PDA

View Full Version : How to close Guantanamo?


mur'phon
12-22-2008, 03:59 AM
A small question for those who say Obama is going to close Gitmo. Or, more precisely, what to do with the inmates?

JediMaster12
12-22-2008, 01:04 PM
Considering that there are some who were probably arrested without due cause and not given habeus corpus that might be the reason why they might be released. Technically speaking the immates at Gitmo were illegally detained under international and US law, especially those that were/are US citizens.

I did hear that some trials were being convened for the immates though it sounds like a last ditch effort on part of the Bush Admn. I really don't know what to think.

Jedi_Man
12-22-2008, 06:06 PM
Well, you see, many of the people in Gitmo ( military slang for Guantanamo) are terrorist, and terrorist don't have a country to call home, unlike the Iraqi War wehre the Iraqi soldiers had a specific rules do to the fact they were called Iraqis.
The terrorists don't ahve a place were they could make something like a last ditch stand, since they are everywhere, so thats why many trials were postponed or never held, we are still learning what to do with the gray areas.

jawathehutt
12-22-2008, 10:18 PM
The terrorists dont need a place to call home, there are safe houses in probably every single country on earth for them.

Jae Onasi
12-22-2008, 10:36 PM
The military has plenty of places to take the 'enemy combattants', some places better than others.

Tommycat
12-22-2008, 11:15 PM
A small question for those who say Obama is going to close Gitmo. Or, more precisely, what to do with the inmates?

We'll be sending them to your house. Thank you for volunteering :D

In all seriousness though. The problem isn't so much the closing of Gitmo as it is where do we send them. Some of the originating countries don't want them back. I think we'll see another president elected in(maybe more than one) before we see the Gitmo camp closed.

TheRogueForums
12-23-2008, 07:54 AM
GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base. This is just a ploy by liberals to gain the "omg, those poor, poor terrorists. What on earth have we been doing? We haven't been pampering them, we're such terrible people," vote. Surprisingly enough, the majority of the country do not feel like that.

However, it's all political bulljive, and guess what? It'll float. After this election, I have lost all faith in the American voter. We, as a nation, were dumb enough to elect (not only) Clinton... TWICE... Bush... TWICE.... and now Obama? Wow. No wonder the entire planet thinks our education system is horrible.

What it boils down is: we're cattle. (well, perhaps that isn't so bad. I've always liked a good "Moo" every now and then.) And the politicians have the prods. The ones in power are telling us it's "bad" to detain those that wish us harm. Even though these guys want to take our lives, it's not ok for us to NOT give them the same treatment we would give AMERICANS. (double negative ftw) "It's a violation of the Geneva Convention," some liberals say.

<snipped flame bait>

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 08:49 AM
GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base. This is just a ploy by liberals to gain the "omg, those poor, poor terrorists. What on earth have we been doing? We haven't been pampering them, we're such terrible people," vote. Surprisingly enough, the majority of the country do not feel like that.actually none of the detainees there have been convicted or even charged with a crime and most people do feel that way since it's pretty <snipped> barbaric.

Even though these guys want to take our lives, it's not ok for us to NOT give them the same treatment we would give AMERICANS. (double negative ftw) "It's a violation of the Geneva Convention," some liberals say.yes those crazy liberals and their post-medieval mindset we should start shackling people in town squares and televising executions. your logic is essentially that we should take a cue from terrorists with regards to treatment of prisoners.

<snipped response to flame bait>

jonathan7
12-23-2008, 08:53 AM
GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base. This is just a ploy by liberals to gain the "omg, those poor, poor terrorists. What on earth have we been doing? We haven't been pampering them, we're such terrible people," vote. Surprisingly enough, the majority of the country do not feel like that.

Yeah, America represents freedom; but won't give people due process, if these men are guilty of terrorism they should be tried in a court of law. Though, one suspects that the fact they haven't just means there are a lot of people wrongly held there. Nice to see innocent until proven guilty and freedom of speech reign still. What were we fighting this "War on Terror" (most moronic name ever btw) for? To defend out liberties? So this is how liberty dies, to a thundering of bombs?

What it boils down is: we're cattle. (well, perhaps that isn't so bad. I've always liked a good "Moo" every now and then.) And the politicians have the prods. The ones in power are telling us it's "bad" to detain those that wish us harm. Even though these guys want to take our lives, it's not ok for us to NOT give them the same treatment we would give AMERICANS. (double negative ftw) "It's a violation of the Geneva Convention," some liberals say.

Evidence? I wonder how you would feel if someone locks you up for 5 years without charge; the courts are there for a reason, its not about letting terrorists run free, it's about Justice. And just locking people up for no reason is not justice; if they are guilty they should be tried, and put in prison.

It is in violation of the Geneva Convention, (and funnily enough torture is against it too) but more than that, it is the greatest own goal in this history of anything. The fact it's there encourages people to become terrorists, because they are outraged at the injustice of it all.

And some of my best friends are fighting in Iraq right now - so don't tell me I don't realise the realities.

Litofsky
12-23-2008, 09:24 AM
GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base. This is just a ploy by liberals to gain the "omg, those poor, poor terrorists. What on earth have we been doing? We haven't been pampering them, we're such terrible people," vote. Surprisingly enough, the majority of the country do not feel like that.
Wait, what? We've locked these men up for no reason other than suspected terrorism, and have given them no trial, and when someone tries to defend them, they're automatically against our country? In the Boston Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre), our future President defended the British soldiers: does that automatically make him against our country? I say that the men in Guantanamo deserve a trial.

However, it's all political bulljive, and guess what? It'll float. After this election, I have lost all faith in the American voter. We, as a nation, were dumb enough to elect (not only) Clinton... TWICE... Bush... TWICE.... and now Obama? Wow. No wonder the entire planet thinks our education system is horrible.
I dare say that the rest of the world dislikes our education system for different reasons than for our voting habits.

What it boils down is: we're cattle. (well, perhaps that isn't so bad. I've always liked a good "Moo" every now and then.) And the politicians have the prods. The ones in power are telling us it's "bad" to detain those that wish us harm.
Generally, the term used is "Sheep People," or "Sheeple." ;)

Even though these guys want to take our lives, it's not ok for us to NOT give them the same treatment we would give AMERICANS. (double negative ftw) "It's a violation of the Geneva Convention," some liberals say.
Though recently used, "An eye for an eye makes us all blind." If they kill us, and we kill them, what's happened? We're right back where we started, with a few less people.

Astor
12-23-2008, 10:19 AM
GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base.

The base may have been around since 1898, but 'Gitmo' has only been around since 2002. I don't think anyone has an actual problem with the US Navy Base - it's the presence of the detainment camp that people have issue with.

ForeverNight
12-23-2008, 11:04 AM
Wait, what? We've locked these men up for no reason other than suspected terrorism, and have given them no trial, and when someone tries to defend them, they're automatically against our country? In the Boston Massacre, our future President defended the British soldiers: does that automatically make him against our country? I say that the men in Guantanamo deserve a trial.

Bad logic. Those were SOLDIERS, and as such they had every right to a trial and due process. The people that are in Gitmo, however, are TERRORISTS.

There is a difference between the two, a soldier wears a Uniform, owes allegiance to his/her country, has sworn an oath to protect their country, and, for the most part, follows the rules of war. Meanwhile, a terrorist does not wear a uniform, owe any allegiance to any country, sworn any oaths to protect a country, and follow the rules of war.

So, thus, they are NOT soldiers.

Ergo, the Geneva Convention does not apply to Terrorists.

So, I guess we can torture them now, without breaking the Geneva Convention.

Note: The "qualities of a soldier" are not meant to be an all encompassing definition

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 11:07 AM
Bad logic. Those were SOLDIERS, and as such they had every right to a trial and due process. The people that are in Gitmo, however, are TERRORISTS.

There is a difference between the two, a soldier wears a Uniform, owes allegiance to his/her country, has sworn an oath to protect their country, and, for the most part, follows the rules of war. Meanwhile, a terrorist does not wear a uniform, owe any allegiance to any country, sworn any oaths to protect a country, and follow the rules of war.

So, thus, they are NOT soldiers.

Ergo, the Geneva Convention does not apply to Terrorists.

So, I guess we can torture them now, without breaking the Geneva Convention.

Note: The "qualities of a soldier" are not meant to be an all encompassing definitionactually, if someone isn't tried and convicted of something they're civilians. i read that in a law book somewhere.

Q
12-23-2008, 11:12 AM
Whether they're legitimate soldiers or not, they should at least be treated like POWs under the Geneva Accords.

We were not the People's Republic of Vietnam the last time I checked.

ForeverNight
12-23-2008, 11:16 AM
Whether they're legitimate soldiers or not, they should at least be treated like POWs under the Geneva Accords.

We were not the People's Republic of Vietnam the last time I checked.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. 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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. 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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Source (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

Sorry, Terrorists aren't included in that definition of who the Accords apply to. So, I guess, I'm correct.

Q
12-23-2008, 11:21 AM
I know they're not, but they should be treated like captured soldiers regardless; not for their benefit, but for ours.

ForeverNight
12-23-2008, 11:22 AM
Huh?????

I'm afraid I don't follow.

Astor
12-23-2008, 11:24 AM
Because maybe if they're treated humanely, they, and possible future generations won't be so inclined to blow up buses and buildings?

TheRogueForums
12-23-2008, 11:25 AM
Off-topic, don't discuss infractions in here and don't debate moderation decisions less you would like to be further in trouble for breech of rules, ok? -- j7

Right. I would LOVE for people to go to Iraq and experience suppressive fire from a school house or clearly marked hospital, and THEN get back to me on how these foreign nationals deserve to have the Geneva Convention applied to them, even though they are not uniformed soldiers, and clearly have no regard for the accords of the Geneva Convention.

Now, not every single person in GitMO is an enemy combatant. Some have merely been suspected of terrorism, or aiding terrorists. For those people, yes, trials SHOULD be applied, in a fair court of law, not a military tribunal. However, for the enemy combatants, those who took shots at me, my brothers and sisters, and other NATO forces... military tribunal, if anything. These people knew what they were doing when they engaged us. You do NOT fire a weapon at someone, unless you intend to kill them. Most (not all) of these detainees are in GitMO because they fired at us. They intended to kill us. They should suffer the consequences of such action.

Just so we're clear, this post has been made on 100% recycled forum php, not intended to cause any harm, grief, or otherwise unhappy feelings to anyone who may, or may not be reading it.

Q
12-23-2008, 11:27 AM
Huh?????

I'm afraid I don't follow.
Do you think that we're any better than they are when we hold them unlawfully and torture them like that? I never said that I thought that they deserve to be treated humanely, but I think that they should be, regardless. We're not animals.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 11:31 AM
Forgive me. I used the word "loony," and that has somehow earned me an infraction, apparently. Heh. At any rate, allow me to re-post the "flame-bait ridden" section of my post, only without the word "loony."lightweight. (http://i42.tinypic.com/5mh5qp.jpg)

Right. I would LOVE for people to go to Iraq and experience suppressive fire from a school house or clearly marked hospital, and THEN get back to me on how these foreign nationals deserve to have the Geneva Convention applied to them, even though they are not uniformed soldiers, and clearly have no regard for the accords of the Geneva Convention.yeah, that's still not relevant to the topic at hand. we haven't proved that many of the detainees at guantanamo bay have done anything, and even if they have, that doesn't mean we can treat them however we wish.

Just so we're clear, this post has been made on 100% recycled forum php, not intended to cause any harm, grief, or otherwise unhappy feelings to anyone who may, or may not be reading it.actually it would be made by php and made on mysql

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 12:56 PM
The military has plenty of places to take the 'enemy combattants', some places better than others.

Such as? A lot of the military bases in the US also have schools for little kids nearby cause quite a few military people have families. Furthermore if you let them in the US proper you're setting up a circus as they demand all these legal tricks to try to accuse the troops of not reading them their miranda rights among other things when the military captured them on a battlefield in some cases while still being shot at.


Anyways I'm going to have to agree with RogueForums on some of his/her points, not all of them but some of them. It's easy to sit here and complain that someone should have done this or that from a couple thousand miles away. But quite frankly if you think you can do a better job, how bout you go volunteer to join the military.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 01:48 PM
Such as? A lot of the military bases in the US also have schools for little kids nearby cause quite a few military people have families. Furthermore if you let them in the US proper you're setting up a circus as they demand all these legal tricks to try to accuse the troops of not reading them their miranda rights among other things when the military captured them on a battlefield in some cases while still being shot at.damn those pesky "rights"! the u.s. has military bases all over the world, and while this may shock you, many of them aren't near schools. the u.s. has a larger defense budget than any other nation in the world and you're saying the military doesn't have anyplace to put prisoners?

Anyways I'm going to have to agree with RogueForums on some of his/her points, not all of them but some of them. It's easy to sit here and complain that someone should have done this or that from a couple thousand miles away. But quite frankly if you think you can do a better job, how bout you go volunteer to join the military.you're concurring with a logical fallacy.

Web Rider
12-23-2008, 01:49 PM
Now, not every single person in GitMO is an enemy combatant. Some have merely been suspected of terrorism, or aiding terrorists. For those people, yes, trials SHOULD be applied, in a fair court of law, not a military tribunal. However, for the enemy combatants, those who took shots at me, my brothers and sisters, and other NATO forces... military tribunal, if anything. These people knew what they were doing when they engaged us. You do NOT fire a weapon at someone, unless you intend to kill them. Most (not all) of these detainees are in GitMO because they fired at us. They intended to kill us. They should suffer the consequences of such action.
So, then if you were captured by the enemy you think they should be able to treat you however they want? Because clearly, you are an enemy combatant to them, you fired weapons with the intent to kill them.

That's the problem with not following the rules, is you make it OK for everyone else to not follow the rules. You can't complain about their cruelty if you are just as cruel.

jonathan7
12-23-2008, 02:06 PM
Right. I would LOVE for people to go to Iraq and experience suppressive fire from a school house or clearly marked hospital, and THEN get back to me on how these foreign nationals deserve to have the Geneva Convention applied to them, even though they are not uniformed soldiers, and clearly have no regard for the accords of the Geneva Convention.

You know it's a common thing in war to de-humanise the enemy, but the above behaviour is no better than the terrorists. Further more I didn't join the military so it's not my job to get shot at, further more I fail to see how the military getting shot at has anything to do with due process. If enemy combatants are caught in war, the are POW's; if they have broken any laws then they should be tried.

Now, not every single person in GitMO is an enemy combatant. Some have merely been suspected of terrorism, or aiding terrorists. For those people, yes, trials SHOULD be applied, in a fair court of law, not a military tribunal. However, for the enemy combatants, those who took shots at me, my brothers and sisters, and other NATO forces... military tribunal, if anything. These people knew what they were doing when they engaged us. You do NOT fire a weapon at someone, unless you intend to kill them. Most (not all) of these detainees are in GitMO because they fired at us. They intended to kill us. They should suffer the consequences of such action.

Shocking fact, not all Iraqi's want us in there country - I'd imagine if your wife and kids had just been blown up by a stray missile you would be too happy with an army.

Anyways I'm going to have to agree with RogueForums on some of his/her points, not all of them but some of them. It's easy to sit here and complain that someone should have done this or that from a couple thousand miles away. But quite frankly if you think you can do a better job, how bout you go volunteer to join the military.

Sorry, at any point have I criticised the armed forces? It's nothing to do with them that people are locked up at Gitmo, a soldiers job is by definition to follow orders (precisely why I would never be a soldier, following orders without question is not something a member of the intelligentsia does). It's the politicians fault that Gitmo exsists, though I dare say some of the supervisors etc should answers charges for Gitmo. The only difference between the good guys and the bad guys in the world, is how the good guys treat the bad guys in defeat. Though having faced down someone with a gun, I know exactly how I would react.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 02:07 PM
So, then if you were captured by the enemy you think they should be able to treat you however they want? Because clearly, you are an enemy combatant to them, you fired weapons with the intent to kill them.

They are in better living conditions than people whom end up staying a night at the local YMCA, and far better conditions that people in prison.


That's the problem with not following the rules, is you make it OK for everyone else to not follow the rules. You can't complain about their cruelty if you are just as cruel.

Last I checked their conditions are better than what we see in prisons and we've tried to return them to their countries of origin, but their home countries won't take them back.

mimartin
12-23-2008, 02:18 PM
I’m really glad someone has checked on the conditions of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo first hand. I will sleep better knowing they are better off there than in a local prison. I guess my fears of weatherboarding were unfounded. The evil mainstream media portrayed it as torture, but I guess it is just the name given to some fancy form of water message. Good to know.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 03:45 PM
Iím really glad someone has checked on the conditions of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo first hand. I will sleep better knowing they are better off there than in a local prison. I guess my fears of weatherboarding were unfounded. The evil mainstream media portrayed it as torture, but I guess it is just the name given to some fancy form of water message. Good to know.

Only a handful of people have been waterboarded, probably less than 20 people and those were high profile members of the leadership of Al Qaeda.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 04:02 PM
Only a handful of people have been waterboarded, probably less than 20 people and those were high profile members of the leadership of Al Qaeda.well, as long as we think they're terrorists and someone high ranking says so and they keep the torture count under let's say 2 dozen, i dont see an issue here.

mimartin
12-23-2008, 05:12 PM
Only a handful of people have been waterboarded, probably less than 20 people and those were high profile members of the leadership of Al Qaeda. Can anyone find the key word in this sentence?

The entire point is there is no way to know how may have been tortured. It could be 1 or it could be 200. There is no oversight so no way of knowing the exact number.

Web Rider
12-23-2008, 05:53 PM
They are in better living conditions than people whom end up staying a night at the local YMCA, and far better conditions that people in prison.
you clearly are unaware of prison conditions. They are quite good.

Last I checked their conditions are better than what we see in prisons and we've tried to return them to their countries of origin, but their home countries won't take them back.

Last I checked, you can't just waltz into gitmo and check on how the bad guys are. From what I've read and heard, it's pretty horrible, and every last one of them would rather be in prison where they are afforded actual rights, than in Gitmo.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 07:18 PM
Last I checked, you can't just waltz into gitmo and check on how the bad guys are. From what I've read and heard, it's pretty horrible, and every last one of them would rather be in prison where they are afforded actual rights, than in Gitmo.

Last I checked a lot of them would jump at the chance to slit the throat of an American.

Seriously, I haven't seen any public outcry concerning prisons in China, in my opinion this is just another attempt to blame America for the world's problems.

mimartin
12-23-2008, 07:46 PM
:lol: China does something I find apprehensible, so it makes it all right if we do it too. :rolleyes:

If I am more concern with what America does when compared to what China does there is a reason… I am an American. As such, I hold my country to a higher standard than the rest of the world.

These debates are really starting to worry me. It sounds like a bunch three year olds. “But mommy, China (or CBS, MSNBC…) did it first.” Whatever happened to personal responsibility and holding yourself to a higher standard than you do others? :(

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-23-2008, 07:47 PM
Last I checked a lot of them would jump at the chance to slit the throat of an American.first off, that has nothing to do with this. and secondly, after the way the u.s. has treated them, i can't blame them

Seriously, I haven't seen any public outcry concerning prisons in China,you aren't paying attention then.

These debates are really starting to worry me. It sounds like a bunch three year olds. “But mommy, China (or CBS, MSNBC…) did it first.” Whatever happened to personal responsibility and holding yourself to a higher standard than you do others? :(pre-9/11 mindset

Litofsky
12-23-2008, 09:41 PM
Article 4

2. 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...

<snipped>

Source (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

Sorry, Terrorists aren't included in that definition of who the Accords apply to. So, I guess, I'm correct.

Actually, I propose that you are wrong, under the assumption that these 'terrorists' are fighting to free their land from US forces/influence. I'm not condoning their actions- far from it (I'm of the 'diplomatic solutions' opinions), but, rather, suggest that they are doing what they figure necessary to save their land. Do (we) not have troops stationed in (their) homes, occupying their nation?

'They,' of course, is a subjective term, but, in this case, I would say that the word 'they' means a belligerent against the US and allies.

GarfieldJL
12-23-2008, 10:26 PM
Actually, I propose that you are wrong, under the assumption that these 'terrorists' are fighting to free their land from US forces/influence. I'm not condoning their actions- far from it (I'm of the 'diplomatic solutions' opinions), but, rather, suggest that they are doing what they figure necessary to save their land. Do (we) not have troops stationed in (their) homes, occupying their nation?

That would fly if they were actually from the countries they were fighting in. Most of them are from other countries and trained in yet another country. They aren't fighting to liberate their country they are fighting to impose their warped ideology on people.

Face it there are some people you can't negotiate with.


'They,' of course, is a subjective term, but, in this case, I would say that the word 'they' means a belligerent against the US and allies.

Considering they weren't in uniform, under the military code I believe they can technically be shot as spies.

mimartin
12-24-2008, 12:15 AM
Face it there are some people you can't negotiate with. or debate with. :xp:

TheRogueForums
12-24-2008, 02:08 AM
Oh, that's true enough. Someone comes in and posts a non liberal opinion on the matter, and gets blasted.

Web Rider
12-24-2008, 03:57 AM
Last I checked a lot of them would jump at the chance to slit the throat of an American.
I'm pretty sure you'd do the same to them.

Seriously, I haven't seen any public outcry concerning prisons in China,
There's quite a bit of it. Coming from INSIDE China? That's hard to tell since the Chinese government prevents 99% of all information they don't like from leaving the country.

in my opinion this is just another attempt to blame America for the world's problems.
Gitmo is not "the world's problems" it's an American problem. Therefore, it is of higher concern to ME as an American, than prisons in china.

That and quite honestly, I have no expectation of China being democratic or upholding anything remotely resembling freedom. While on the other hand, I do hold America to that expectation of upholding freedom, liberty, civil rights, justice, fairness, ect...


Like I said before, you want to fight on their level, fine, but don't expect to be able to be self-righteous about it.

jonathan7
12-24-2008, 08:06 AM
Oh, that's true enough. Someone comes in and posts a non liberal opinion on the matter, and gets blasted.

This isn't a liberal conservative matter, your advocating locking people up indefinably without trial, and by extension of what happens at Gitmo, arguing that torture is acceptable. Perhaps the over-whelming reaction in this thread, has something to do with the fact that is wrong, opposed to anything else. I can see several centrists and conservatives who have disagreed with Gitmo in this thread, suggesting it has nothing to do with a "non-liberal" opinion.

Considering they weren't in uniform, under the military code I believe they can technically be shot as spies.

Someone hasn't reviewed military etiquette since WW2. Though at least if they were shot; they'd of had a trail of some description.

Furthermore what China does is irrelevant, China doesn't represent "Freedom" so I don't expect the Chinese Government to behave well. China is entirely irrelevant to this discussion; all Gitmo does, is give the terroists more valuable and more effective ammunition than any that uses gun power.

TheRogueForums
12-24-2008, 08:56 AM
Ok, to the thread topic- should GitMO be closed. I say no. It's an invaluable tool for us (the US). Should it be overhauled? Yes. Should the media and other public watchdogs be there? Of course not. It's a matter of national security. Perhaps a government-sanctioned oversight, but not something public. The media have no place, in my opinion, in matters of warfare.

On to the matter of the rights of the detainees. They are not American citizens. They should not be afforded American rights. However, that said, they should also not be treated like animals. Mentally... they are... well.. "not nice people." I know, I helped put some of them there. But biologically, they ARE humans, and should be treated as such. I say we treat them no better or worse than they would be treated in their countries of origin.

Astor
12-24-2008, 09:07 AM
Ok, to the thread topic- should GitMO be closed. I say no. It's an invaluable tool for us (the US).

If you're talking about the Naval Base, I agree.

On to the matter of the rights of the detainees. They are not American citizens. They should not be afforded American rights.

Then they should also not be placed in American Prisons.

However, that said, they should also not be treated like animals. Mentally... they are... well.. "not nice people."

And some of them are mentally... well.. 'innocent people'

mimartin
12-24-2008, 09:31 AM
Should the media and other public watchdogs be there? Who suggested that the media or other public watchdogs be there?

I know checks and balances have become foreign balances over the past eight years, but there should be Congressional oversight. There should be independent international oversight in the treatment of prisons. After all, we expect the same when our citizens are being held by a foreign government.

mur'phon
12-24-2008, 09:45 AM
Face it there are some people you can't negotiate with.

Disagreed, though often it should be combined with other actions.

Should the media and other public watchdogs be there? Of course not. It's a matter of national security. Perhaps a government-sanctioned oversight, but not something public. The media have no place, in my opinion, in matters of warfare.

As a conservative, do you trust the goverment enough to let it only be acountable to itself in this matter?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for a good answer from the "Obamaniacs" to the thread question.

GarfieldJL
12-24-2008, 04:53 PM
Disagreed, though often it should be combined with other actions.

Remember they Negotiated with Hitler and in doing so they emboldened him.



As a conservative, do you trust the goverment enough to let it only be acountable to itself in this matter?

Depends on who is in charge, if it were someone like Ronald Reagan in charge, I would trust the government a lot more than I will come January. I do not trust Obama at all, I would trust Hillary Clinton more than I'd trust Obama, and I think Hillary is a pathological liar.


Anyway, I'm still waiting for a good answer from the "Obamaniacs" to the thread question.

Should be interesting to see the response.

EnderWiggin
12-24-2008, 05:11 PM
Remember they Negotiated with Hitler and in doing so they emboldened him.


So? I fail to see how this is relevant.


Should be interesting to see the response.

It doesn't matter to me where you put them (to an extent.) TBH, the Gitmo prison isn't the problem, it's what's occurring there. In other words, maybe you don't need to move them from there at all, just give them due process and actually charge them with a crime, instead of keeping whoever the hell you want in solitary confinement or doing hard labor.

Or move them to a high security military prison here in the US. Just treat them like they're humans. I'm sure you'd agree, Murphon, originally being from a country where the maximum sentence is 21 years... right?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_sentence#Norway)
_EW_

mur'phon
12-24-2008, 05:14 PM
Remember they Negotiated with Hitler and in doing so they emboldened him.

Remember, I said it should often be combined with other actions, which might include a cruise misile:D

Depends on who is in charge, if it were someone like Ronald Reagan in charge, I would trust the government a lot more than I will come January. I do not trust Obama at all, I would trust Hillary Clinton more than I'd trust Obama, and I think Hillary is a pathological liar.

And since such rules tend to be in place for quite some time, it makes sence to not give them that power in the first place. As for myself, I don't trust the government no matter who is in charge.

Ender: The problem is that you have some detainees which will be close to impossible to get sentenced due to lack of evidence, or how it was obtained, despite being very likely to commit terrorist acts if they walk free. So how do you deal with them? Or, to decide how you deal with them, what will you call them? POW, civilians or something else? My question was directed at those who believe Gitmo will magically disapear leaving a bad taste. Sure, there are answers, but they are all in shades of grey.
Oh, and kudos for doing your homework:)

mimartin
12-24-2008, 06:29 PM
It doesn't matter to me where you put them (to an extent.) TBH, the Gitmo prison isn't the problem, it's what's occurring there. In other words, maybe you don't need to move them from there at all, just give them due process and actually charge them with a crime, instead of keeping whoever the hell you want in solitary confinement or doing hard labor. QFT

The reason they are being held on Guantanamo is not for security, they are there so the American Government can violate its own laws. Like EnderWiggin,I have no problem with keeping Guantanamo open provided there are changes to the treatment of the inmates. I just want to end the reasons we are using Guantanamo instead of another prison under the jurisdiction of the American judicial system.

Oh, I'm under the opinion since Guantanamo is an American Military Base, it is American soil so all American laws apply there.

Unlike Bush, I hope Obama does not take the easy way out and transfer the detainees to another country that will even treat them more barbarically.

vanir
12-24-2008, 07:13 PM
Qliveur said pretty much everything that was on my mind, once again :)

Smart guy.

Tommycat
12-24-2008, 09:11 PM
Because maybe if they're treated humanely, they, and possible future generations won't be so inclined to blow up buses and buildings?

I really wish this were true. Unfortunately the terrorists(note: I did not say all detainees) will claim they were treated horribly whether or not it is true. The future generations will not have a higher opinion of us because of our treatment of prisoners.

Fact is, many of the detainees are from other countries that will not take them back. Basically they aren't guilty enough to put on trial, but are not legal to be placed back on our soil. So we try to get the originating country to take them back. They refuse. So, what do we do with them?

Some of the detainees were captured during the war in Afghanistan/Iraq. Those countries have neither the facilities nor the desire to deal with the detainees. By keeping them at Gitmo we actually might be preventing them from receiving a far worse treatment.

As to affording them the benefits of POW's. If they want to be treated like soldiers, they need to act like soldiers, rather than terrorists. Firing from the cover of civilians, lessens my desire to treat them like a soldier. Firing from hospitals and schools to draw us into possibly killing civilians, or just letting them shoot at us, really makes me not want to treat them like a soldier. They do not afford our captured soldiers the protections of the GC. Basically they are not following the rules of warfare, so they do not get afforded the protections granted for following the rules of warfare.

jonathan7
12-24-2008, 09:28 PM
As to affording them the benefits of POW's. If they want to be treated like soldiers, they need to act like soldiers, rather than terrorists. Firing from the cover of civilians, lessens my desire to treat them like a soldier. Firing from hospitals and schools to draw us into possibly killing civilians, or just letting them shoot at us, really makes me not want to treat them like a soldier. They do not afford our captured soldiers the protections of the GC. Basically they are not following the rules of warfare, so they do not get afforded the protections granted for following the rules of warfare.

It is precisely because of what they do to our boys when they catch them that what we do with them is so important. If we are to represent "Good" then our behaviour must be beyond reproach as far as possible; all war does is bring out the "best" in evil men, and the worst in good ones. Nietzsche was most defiantly correct when he observed; "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you". See the problem with war, is slowly it eats away at people, how far do you need to go to defeat the enemy? And before you know it you have become the very thing you are trying to defeat. In other words, in fighting to defeat the monster, you yourself turned into a monster. That is why our treatment of the detainees is so important; especially if they are guilty. They may have done horrific acts, but in treating them like humans, in giving them a trial etc, you prove what you are fighting for; coming down the their level, makes you no better than them, so what are you fighting for?

Tommycat
12-24-2008, 10:10 PM
It is precisely because of what they do to our boys when they catch them that what we do with them is so important. If we are to represent "Good" then our behaviour must be beyond reproach as far as possible; all war does is bring out the "best" in evil men, and the worst in good ones. Nietzsche was most defiantly correct when he observed; "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you". See the problem with war, is slowly it eats away at people, how far do you need to go to defeat the enemy? And before you know it you have become the very thing you are trying to defeat. In other words, in fighting to defeat the monster, you yourself turned into a monster. That is why our treatment of the detainees is so important; especially if they are guilty. They may have done horrific acts, but in treating them like humans, in giving them a trial etc, you prove what you are fighting for; coming down the their level, makes you no better than them, so what are you fighting for?

By no means am I saying that we should sink to their levels. The GC were put in place to protect the legitimate soldiers. They were also put in place to give a reason NOT to violate them. By violating them you forgo those protections. Basically meaning that we CAN do with those detainees captured that were not covered by the GC, whatever we wish. Not saying that we SHOULD, just that we CAN. HUGE difference there. I personally think we should treat them better than they treat ours, but not give them so much protection that we are chained to rules that have no application.

jonathan7
12-24-2008, 10:16 PM
By no means am I saying that we should sink to their levels. The GC were put in place to protect the legitimate soldiers. They were also put in place to give a reason NOT to violate them. By violating them you forgo those protections. Basically meaning that we CAN do with those detainees captured that were not covered by the GC, whatever we wish. Not saying that we SHOULD, just that we CAN. HUGE difference there. I personally think we should treat them better than they treat ours, but not give them so much protection that we are chained to rules that have no application.

That holds no logic, the only reason you wouldn't want to be tied to the Geneva Convention, would be so you could torture detainee's. The fact that Gitmo doesn't tie itself to the GC, is already slipping to what the terrorists do, and water boarding is certainly only just above what they do to our boys when they are captured. Most concerning is the instince by some morons in your government (Rumsfeld) that torture is useful, it is a psychologically proven fact that you don't get reliable intelligence from individuals who have been subjected to torture; everyone has a breaking point, and once that is reached an individual will tell you what they think you want to hear.

On-topic, Gitmo shouldn't be closed, it should be brought under the Geneva Convention, and all those there should just be put through due process, and those who are innocent let go.

Tommycat
12-24-2008, 11:56 PM
That holds no logic, the only reason you wouldn't want to be tied to the Geneva Convention, would be so you could torture detainee's. The fact that Gitmo doesn't tie itself to the GC, is already slipping to what the terrorists do, and water boarding is certainly only just above what they do to our boys when they are captured. Most concerning is the instince by some morons in your government (Rumsfeld) that torture is useful, it is a psychologically proven fact that you don't get reliable intelligence from individuals who have been subjected to torture; everyone has a breaking point, and once that is reached an individual will tell you what they think you want to hear.

On-topic, Gitmo shouldn't be closed, it should be brought under the Geneva Convention, and all those there should just be put through due process, and those who are innocent let go.

Having been through SERE training myself, I know about how useless torture is at gaining useful information. There are however information gathering techniques that fall into a gray area of "torture" while not being actual torture(note: waterboarding is not one of them, but sleep dep is). But there are other areas of protections provided by the GC that have nothing to do with torture that these persons should not need to be afforded(though actually are). All in all we really treat them(for the most part at least) better than most treat their POW's. The negatives have been exaggerated by the media(not because of liberal bias or anything, but because as one media talking head said, "You don't report on a house that isn't burning"), but the detainees there are getting better treatment than people think.

I have to say though, that I really do not think much needs to be changed. Get rid of the ineffective means of information gathering.

Of course, there is also the possibility that there is no torture going on, and the reported cases are actually a method of injecting fear into the detainees. But I wouldn't count on it.

EnderWiggin
12-25-2008, 12:37 AM
Ender: The problem is that you have some detainees which will be close to impossible to get sentenced due to lack of evidence, or how it was obtained, despite being very likely to commit terrorist acts if they walk free.

I don't care if they're very likely to commit acts if they walk free. If we don't have enough evidence to charge them, we have no grounds to hold them. That's how the justice system works.
Oh, and kudos for doing your homework:)

Thanks :D

_EW_

TheRogueForums
12-25-2008, 01:14 AM
That's how the justice system works.
The American "Justice" system, as we know it, is broken. If a bugler can sue a home owner, for the home owner shooting the bugler in the kneecap, as he broke into that home... then, yeah, our system is utter phail. A woman sued AND won a case against McDonalds, because she was driving... with hot coffee... and burned herself. The justice system is a joke. Besides, this is NOT a civilian justice issue- this is a military issue. If ANYTHING, they should be held accountable to the UCMJ.

EnderWiggin
12-25-2008, 01:21 AM
The American "Justice" system, as we know it, is broken. If a bugler can sue a home owner, for the home owner shooting the bugler in the kneecap, as he broke into that home... then, yeah, our system is utter phail. A woman sued AND won a case against McDonalds, because she was driving... with hot coffee... and burned herself. The justice system is a joke. Besides, this is NOT a civilian justice issue- this is a military issue. If ANYTHING, they should be held accountable to the UCMJ.


I was talking about justice, the principle, and American rights, the concept. Not the specific execution of it. And not only do you list a few incidents, totally glossing over the point that it's like 0.0000000001% of the total cases are against the theory of the system, you then provide rebuttal to your own points, stating that it's not a civilian issue, but rather a criminal/military case.

_EW_

mimartin
12-25-2008, 05:23 AM
this is NOT a civilian justice issue- this is a military issue.

This is a human rights issue!

The same issue we try to dictate onto other countries, now we are guilty of violating the very same issue. Every administration as far back as I can remember has criticized China for violating human right, by holding prisoner indefinitely, not telling the prisoner what they are changed with, not giving the prisoner a trial and practicing torture on prisoners.

It does not matter that they are not citizen. They are human.

mur'phon
12-25-2008, 05:59 AM
I don't care if they're very likely to commit acts if they walk free. If we don't have enough evidence to charge them, we have no grounds to hold them. That's how the justice system works.

And that is one way to deal with it, though I doubt Obama will do it because 1: Americans are unlikely to love him for freeing "potential" terrorists in America, and 2: Americans are certain to hate him if one of them goes boom.
Not saying it's the wrong (or right) way to deal with the issue, just that I don't see it happening in practice.

mimartin
12-25-2008, 09:51 AM
And that is one way to deal with it, though I doubt Obama will do it because 1: Americans are unlikely to love him for freeing "potential" terrorists in AmericaWhy not? At least the so-called "Obamaniacs" would still love him. After all, the Bush fanboys still seem to love him even after he condoned such inhumane acts as waterboarding.

Yes, the Bush Administration admits it did use waterboarding. It just denies it was torture at the time it was used. Let us see the United States government called waterboarding torture when Japan and Vietnam used it against our troops. It is considered torture now by U.S. law, but there was times in between according to the Bush Administration were it was legal and not considered torture. Besides, they were very careful when performing it. :rolleyes:
Human rights advocates and legal scholars say the practice constitutes torture under U.S. laws and international treaties, but Bush administration officials say it was used under careful standards and controls and was not torture under U.S. laws at the time. Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022201643.html)


You don’t think us “Obamaniacs” can be just as loving to Obama if he does the right and humane thing as the Bush fayboys are when he did the wrong and inhumane thing.

Sorry if I don’t agree with Bush Administration’s assessment of who a “potential” terrorist are. Considering they have over a million people U.S. citizens on a “watch list” including a setting U.S. Senator and myself.

2: Americans are certain to hate him if one of them goes boom.
Yes, they world.

I’ve always been under the impression that this countries legal system was designed by our founding fathers to protect the innocent. When we put money in the equation by offering bounties to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq we tainted the results to if we are capturing criminals or just someone that is disliked. There should be a hearing to ascertain their guilt. Then a trial and then if no evidence is presented other wise they should be released back to their country of origin. If their country will not take them, then we should find a country that will.

If they are found guilt, then they should be sentenced.

I really do not care if this is done by a military court or a civilian court. I do not question the U.S. military’s integrity. For that matter I’d rather it be a military court instead of a court proceeding under a political appointee civilian judge.

Tommycat
12-25-2008, 09:05 PM
Why not? At least the so-called "Obamaniacs" would still love him. After all, the Bush fanboys still seem to love him even after he condoned such inhumane acts as waterboarding.

Actually, quite a few of us stopped liking him for that reason. I defend him where (I feel) he deserves defense. But as for liking him, I stopped liking him a while back. I dunno, maybe I'm not so much a Bush fanboy as I thought. Heck if the Dems weren't playing the tax cut roll back card I would probably have voted for them. I have a hard time voting for anyone that says they will increase my taxes.

At any rate, I think you'd find that should one of those persons get released and perform a terrorist act, it would be very damaging for the Dems in general. Actually it would be damaging to the whole "Close Gitmo" cause in general, and anyone in favor of it(which is admittedly mostly Dem, but also many Reps as well). Then again, there is the old quote by Ben Franklin, They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Web Rider
12-25-2008, 10:15 PM
Actually it would be damaging to the whole "Close Gitmo" cause in general, and anyone in favor of it(which is admittedly mostly Dem, but also many Reps as well). Then again, there is the old quote by Ben Franklin,

Only as damaging as it is to the prison system when a newly released inmate commits a crime again. More damaging I suppose because Gitmo is a one-of-a-kind thing. If we actually tired them and give them a real charge, this argument might go somewhere, but the "you're in prison 'cause we said so, suck it." argument the government has been using isn't exactly going to move anyone towards any sort of in or out.

Tommycat
12-25-2008, 11:06 PM
Only as damaging as it is to the prison system when a newly released inmate commits a crime again. More damaging I suppose because Gitmo is a one-of-a-kind thing. If we actually tired them and give them a real charge, this argument might go somewhere, but the "you're in prison 'cause we said so, suck it." argument the government has been using isn't exactly going to move anyone towards any sort of in or out.

Not really comparable. The prison system is completely different, and the trials let enough people out before they hit that that tends to draw more attention. However, if we do put those in Gitmo on trial and release some that we really have no reason besides some odd ball justification, you know everyone that supports Gitmo will be watching very closely. There isn't nearly as much attention being paid to prisons, or ex cons. I just don't see Obama taking that risk. At least not in his first term.

Web Rider
12-26-2008, 02:53 AM
I think the only reason we think it's not comparable is because we aren't as paranoid about what ex-cons can do. So they kill a person, couple kids even, yeah that's horrible, but it's not like we don't see it on the 6 o'clock once a week at least. But these guys are terrorists oooooo, scaaaaarrrryyy, I mean, it's not like white people like McVeugh(sp) can't blow people up too. And they do it here in the States not to our troops in another country.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-26-2008, 04:28 AM
The American "Justice" system, as we know it, is broken. If a bugler can sue a home owner, for the home owner shooting the bugler in the kneecap, as he broke into that home... then, yeah, our system is utter phail. A woman sued AND won a case against McDonalds, because she was driving... with hot coffee... and burned herself. The justice system is a joke. Besides, this is NOT a civilian justice issue- this is a military issue. If ANYTHING, they should be held accountable to the UCMJ.If you're referring to that old woman, she offered to settle with McDonalds for the amount of her medical expenses, which isn't that ridiculous since at the time McDonalds was serving their coffee at dangerously high temperatures (iirc it was around 30-40 degrees hotter than any other chain was serving their coffee). She won the case since McDonalds knew serving coffee that hot was dangerous and continued to do so anyway.

Tommycat
12-26-2008, 06:22 AM
If you're referring to that old woman, she offered to settle with McDonalds for the amount of her medical expenses, which isn't that ridiculous since at the time McDonalds was serving their coffee at dangerously high temperatures (iirc it was around 30-40 degrees hotter than any other chain was serving their coffee). She won the case since McDonalds knew serving coffee that hot was dangerous and continued to do so anyway.

Yeah, it's funny that the case often cited as a failure of the justice system is actually a case where justice was served. McDonalds served that coffee so hot that it gave her 3rd degree burns. They refused to pay for her medical expenses, and knew they were serving it dangerously hot.

Now the cases of people gaining thousands off of stores for "slip and fall" scams. THAT is a real failure.

ForeverNight
12-27-2008, 09:53 AM
That holds no logic, the only reason you wouldn't want to be tied to the Geneva Convention, would be so you could torture detainee's. The fact that Gitmo doesn't tie itself to the GC, is already slipping to what the terrorists do, and water boarding is certainly only just above what they do to our boys when they are captured. Most concerning is the instince by some morons in your government (Rumsfeld) that torture is useful, it is a psychologically proven fact that you don't get reliable intelligence from individuals who have been subjected to torture; everyone has a breaking point, and once that is reached an individual will tell you what they think you want to hear.

On-topic, Gitmo shouldn't be closed, it should be brought under the Geneva Convention, and all those there should just be put through due process, and those who are innocent let go.

See Below.

Actually, I propose that you are wrong, under the assumption that these 'terrorists' are fighting to free their land from US forces/influence. I'm not condoning their actions- far from it (I'm of the 'diplomatic solutions' opinions), but, rather, suggest that they are doing what they figure necessary to save their land. Do (we) not have troops stationed in (their) homes, occupying their nation?

'They,' of course, is a subjective term, but, in this case, I would say that the word 'they' means a belligerent against the US and allies.

I think you missed something:

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Source is the same as the first time I quoted the Convention.

Since Terrorists do not "conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" then they AREN'T covered by the convention.

As for this being covered under the UCMJ, well I think the people this would affect would really dislike that turn of events, it's much more flexible in how stuff is done -more under the "Crime Control" model of a justice system- than the US Justice System proper....

But, if that's how they are wanting to be treated -like soldiers- than I'm more than happy to oblige them, assuming that they live up to their end of the bargain. You know, actually act like soldiers.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-27-2008, 11:41 AM
See Below.



I think you missed something:



Source is the same as the first time I quoted the Convention.

Since Terrorists do not "conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" then they AREN'T covered by the convention.

As for this being covered under the UCMJ, well I think the people this would affect would really dislike that turn of events, it's much more flexible in how stuff is done -more under the "Crime Control" model of a justice system- than the US Justice System proper....

But, if that's how they are wanting to be treated -like soldiers- than I'm more than happy to oblige them, assuming that they live up to their end of the bargain. You know, actually act like soldiers.I think you're kind of missing the point. They may not fit into the definition of a soldier, but that doesn't mean they should be tortured since a) torture only serves to bring the U.S. down to the level people like Osama bin Laden say we are on, inciting more to become terrorists; b) torture has been proven to be an ineffective interrogation technique; and c) it isn't the Dark Ages.

EnderWiggin
12-27-2008, 03:26 PM
I think you're kind of missing the point. They may not fit into the definition of a soldier, but that doesn't mean they should be tortured since a) torture only serves to bring the U.S. down to the level people like Osama bin Laden say we are on, inciting more to become terrorists; b) torture has been proven to be an ineffective interrogation technique; and c) it isn't the Dark Ages.

Listen to reason when it passes by; this is the most coherent and lucid thing I've ever seen Jaymack post :xp:

_EW_

ForeverNight
12-27-2008, 06:20 PM
That may be, however I am making the point that they are not under any circumstances covered by Geneva, since a Terrorist goes after Civilian targets to make the most terrifying impression they can. And, as Jae pointed out in another thread, purposely targeting Civilians is against the laws and customs of war.

I don't know if they should be tortured. But, if the information needed is needed at that very moment in order to avert a catastrophe then I say go ahead and do it. If that case cannot be made... then, well, it matters on how badly the information is needed and what is done with it, and then if it was proven that they are indeed terrorists.

jonathan7
12-27-2008, 07:02 PM
That may be, however I am making the point that they are not under any circumstances covered by Geneva, since a Terrorist goes after Civilian targets to make the most terrifying impression they can. And, as Jae pointed out in another thread, purposely targeting Civilians is against the laws and customs of war.

I don't know if they should be tortured. But, if the information needed is needed at that very moment in order to avert a catastrophe then I say go ahead and do it. If that case cannot be made... then, well, it matters on how badly the information is needed and what is done with it, and then if it was proven that they are indeed terrorists.

That why innocent farmers are locked up in Gitmo then?

I have already pointed out that it is a psychological FACT, that intelligence gathered under torture is not reliable, ever. You can ignore this, and pretend the world works as Jack Baur would have you think, however the facts are very different. As once you have "cracked" someone they will tell you whatever you want to hear, to make you stop them torturing. So if someone is going to give good intelligence torture isn't needed.

But fine, play little legal games with Geneva Convention. Though how do you establish if someone is a terrorist or not, without a court to view the evidence? The legal system, stands or falls on innocent until proven guilty. You'll forgive me for not trusting the UK and US governments, after say Iraq the Global Economic melt down etc...

But just to play your little game; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

EnderWiggin
12-27-2008, 07:48 PM
But just to play your little game; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
:golfclap:

_EW_

Web Rider
12-28-2008, 12:33 AM
That may be, however I am making the point that they are not under any circumstances covered by Geneva, since a Terrorist ....
...is a title assigned to an enemy fighter by the perceived "good guys" for committing acts abstractly assigned as "terror" or designed to inspire "terror" "they" call "us" terrorists just as much as we call them. This vague definition makes just about every soldier in the world, and thus every nation, into a terrorist and a terrorist nation.

and then if it was proven that they are indeed terrorists.
As I said, who is a terrorist is something that is rather abstractly applied based on a rather abstract definition of what a "terror" act is.

Tommycat
12-28-2008, 03:28 AM
...is a title assigned to an enemy fighter by the perceived "good guys" for committing acts abstractly assigned as "terror" or designed to inspire "terror" "they" call "us" terrorists just as much as we call them. This vague definition makes just about every soldier in the world, and thus every nation, into a terrorist and a terrorist nation.


As I said, who is a terrorist is something that is rather abstractly applied based on a rather abstract definition of what a "terror" act is.

Negative. Terrorists can be easily defined by their actions of targeting civilians, and using civilians as cover. The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Failing to follow the rules of warfare as defined by the Geneva Conventions places them in the category of terrorists.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 09:29 PM
This is a human rights issue!

You want to complain about human rights, why don't I see you raising issue about China's prison system or the Iranian Justice system?


The same issue we try to dictate onto other countries, now we are guilty of violating the very same issue. Every administration as far back as I can remember has criticized China for violating human right, by holding prisoner indefinitely, not telling the prisoner what they are changed with, not giving the prisoner a trial and practicing torture on prisoners.

First of all, these guys were shooting at our soldiers in Afghanistan and they weren't wearing any uniform, technically we could have just shot them as spies.


It does not matter that they are not citizen. They are human.

They are also fanatics that are bent on killing any American they can.

EnderWiggin
12-29-2008, 09:39 PM
You want to complain about human rights, why don't I see you raising issue about China's prison system or the Iranian Justice system?


Before you began.... educating us in Kavar's, I'm pretty sure we had a thread about China's human rights, or at least talked about it during the Olympics. So, in fact, I do complain about China/Iran, but seeing as this thread's title is 'How to close Guantanamo," I figure it would be rude to derail it to talk about other, equally immoral things.

They are also fanatics that are bent on killing any American they can.

HUMAN fanatics.

_EW_

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 09:42 PM
Negative. Terrorists can be easily defined by their actions of targeting civilians, and using civilians as cover. The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:


Failing to follow the rules of warfare as defined by the Geneva Conventions places them in the category of terrorists.

You want to complain about human rights, why don't I see you raising issue about China's prison system or the Iranian Justice system?



First of all, these guys were shooting at our soldiers in Afghanistan and they weren't wearing any uniform, technically we could have just shot them as spies.



They are also fanatics that are bent on killing any American they can.

thank god we can get away with torture on a technicality (http://www.hulu.com/watch/19586/saturday-night-live-tv-funhouse-torboto#s-p10-sa-i1)

jonathan7
12-29-2008, 09:49 PM
You want to complain about human rights, why don't I see you raising issue about China's prison system or the Iranian Justice system?

This has already been addressed in thread - given many people here are American, they can actually change how there government acts - they can't really do much about China. However, if you want to be the 'good guys' you have to act like the 'good guys' having Gitmo is not acting like the 'good guys' its acting like everyone else.

mimartin
12-29-2008, 09:54 PM
You want to complain about human rights, why don't I see you raising issue about China's prison system or the Iranian Justice system? :rolleyes: Have you ever seen me praise either?

Call me selfish, I just happen to care about my country more that Iran or China.

First of all, these guys were shooting at our soldiers in Afghanistan and they weren't wearing any uniform, technically we could have just shot them as spies. Are we sure J7 hasn't taken over GarfieldJL's user name. This sounds like British troops talking about American troops during our fight for independence.

How do you know they were not Farmers turned in for their bounty?

Please explain how you could charge those capture such as Jamil al-Banna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamil_al_Banna) as a spy. He was not wearing a uniform, guess he is a spy. :rolleyes: They are also fanatics that are bent on killing any American they can.Prove it. In a court of law. That is all I am asking.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:13 PM
This has already been addressed in thread - given many people here are American, they can actually change how there government acts - they can't really do much about China. However, if you want to be the 'good guys' you have to act like the 'good guys' having Gitmo is not acting like the 'good guys' its acting like everyone else.

Well problem with the argument they are giving is that the accommodations are better at Gitmo than the US Prison system. Their living conditions are arguably better than what the guards get.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 10:18 PM
Well problem with the argument they are giving is that the accommodations are better at Gitmo than the US Prison system. Their living conditions are arguably better than what the guards get.saying the detainees are being tortured in a classy prison cell isn't a very convincing argument.

GarfieldJL
12-29-2008, 10:35 PM
saying the detainees are being tortured in a classy prison cell isn't a very convincing argument.

Very few of the detainees were tortured, and those that were were extremely high up the command structure of Al Qaeda, it was a situation where lives were at stake and several terror attacks were thwarted thanks to the information gained.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2008, 10:44 PM
Very few of the detainees were tortured, and those that were were extremely high up the command structure of Al Qaeda, it was a situation where lives were at stake and several terror attacks were thwarted thanks to the information gained.you have no way of knowing any of this.

Tommycat
12-30-2008, 01:54 AM
you have no way of knowing any of this.

Despite the fact that some here appear to believe I'm on the pro torture side, I think the real issue is that there is any torture at all. While I agree with the detainment, I disagree with torture.

All of the detainees have been given tribunals to determine their status as combattants. Though really they should use the 190-8 instead of the rather arbitrary CSRT.

As for Jamil al-Banna:
While it isn't enough to hold a person(it's enough to at least look at him), he was close to Abu Qatada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada) a known associate of al-Qaeda. Thin, but at least there was a reason.

Astor
12-30-2008, 06:38 AM
Well problem with the argument they are giving is that the accommodations are better at Gitmo than the US Prison system. Their living conditions are arguably better than what the guards get.

So, going by your statement, I trust you have first-hand experience of everything you've described.

That is -

1. You must have spent time in a US Prison Cell.
2. You must also have spent time in 'Gitmo'.
3. You must have also spent time as a guard there.

If not, how can you possibly report on the conditions there, other than hearing from either the Defense Department, or whatever reporters and Journalists which are allowed in there (who are no doubt paid by the Government to write favourable things)?

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 05:07 PM
If you had paid attention to Fox News at all which didn't have an ax to grind when it comes to President Bush, they have had reporters there several times.

Astor
12-30-2008, 05:10 PM
If you had paid attention to Fox News at all which didn't have an ax to grind when it comes to President Bush, they have had reporters there several times.

...And i'll bet that they're only allowed there in the first place because they promise not to say bad things about it.

Adavardes
12-30-2008, 05:34 PM
If you had paid attention to Fox News at all which didn't have an ax to grind when it comes to President Bush, they have had reporters there several times.

Because you're so good at paying attention to all those "liberal-tilt news sources" out there, and listening to what they have to say.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-30-2008, 05:47 PM
If you had paid attention to Fox News at all which didn't have an ax to grind when it comes to President Bush, they have had reporters there several times.yep, and i'll bet the guards there walked them around the torture facilities and showed them every bit of the prison there.

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 05:55 PM
yep, and i'll bet the guards there walked them around the torture facilities and showed them every bit of the prison there.

And yes here is the Iron Maiden over on your left

Seriously, that was Abu Grabe (sp?) that had incidents of torture and those people involved were dealt with. (not sure who all got convicted but the point remains)

jonathan7
12-30-2008, 05:58 PM
Eh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/09/guantanamo.humanrights

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8090

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html

Do you really want me to continue?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-30-2008, 05:58 PM
And yes here is the Iron Maiden over on your left

Seriously, that was Abu Grabe (sp?) that had incidents of torture and those people involved were dealt with. (not sure who all got convicted but the point remains)yeah, all the low level guards who were ordered to torture people got charged. and if you think torture is restricted to just abu ghraib that's pretty naive.

jrrtoken
12-30-2008, 06:02 PM
Seriously, that was Abu Grabe (sp?) that had incidents of torture and those people involved were dealt with. (not sure who all got convicted but the point remains)How do you know that it didn't happen elsewhere, such as Guantanamo?

GarfieldJL
12-30-2008, 06:16 PM
How do you know that it didn't happen elsewhere, such as Guantanamo?

To turn it around how do you know they did?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-30-2008, 06:18 PM
To turn it around how do you know they did?

Eh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/09/guantanamo.humanrights

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8090

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html

Do you really want me to continue?

woah hey look at that

Astor
01-01-2009, 02:34 PM
Or, more precisely, what to do with the inmates?

To finally, and perhaps potentially answer Murph's original question:

UK Call to Help Close Guantanamo. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7807084.stm)

Web Rider
01-01-2009, 07:08 PM
To finally, and perhaps potentially answer Murph's original question:

UK Call to Help Close Guantanamo. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7807084.stm)

While I realize that not all Gitmo inmates are terrorists, I don't think it's wise to "resettle" the ones that are in countries that are already having difficulty with their Muslim populations.

GarfieldJL
01-01-2009, 09:29 PM
Eh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/09/guantanamo.humanrights

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8090

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/18/gitmo.detainees/index.html

Do you really want me to continue?

If those are your star sources, your case is in real trouble. Considering, I don't believe any of them have even been to Gitmo in the first place. And some of these stories you're bringing up were outright proven false.

WASHINGTON — Newsweek magazine on Monday retracted an article alleging abuse of the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility which sparked deadly anti-U.S. protests in Afghanistan and other Islamic countries. -- http://archive.japantoday.com/jp/news/337333/all

Corroborating Source
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156755,00.html

The Doctor
01-01-2009, 09:36 PM
Yet you, who has also never been to Gitmo, are enlightened enough to know that Very few of the detainees were tortured, and those that were were extremely high up the command structure of Al Qaeda, it was a situation where lives were at stake and several terror attacks were thwarted thanks to the information gained.

:dozey:

jrrtoken
01-01-2009, 09:37 PM
If those are your star sources, your case is in real trouble. Considering, I don't believe any of them have even been to Gitmo in the first place.:dozey: Then please explain, in great detail, the entire Guantanamo prison complex, from its cells to its mess halls. Seeing as you probably didn't read any of the articles, you'd find that in the second paragraph of the CNN one states that the research was carried out by an independent party, not by CNN themselves. And I'm still laughing, seeing as you're completely tossing out the truth, even when it's been backed up by three separate sources.

GarfieldJL
01-01-2009, 09:58 PM
:dozey: Then please explain, in great detail, the entire Guantanamo prison complex, from its cells to its mess halls. Seeing as you probably didn't read any of the articles, you'd find that in the second paragraph of the CNN one states that the research was carried out by an independent party, not by CNN themselves. And I'm still laughing, seeing as you're completely tossing out the truth, even when it's been backed up by three separate sources.

Uh is this any relation to the Article Newsweek was forced to retract? This sounds like the "soldier" saying she participated in war crimes in Iraq, and Rush Limbaugh proved her story false because she had never been to Iraq.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-01-2009, 10:23 PM
uh does your little newsweek tangent or your rush limbaugh anecdote have anything to do with the discussion? because it sounds like it doesn't. desperation is an ugly cologne garfield, stop attacking three different sources because you don't like the facts.

EnderWiggin
01-01-2009, 10:46 PM
Uh is this any relation to the Article Newsweek was forced to retract? This sounds like the "soldier" saying she participated in war crimes in Iraq, and Rush Limbaugh proved her story false because she had never been to Iraq.



What the **** does Newsweek have to do with anything? The sources Jmac quoted (posted by J7) weren't Newsweek. Not Newsweek.

NOT NEWSWEEK.

_EW_

jonathan7
01-03-2009, 04:24 PM
Fine, I'm having my last and final jab at Gitmo...

Gitmo, violates both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Observe;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Gitmo is not something that can ever be in line with the Declaration of Independence, as Gitmo is the antithesis of the above, and of the Bill of rights....

Now the main thing of the Bill of rights violated by Gitmo is this;

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Furthermore of course;

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Oh and another bit;

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What is the point of the Bill of Rights if you choose to violate it at your own convenience, sure the guys held may not be your citizens, but the fore-fathers would be turning in there graves over it, and indeed you make the Bill of Rights not worth the paper its printed on by not observing it (which is a shame as Thomas Jefferson really knew what he was doing when he came up with them both).

mimartin
01-05-2009, 11:39 AM
jonathan7, Iím not even sure that is relevant. American has pretty much done away with the Bill of Rights since 2001 in order to protect ourselves from terrorist. ;)
Nice post

That said, Iíll say it again. The only reason to have a place like Guantanamo, on foreign soil, is to attempt to circumvent our own laws.

JediMaster12
01-07-2009, 12:59 PM
Which does nothing more than feed our desire to be an imperialist power with this neocolonialism. We just hide behind our "humanitarian" efforts to make us look good.

Astor
01-22-2009, 12:03 PM
Obama Orders Guantanamo Closure. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7845585.stm)

Of course, the question still remains - what to do with the inmates?

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-22-2009, 07:47 PM
harvest their organs and push the rest into the sea

Tommycat
01-22-2009, 11:16 PM
Of course, the question still remains - what to do with the inmates?

Soylent Green?

Jedi_Man
01-26-2009, 05:01 PM
And, more news from gitmo, via secret military source ;), the pres only wants to close teh prison, everything else should be left there, which makes even less sense. all gitmo really is is a prison, so then all thats left is just a base that has no value anymore.

The Doctor
01-26-2009, 05:03 PM
Which does nothing more than feed our desire to be an imperialist power with this neocolonialism. We just hide behind our "humanitarian" efforts to make us look good.

Our first contender for Kavar's Post of the Year.

EnderWiggin
01-26-2009, 05:04 PM
And, more news from gitmo, via secret military source ;), the pres only wants to close teh prison, everything else should be left there, which makes even less sense. all gitmo really is is a prison, so then all thats left is just a base that has no value anymore.

Yes, that's what the order said, close the prison.

The base does in fact have value, and it makes no sense to completely abandon our post in Cuba.

_EW_

Jedi_Man
01-28-2009, 09:15 AM
True, true. But the its just a place in the middle of an island. with a lake in the middle. Ofcourse, I haven't been studying military tactics or stuff like that lately, so for all I know, it could be the best spot inthe world for a base. BUt I still think its mostly a Prison and without it its just a base. But I wuld have to ask my dad about it, after all, he would know, he was stationed there.

Jae Onasi
01-29-2009, 12:33 AM
True, true. But the its just a place in the middle of an island. with a lake in the middle. Ofcourse, I haven't been studying military tactics or stuff like that lately, so for all I know, it could be the best spot inthe world for a base. BUt I still think its mostly a Prison and without it its just a base. But I wuld have to ask my dad about it, after all, he would know, he was stationed there.
It's highly strategic for its position on Cuba. While Cuba-Russia relations are not the same as what they once were, many have never forgotten the Cuban missile crisis. The US wants to keep a close eye on a Communist country that is within missile range.

jrrtoken
01-29-2009, 09:36 AM
It's highly strategic for its position on Cuba. While Cuba-Russia relations are not the same as what they once were, many have never forgotten the Cuban missile crisis. The US wants to keep a close eye on a Communist country that is within missile range.Which IMO, doesn't make too much sense, especially when the US opened diplomatic relations with Vietnam. The Vietnamese communist government, IIRC, has taken far more American lives than Castro's, right? Common sense states that the Us should open foreign relations with Cuba, though past grudges and attitudes have rendered that option dead.

GarfieldJL
01-29-2009, 10:00 AM
you have no way of knowing any of this.

Actually I have found a source that only 3 people were tortured at Gitmo, and they were all Al Qaeda leaders.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2581582&postcount=84

There is a link to the post where I gave the source.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-29-2009, 03:35 PM
thank god the director of the cia was around to downplay what happened there.

GarfieldJL
01-29-2009, 06:11 PM
thank god the director of the cia was around to downplay what happened there.

He didn't downplay anything, the media was just guilty of exagerating (putting it mildly) the scope of what happened (as usual).

mimartin
01-29-2009, 07:47 PM
I believe putting the number tortured at three is going to depend on the personís definition of torture. We should remember that the Bush administration was animate that waterboarding was not torture (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/ashcroft.waterboarding/). Personally I do consider waterboarding torture.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 09:48 AM
I believe putting the number tortured at three is going to depend on the personís definition of torture. We should remember that the Bush administration was animate that waterboarding was not torture (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/ashcroft.waterboarding/). Personally I do consider waterboarding torture.

No, because 3 is the number of people that were waterboarded, if you define waterboarding as torture only 3 people were tortured.

mimartin
01-30-2009, 03:53 PM
I however don’t only include waterboarding as torture. I’ve also seen sources, that I find creditable, put that put the number higher than the source you find creditable. So let’s just say I am in disagreement with the putting the number at 3. I’m however not in position to know the exact number.

The Doctor
01-30-2009, 03:58 PM
I however donít only include waterboarding as torture. Iíve also seen source, that I find creditable, put that put the number higher than the source you find creditable. So letís just say I am in disagreement with the putting the number at 3. Iím however not in position to know the exact number.

None of us are, to be honest. But I'd willing to bet good money that, over the years that Gitmo's been open, there have been significantly more than 3, as Garfy is suggesting. :dozey:

Adavardes
01-30-2009, 04:29 PM
No, because 3 is the number of people that were waterboarded, if you define waterboarding as torture only 3 people were tortured.

Yup, only three people were tortured (*snort*), so that makes it okay. Totally makes sense.

EnderWiggin
01-30-2009, 05:32 PM
No, because 3 is the number of people that were waterboarded, if you define waterboarding as torture only 3 people were tortured.

1. I define torture as more things than that.
2. You have no idea how many it was, stop claiming to have a number.
3. I only have two points.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 05:59 PM
Yeah, I'm sorry that their meal may have been 10 minutes late one day.

Seriously, you have no evidence the other way, and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 06:02 PM
Seriously, you have no evidence the other way, and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.So you have 100%, undeniable proof that there is no torture being practiced other than the alleged three waterboardings? Additionally, you haven't answered any of the above points, FYI.

jonathan7
01-30-2009, 06:06 PM
Seriously, you have no evidence the other way, and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.

Pot, kettle, black. I love how always you apply one standard on everyone else and one for yourself. I love however Obama is guilty until proven even more guilty. On topic; there is no point attempting to discuss how torture is going on due to the fact you conveniently ignore any source regardless of origin that contradicts your viewpoint.

GarfieldJL
01-30-2009, 06:06 PM
So you have 100%, undeniable proof that there is no torture being practiced other than the alleged three waterboardings? Additionally, you haven't answered any of the above points, FYI.

Actually do you have 100% undeniable proof? No you do not, innocent until proven guilty.

jrrtoken
01-30-2009, 06:09 PM
Actually do you have 100% undeniable proof? No you do not, innocent until proven guilty.Ever heard of the term "hypocrite"?

EnderWiggin
01-30-2009, 06:51 PM
Ever heard of the term "hypocrite"?

Darn straight (because Garfield seems to have a problem with words like 'damn' and keeps reporting my posts).

_EW_

jonathan7
01-30-2009, 08:42 PM
Actually do you have 100% undeniable proof? No you do not, innocent until proven guilty.

Technically speaking it's impossible to have 100% undeniable proof.

ďNot to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality"

Darth InSidious
01-30-2009, 08:51 PM
and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.
Unlike the people inside Guantanamo?

And then there's habeas corpus, or treating others with the respect due to all human life.

And you wonder why America is treated as backward by the rest of the world?

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-30-2009, 09:02 PM
Technically speaking it's impossible to have 100% undeniable proof.

typical liberal nonsense


It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it.

~gdub