real lives. Not for teens who make a hobby of breaking into poorly protected computers.

What we see now is that laws are stretched a bit to mark anyone from overseas who breaks into a defense computer as a "terrorist" and hence eligible for "terrorist" treatment. Which includes e.g. a lack of legal representation and a 20 year prison sentence (if he's lucky) or a 60 year one if he's unlucky. Which in this case is of course totally out of proportion.

What worries me most is the cries of "he commited a crime and thence should not whine about the time". Nice copy, but more than a bit barbaric when you come to think of it. Punishment should be proportionate to the offense, and people's rights (e.g. to legal counsel and reasonable sentences) should not be set aside simply because the administration currently in power happens to feel like it.

If we seriously consider 20 years of prison as just punishment for the electronic equivalent of breaking and entering on federal property, then why not adopt "Islamic" laws such as cutting of hands for petty theft and stoning for adultery? Those laws were made in and for a medieval society. Don't tell me that the US of A is becoming the appropriate setting for that kind of law.

Re:How would he like it....

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is that it is possible, and the current US laws violate fundamental principles of human rights and justice. Nobody should be extradited to the US while they have the ability to deny a fair and open trial, just like nobody should be extradited to China or North Korea.

Re:How would he like it....

[Divide By Zero]

Not true. BBC has a few good podcasts that I subscribe to, and if what they're reporting on is any indication of British public sentiment, they most definitely do believe it. There have been several stories in the last few weeks that seem to have been tipped off by a BBC reporter posing as a lawyer to get into Gitmo to interview one of these "detainees", who told stories about conditions there and forced feeding tantamount to torture. The Brits seem very concerned about it, to the point of getting Condi and ... some State Dept official whose name I forget on the BBC Today interview program and grilling them on it. (Not American media softball throwing, either. Real calling bullshit and holding feet to fire.) It represents an end-around bypassing due process, speedy and public trial, and probably a couple other Amendments. Frankly, they can't understand why Americans aren't as concerned as they are.

He shouldn't fear Guantanamo

[mhollis]

At Guantanamo, the prisoners don't have any rights to a trial or access to the American Justice system -- until the US Supreme Court decides that it is not Constitutional for the Executive branch to accuse, convict and execute the sentence on a person with no trial. I figure he'd be there for about 20 years with no trial until this Supreme Court wakes up.

What he ought to fear is an overseas detention compound as this is where one British releasee suffered torture, not at Gitmo.

While I agree this is a ploy by his lawyer to try this case in the Court of Public Opinion (at least in England where Guantanamo is not very popular), the US apparently doesn't torture prisoners there. They torture them elsewhere because Guantanamo is under too much public scrutiny

Re:How would he like it....

[TubeSteak]

The problem is that the U.S. hasn't issued any such guarantee.

The fact that the U.S. of A. even has to make such a promise, puts them out of step with regards to the human rights most other 1st world countries take for granted. I'm not saying that people don't get dissappeared in other countries, just that the option isn't official public policy.

I read another article about the guy off that site, and found this bit of information very interesting:

"The British public need to ask themselves why British citizens are being extradited to the USA when the US government has not signed the extradition treaty between the two countries."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4721183.stm

Re:How would he like it....

[dgatwood]

Can you name even one person who has been "shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp" who wasn't captured in a war zone under arms while not wearing a uniform?

Uh... the definition of a secret court is one that no one knows about, so it's safe to say that no, no one does. That's the point.

erm perhaps you should inform yourself

[BitterAndDrunk]

There have been a few radio documentaries on NPR and other places about Guantanamo. Facts such as:

• Many of the alleged terrorists in Guantanamo were picked up in the bounty program in Pakistan
• One satirist from Pakistan was recently released and has interviewed repeatedly on conditions that are, without a doubt, torture
• The "tribulnals" to determine whether or not someone belonged there were farcical kangaroo courts, with defendants unable to view evidence against them or cross examine alleged eye witnesses because those documents were "classified"

Make no mistake, Guantanamo is another stain on America's conscience, and makes the phrase "Land of the Free" ironic at best.

Re:How would he like it....

[Des Herriott]

Can you name even one person who has been "shipped off sans due process to an offshore prison camp" who wasn't captured in a war zone under arms while not wearing a uniform?

Well, there were the 38 detainess who were released in March 2005 because the US government decided that they were not enemy combatants. None of these people received compensation for unjust imprisonment, and none of them have ever been told why they were arrested.

Or how about "Adel" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html

Or how about the five Chinese detainees who have been found not to be enemy combatants, but are still sitting in Guantanamo? http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.htm l

The United States has chosen to put those people into jail rather than execute them. That is a favor that the US is doing out of the kindness of its heart. Your welcome.

"Kindness of its heart"? Fuck off. Guantanamo is a fucking embarassment to the USA, and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.

Re:Torture? You're just clueless.

[panthro]

You've made your bigotry quite clear with your unapologetic ignorance and your IMO's, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and take your post somewhat seriously for comment.

They waged war against our country and are being kept alive only out of the restraint of the American government. [...] These aren't innocent bystanders. They're warriors commited to killing Americans.

Because someone told you they did? Do you realize that the vast majority of the detainees there weren't even captured by U.S. forces, but rather by bounty hunters? The America you seem so intent on defending was founded upon, among other things, the ideas that one is innocent until proven guilty, and that all people are created equal. Many prisoners held at Guantanamo are detained indefinitely without charge or conviction. By conveniently choosing to afford rights only to your own citizens, you are nullifying the validity of your own ideology.

These are non-uniformed combatants (to whom the Genevea convention most certainly does NOT apply). They could (and should IMO) be drug out and shot at a moment's notice, quite legally.

While the Bush administration has sneakily avoided classifying the prisoners as POW to get around the Geneva convention (which no other government in the world has supported, mind you), the U.S. has in the past signed other international treaties that clearly ban what they are doing with Guantanamo. So no, it wouldn't be legal, not by a longshot.

If you want to know torture, examine a Muslim prison where fingers, hands, eyes, tongues are removed. Feeding is optional. Ever seen a "stoning" (and no, I don't mean you and and your friends with a bong)? A beheading?

Where are these Muslim prisons? Are you just making this up? Provide some facts, we don't want to hear your sensationalist bullshit.

...to call this one of the worst prisons in the world demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of real prisons.

Amnesty International called the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp the "gulag of our times", and the U.N. has called it a "human rights scandal". I won't comment on how bad it is relative to other prisons worldwide, but the existence of 'worse' prisons doesn't somehow justify the existence of Guantanamo Bay's.

Re:How would he like it....

[x2A]

I think it's more the case that we aren't given chance to find out if these people are guilty or anything first. Most people who deny their guilt in prison HAVE had the chance to convince people, and they failed to, usually (one would hope) for good reason. That's the bit that Guantanamo Bay lacks, and that's what sparks people being so pissed off with America about; not that they're holding people who say they're innocent, that they're holding people who haven't even been given chance to say they're innocent.

America's an absolute discrace, I find myself thinking more and more they deserve everything they get (I'll say hi to him in Guantanamo!)

Re:if he's worried about Gitmo...

[gallwapa]

Case and point: Jose Padilla

Arrested on US soil. He wasnt charged until Nov 22, 2005. Held for YEARS before he was allowed counsel...

As an American, this crap pisses me off to no end.

Re:I just don't understand you people

[Scrameustache]

Amnesty International has an anti-US slant

Yeah, they hate Freedom!
OR, Amnesty International has an anti-'unjust detention' slant, and the U.S. happens to have fallen in the 'bad guys' camp on this issue. That would of course mean that U.S. isn't magically perfect and incapable of wrong-doing, which is obviously an insane position to take. Obviously, anyone who criticises the U.S. actions has an irrational bias!

if we didn't force feed people, we'd be accused of letting them starve to death.

One word: Gandhi .

Re:0% Chance of McKinnon ending up in Guantanamo

[Cederic]

(1)There is no proof most people in Guantanamo are members of Al Qaeda.
(2)There is no proof most people in Guantanamo were ever members of Al Qaeda
(3)There is no proof most people in Guantanamo provided material support to Al Qaeda
(4)There is proof that most people in Guantanamo were not captured on a battlefield
(5)There is no proof most people in Guantanamo committed acts of war against the US
(6)The term 'illegal combatant' is illegitimate. People are either soldiers, or civilians. A civilian attempting to harm or kill people is breaking the law and should be tried by a civilian court.

To be held in Guantanamo, an individual MUST be declared an illegal combatant.

Please, try looking at Guantanamo Bay from an objective perspective.

I will agree entirely with your final statement - his lawyers are attempting to keep him out of the US, by any legal means necessary, and scare stories about Guantanamo are one of those means. And the argument is entirely invalid, albeit only because British citizens in Guantanamo get out again pretty sharpish on account of UK Government pressure - the US would rather stick this guy in jail for a few years.

Re:I disagree with 'the bay' as much as anyone

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

No, that's not fitting to the offense at all, but if you know the bear will react that way and you poke the bear in the ribs anyway... that's just stupid. The US enjoys power driven at least in part by fear. If they overlook offenses against them that fear goes away. Do you think the US is going to send that message and give up that power? No, they like being feared and the power that goes with it.

So the important question is, "what should the UK do?" Right now the UK is standing between the bear and the man. Knowing that the Bear might kill the man, and being responsible for his welfare as one of their citizens should they give him to the US? I think they absolutely should not. Until the US adopts reasonable human rights laws in compliance with international agreements why risk handing him over? Just convict him in the UK. If the US wants any extraditions to go forward in the future when there is any doubt about US laws and behaviors then they can fix the bloody problem. Why encourage a country to act like an rabid animal? The UK should seriously consider whether or not they should hand him over. If they do, it should be with guarantees that he will be treated in accord with accepted international humans rights agreements as monitored by an independent third party.

Sigh..... No.

[TheNoxx]

This might get long winded, but it's on a particular subject that I find to be rather serious, so please, bear with me.

Amnesty International does not have an anti-US slant. You are mistaking their opposition towards detaining masses of people without due process and torturing them to get information from them as bias against the United States. The unprovoked abuse of prisoners is not an accusation by Amnesty International, but rather, by the FBI, and most would consider this the tip of the iceberg, as the government is in the business of media-friendly-spin. Do a google search, it's fairly well known... how it is that people get this idea in their heads that life is peachy keen at a concentration camp, I'll never know. Oh, and of course they are fed and given semi-clean quarters; anything less would be a giant target painted on the United States and its military for international ridicule, and as we're on thin ice enough as it is, they are at least smart enough not to be so brashly cruel. Starvation, beatings, sleep-deprivation, and other torture techniques can be blamed on a myriad of inter-prisoner problems. As long as you sweep the cells and wash the dishes, you can stave off accusations of abuse for years.

Furthermore, we have broken the rules of warfare outright by keeping so many "enemy combatants" imprisoned without allowing them any access to the outside world, let alone any rights of any kind... but as we already told the U.N. it has not power over us, there is no one to bring us to trial. As the link between Iraq and bin Laden has already been disproved, again and again, one does wonder how exactly an Iraqi soldier has broken the rules of war, mmm? By fighting against us? Not only that, but holding soldiers from the old Taliban regime is a rather grand stretch unless, by due process of law, you can prove they had ties to bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Otherwise, they were doing their job as soldiers.

In fact, the term "enemy combatant" was invented to weasel out of calling our opponents "soldiers", thus giving the military the barest sliver of justification for breaking the rules of warfare. If they were legally defined as "soldiers", they could not be held without due process, legal counsel, or access to the outside world, including friends and family. Abuse would be out of the fucking question, let alone torture.

I would say the greatest obstacle towards understanding the reality of the situation for so many of my fellow Americans is our innately violent tempers. I remember a majority of the people I spoke to for weeks after 9/11 speaking about simply bombing or nuking the country with the responsible group out of existence, not joking in the slightest. I often wonder how many people will ever realize how dark and evil such a thought is?

Anyway, my opposition does not mainly come from any objection towards violence, far from it: violence is simply another form of interaction between entities, and is quite necessary to make sure the bloodthirsty don't have their way with the world. My opposition comes from the extremely dishonorable behavior exhibited by the military by slithering out of the rules of the Geneva Convention by using the term "enemy combatant", and for the light-heartedness with which we invaded Iraq, and our insulting behavior towards the UN. Honor is a serious thing, whether or not people push past their misconceptions of it. As if all of that weren't enough, I can't help but feel that the desensitization of the American public through television and such hasn't created apathy, but rather, a willingness to accept brutality as a way of life rather than working towards something better. I hear it echoed every time someone tells me "The only reason you can criticize your government is because we live in a civilized society, why don't you try that in (insert random violent government/country)." Idiots. Where do they think this society came from? Just by luck, just by our birth on this land? We live in this society because we made it as best