PDA

View Full Version : Obama Closes Gitmo


JediMaster12
01-22-2009, 12:00 PM
I was just reading my daily Internet news when I noticed the big headlines stating that President Obama signed three executive orders regarding the closure of the detention center at Gitmo.

President Barack Obama began overhauling U.S. treatment of terror suspects Thursday, signing orders to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, review military war crimes trials and ban the harshest interrogation methods...

With his action, Obama started changing how the United States prosecutes and questions al-Qaida, Taliban or other foreign fighters who pose a threat to Americans and overhauling America's image abroad, battered by accusations of the use of torture and the indefinite detention of suspects at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba.


Many people may think that this is a stupid thing to do but the way I see it, Obama is looking at the legal implications and how our actions look to the world. It seems that President Obama read his constitution very well regarding Article 6 and hence bringing in Geneva and the UN treaties we signed. Perhaps he is doing justice or perhaps not. Any thoughts?

For full article: Obama Closes Gitmo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_suspected_terrorists)

Achilles
01-22-2009, 12:03 PM
It seems that President Obama read his constitution very well...President Obama used to teach Constitutional Law :D

Astor
01-22-2009, 12:08 PM
I think the saying 'start as you mean to go on' is appropriate here. :)

To do something so quickly (two days in office is pretty damn fast given the massive in-tray he's bound to have) is great - and he's showing he means business.

GarfieldJL
01-22-2009, 12:11 PM
I think the saying 'start as you mean to go on' is appropriate here. :)

To do something so quickly (two days in office is pretty damn fast given the massive in-tray he's bound to have) is great - and he's showing he means business.

My question is where does he propose to put them... Does he intend to turn them loose to kill again? Seriously, this is going to turn into a legal nightmare the instant they are on US soil.

Astor
01-22-2009, 12:16 PM
My question is where does he propose to put them... Does he intend to turn them loose to kill again? Seriously, this is going to turn into a legal nightmare the instant they are on US soil.

Many will be sent back to their country, or, in those cases where it isn't safe to send them back, they will be sent to other countries. And in even that instance, I doubt they'll be 'turned loose'. Most of the adopting countries will probably have surveillance measures in place to be on the safe side.

And then there's the few who still await trial - they'll be sent to military prisons in the US, from what I can gather.

GarfieldJL
01-22-2009, 01:35 PM
Many will be sent back to their country, or, in those cases where it isn't safe to send them back, they will be sent to other countries. And in even that instance, I doubt they'll be 'turned loose'. Most of the adopting countries will probably have surveillance measures in place to be on the safe side.

We already tried that and their home country didn't want them back, so unless you plan on returning them to Al Qaeda, there is no place to send a lot of them.


And then there's the few who still await trial - they'll be sent to military prisons in the US, from what I can gather.

Yeah, I already heard about how the mastermind of 9/11 may not even stand trial for his crimes now, thanks to this Executive Order...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/21/families-outraged-obama-suspend-guantanamo-war-crimes-trials/

jrrtoken
01-22-2009, 03:57 PM
We already tried that and their home country didn't want them back, so unless you plan on returning them to Al Qaeda, there is no place to send a lot of them.Do you seriously know how many military bases the US has (that we know about) in foreign countries? Even if Guantanamo Bay does close down, there will always be another prison the US can send them to.
Yeah, I already heard about how the mastermind of 9/11 may not even stand trial for his crimes now, thanks to this Executive Order...The order calls for only the suspension of the trial, nowhere does the order pardon, acquit, or completely release any suspects. Most likely, current trials will resume once the other prisoners have been relocated.

EnderWiggin
01-22-2009, 05:40 PM
Awesome. Just awesome.

_EW_

Salzella
01-22-2009, 05:48 PM
Awesome. Just awesome.

_EW_

Quoted For Truth.

assuming, of course, EW was being sincere. it is ever so hard to tell over teh internetzzz.

Q
01-22-2009, 06:07 PM
And he's off to a good start.

Keep it up, Mr. President. ;)

GarfieldJL
01-22-2009, 06:27 PM
Do you seriously know how many military bases the US has (that we know about) in foreign countries? Even if Guantanamo Bay does close down, there will always be another prison the US can send them to.

Look if you have them on the mainland, then it ends up being a legal nightmare, additionally if they escape you have the general public at risk. Furthermore even their own countries won't take a lot of these guys back.


The order calls for only the suspension of the trial, nowhere does the order pardon, acquit, or completely release any suspects. Most likely, current trials will resume once the other prisoners have been relocated.

Yeah, and then they'll end up in civilian courts and some of the evidence can't be used because it's classified, furthermore a lot of these people were captured on the battlefield. Seriously, the instant they are in the US, it's going to be a legal nightmare.

Seriously this was only done cause the rest of the world and the far left wanted it done, with absolutely no regard to the consequences.

jrrtoken
01-22-2009, 06:37 PM
Look if you have them on the mainland, then it ends up being a legal nightmare, additionally if they escape you have the general public at risk. Furthermore even their own countries won't take a lot of these guys back.No, I'm not saying that the government will put them on American soil; like hell that will happen. The US has permanent bases in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait, Guam, etc. There will always be another prison somewhere that will take up more prisoners.

GarfieldJL
01-22-2009, 06:44 PM
No, I'm not saying that the government will put them on American soil; like hell that will happen. The US has permanent bases in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait, Guam, etc. There will always be another prison somewhere that will take up more prisoners.

Not if Rep. John Murtha (Democrat) of Pennsylvania gets his way.

Rep. John Murtha's invitation to house Guantanamo Bay detainees in his district has some local officials seeing dollar signs -- even though Murtha's comment was met with disbelief by others.

The Pennsylvania Democrat, chairman of the defense subcommittee for appropriations, is renowned for his ability to steer earmarked dollars to his district. -- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/22/murthas-invitation-gitmo-prisoners-create-jobs-officials-say/)

And some people in his district aren't happy:

But some residents of his 12th Congressional District were appalled by the safety implications of his statement.

"It's just ridiculous and it's a direct insult," said Bill Russell, an Iraq war veteran who ran against Murtha unsuccessfully last year and is running again in 2010. He warned about the dangers of detainees mingling with stateside prisoners.

"You've got the risk of recruitment where they're selling their brand of Jihad," he said.

He said the proposal is also an insult to the passengers of Flight 93, one of four hijacked planes which went down near Murtha's district on Sept. 11, 2001.

The long-serving congressman beat Russell in November even after calling his constituents "racist" and "rednecks" just weeks before Election Day.
-- Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/22/murthas-invitation-gitmo-prisoners-create-jobs-officials-say/)

jrrtoken
01-22-2009, 06:48 PM
Not if Rep. John Murtha (Democrat) of Pennsylvania gets his way.Okay, that's just one congressman asking for it. I'm not saying that putting prisoners in the US is inherently bad, but it's more of a "Not in my backyard" argument; No one will go along with it.

GarfieldJL
01-22-2009, 06:58 PM
Okay, that's just one congressman asking for it. I'm not saying that putting prisoners in the US is inherently bad, but it's more of a "Not in my backyard" argument; No one will go along with it.

It's an extreme danger to the general public, if one of these wackos were to escape...

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-22-2009, 07:49 PM
unless it's one of the innocent ones

although they'll prolly hate us now that we've put them in jail and tortured them

EnderWiggin
01-22-2009, 08:31 PM
Quoted For Truth.

assuming, of course, EW was being sincere. it is ever so hard to tell over teh internetzzz.

You haven't spent enough time with me in Kavar's if you can't tell :xp:

It was completely sincere :)

_EW_

jrrtoken
01-22-2009, 08:38 PM
It's an extreme danger to the general public, if one of these wackos were to escape...If the US built a prison on American soil to house suspected terrorists who have killed several thousand on the same soil, I'm sure the government would love any excuse to kill any detainees belonging to said group. The facility would most likely be lined with minefields, machine gun nests, a whole battalion on standby, and probably a fail-safe nuclear warhead as a last resort. Kinda like in The Andromeda Strain.

Oh, and what jmac said.

GarfieldJL
01-22-2009, 09:45 PM
unless it's one of the innocent ones


jmac they were captured in the middle of a battlefield it's rather unlikely that they are innocent.


although they'll prolly hate us now that we've put them in jail and tortured them

The only ones I heard of that were waterboarded were the leaders they captured and as a result several terrorist attacks were thwarted. It was only used in extreme situations, it wasn't used on the prisoners at random, it was only used on key Al Qaeda leaders that had been captured, and that saved lives.


If the US built a prison on American soil to house suspected terrorists who have killed several thousand on the same soil, I'm sure the government would love any excuse to kill any detainees belonging to said group. The facility would most likely be lined with minefields, machine gun nests, a whole battalion on standby, and probably a fail-safe nuclear warhead as a last resort. Kinda like in The Andromeda Strain.


No because you'll have far left groups, human rights watch and everything else, claiming that we're violating their human rights. Heck we'll have them claiming that if it was just like the regular prison system. And then they'll try to get them all released saying we're violating their civil rights.

Q
01-22-2009, 09:50 PM
It's all the damned CIA's fault. They should have never let any of this get leaked to the press. :xp:

Web Rider
01-22-2009, 09:50 PM
Prison is big money these days, build a state-of-the art prison somewhere for ONLY these guys and put them there. It'll create jobs.

Also EW, you have a House avatar, that makes it harder.

jmac they were captured in the middle of a battlefield it's rather unlikely that they are innocent.

If a battle erupted in your home town, and you couldn't get out, does that make you guilty?

And no, many people at Gitmo are random people apprehended in non-battlefield locations. And please don't say "terrorism makes the whole world a battlefield" because it doesn't, and that's dumb.

GarfieldJL
01-22-2009, 10:00 PM
Prison is big money these days, build a state-of-the art prison somewhere for ONLY these guys and put them there. It'll create jobs.

Yeah, and they can still escape from it and put civilians at risk, it was far better to have them on an island in the middle of shark infested waters.


If a battle erupted in your home town, and you couldn't get out, does that make you guilty?

No, and as I understand it very few people in that situation were rounded up, typically people in that situation were released.


And no, many people at Gitmo are random people apprehended in non-battlefield locations. And please don't say "terrorism makes the whole world a battlefield" because it doesn't, and that's dumb.

If that were the case why isn't their home country demanding them back, the overwhelming majority of the people we captured weren't even from the country we captured them in.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-22-2009, 10:22 PM
jmac they were captured in the middle of a battlefield it's rather unlikely that they are innocent.



The only ones I heard of that were waterboarded were the leaders they captured and as a result several terrorist attacks were thwarted. It was only used in extreme situations, it wasn't used on the prisoners at random, it was only used on key Al Qaeda leaders that had been captured, and that saved lives..yes i know i know you have personally toured gitmo and gotten a detailed history of all the inmates there so you know everything there is to know about them. and i've never heard anyone trash human rights watch for doing their jobs, good job being horrible.

Web Rider
01-23-2009, 01:45 AM
Yeah, and they can still escape from it and put civilians at risk, it was far better to have them on an island in the middle of shark infested waters.
People swim, drive, escape from Cuba to the US all the time. Yes, it's deadly. Does this mean it will fail? of course not, the fact that some got here is proof enough. Could a POW in Gitmo do the same? course they could.

No, and as I understand it very few people in that situation were rounded up, typically people in that situation were released.
Yet, like all prison systems, such is not always the case. Since that is so, you cannot simply claim they all deserve what they get, and regardless of what they did, do we really want to put ourselves on par with historical torturers? We cry and moan and complain about how our POWs were treated in wars, why can we do unto others as we would NOT have done unto ourselves?

If that were the case why isn't their home country demanding them back, the overwhelming majority of the people we captured weren't even from the country we captured them in.
Probably because their home country is smart enough to notice that countries with terrorists, terror suspects, and possible terror cells, are prime targets for American invasions. Why would they want to paint a target on their forehead?

GarfieldJL
01-23-2009, 07:40 PM
People swim, drive, escape from Cuba to the US all the time. Yes, it's deadly. Does this mean it will fail? of course not, the fact that some got here is proof enough. Could a POW in Gitmo do the same? course they could.

Yes and they are typically on some sort of boat or something of that nature.


Yet, like all prison systems, such is not always the case. Since that is so, you cannot simply claim they all deserve what they get, and regardless of what they did, do we really want to put ourselves on par with historical torturers? We cry and moan and complain about how our POWs were treated in wars, why can we do unto others as we would NOT have done unto ourselves?

Look, if there were people that were tortured for no reason except to amuse the guards or to get false confessions, someone should be prosecuted. But based on evidence the only people tortured were leaders of Al Qaeda that we captured and it was a matter of life and death, there were a few plots that were foiled in the United States thanks to the information gotten.


Probably because their home country is smart enough to notice that countries with terrorists, terror suspects, and possible terror cells, are prime targets for American invasions. Why would they want to paint a target on their forehead?

Because if we let them go, it would make us look kinda silly to go in after them into that country...

jrrtoken
01-23-2009, 07:47 PM
Look, if there were people that were tortured for no reason except to amuse the guards or to get false confessions, someone should be prosecuted. But based on evidence the only people tortured were leaders of Al Qaeda that we captured and it was a matter of life and death, there were a few plots that were foiled in the United States thanks to the information gotten.True, although no one, and I mean no one, really knows what goes on in that prison. Most likely, people have been detained or questioned by mere suspicion or unfortunate acquaintance. For example, look what happened to Cat Stevens.

Web Rider
01-23-2009, 08:20 PM
For example, look what happened to Cat Stevens.

Who, lets be honest, wasn't helping his case by becoming a staunch Muslim and changing his name to Ussef Islam.

GarfieldJL
01-23-2009, 09:13 PM
Who, lets be honest, wasn't helping his case by becoming a staunch Muslim and changing his name to Ussef Islam.

I think Obama is going to be in real trouble if there is another attack on the United States, after 9/11 there wasn't a single successful terrorist strike on US soil, and Obama has undid all the safeguards that were in place.

Tommycat
01-23-2009, 10:12 PM
I think Obama is going to be in real trouble if there is another attack on the United States, after 9/11 there wasn't a single successful terrorist strike on US soil, and Obama has undid all the safeguards that were in place.

Wellll to be fair, it takes a long time to plan an attack. The reality is that we really aren't that much safer. The state department has stated that they expect a nuclear attack on US soil within five years. That's even with all the seemingly added security and random screenings. Truth is we might feel safer, but chances are we are not.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like that they are closing the detention center at Gitmo. Hey, maybe they could reopen Alcatraz. Heck even get the prisoners involved in the restoration of it. It's already owned by the US Government :D

GarfieldJL
01-23-2009, 10:41 PM
Wellll to be fair, it takes a long time to plan an attack. The reality is that we really aren't that much safer. The state department has stated that they expect a nuclear attack on US soil within five years. That's even with all the seemingly added security and random screenings. Truth is we might feel safer, but chances are we are not.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like that they are closing the detention center at Gitmo. Hey, maybe they could reopen Alcatraz. Heck even get the prisoners involved in the restoration of it. It's already owned by the US Government :D

Reality is that several terrorist attacks were thwarted in the US thanks to Bush's policies.

The Doctor
01-23-2009, 10:57 PM
Reality is that several terrorist attacks were thwarted in the US thanks to Bush's policies.

And Obama's policies will continue the good work. :D

GarfieldJL
01-24-2009, 12:12 AM
And Obama's policies will continue the good work. :D

If by good work you mean potentially another World Trade Center Bombing...

Seriously, under Clinton we had.

1. World Trade Center Bombing
2. WACO
3. Elian Gonzolas (sp?)
4. USS Cole
5. US Embasy Bombings

Not to mention he completely gutted the CIA.

Yet under Bush we really just had 9/11, which you can throw a lot of the blame on the Clintons for gutting the CIA.

Obama's cabinet features some of the same bungling Idiots that screwed up everything last time. And he's returning to the Clinton style of completely wrecking our CIA.


They didn't even consider the consequences of this aside from France liking us again.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-24-2009, 12:28 AM
how is elian gonzalez a terror attack

Jae Onasi
01-24-2009, 12:30 AM
Closing Gitmo is nothing more than a symbolic gesture that shifts the problem to another post/base--or more than one of those.

Achilles
01-24-2009, 12:47 AM
Closing Gitmo is nothing more than a symbolic gesture that shifts the problem to another post/base--or more than one of those.That said, I’ll say it again. The only reason to have a place like Guantanamo, on foreign soil, is to attempt to circumvent our own laws....

EDIT:

Either Gitmo is a unique prison, created to circumvent our own laws, and it's closure is significant or it is just like any other prison/base and closing it means nothing. I think there are a lot of sound arguments for the former. I think the latter sounds like a conservative talking point.

Tommycat
01-24-2009, 02:16 AM
It is still wrong no matter how many times it is said, or how many people re-quote it.

Escape: If they escape they can either go to Cuba, or make a swim.

Dedicated prison: This way guards can more easily be trained in dealing with their special needs.

Centralized location: With them being there the processing and handling of inmates can be handled more efficiently.

NIMBY protection: Lets face it, not a lot of people want them housed near them. This location makes it so that you have the base, and.... well.... Cuba...

Highly limited access: People can't just walk up to it. Escape attempts are even more limited. Break outs are extremely difficult.

Actually the base becomes American soil, so they are still on American soil. They can't just indiscriminately break laws. However they are not restricted by US penal system regulations.

Web Rider
01-24-2009, 02:54 AM
I don't really have an objection to there being a prison there, but if the people running it think that the same isolation that makes it such a good base also isolates them from the law of the US, then a simple change of management isn't going to make a lot of difference. If what it takes is dragging them back home so we can watch them, then that's what we've got to do.

Personally, I want to have as few reasons as possible for the recruiting of new terrorists. Gitmo is one of those reasons that we can recitfy. also: in before "we might as well convert to islam and lose our freedoms!" no, because that's stupid. They don't hate us for our freedoms, that hate us for what our influence is doing to their part of the world.

Tommycat
01-24-2009, 03:13 AM
Ok, so we relocate it to somewhere in the US... You volunteering your back yard? How about when you also realize that whatever location you move it to also becomes a target for a terrorist attack. Possible escape attempts. Bombings. Generally, that tends to kill tourist activity. They also have to take land from people and convert it into a prison location. So I say again, are you volunteering your back yard. Gitmo was perfect because they didn't have to worry about NIMBY's. The US government only had to ask the owner of the land if they would give up some of it to handle the prison. That was rather convienient as the owner of the land was... the US government.

Ooooo I just thought of something that would make it all the better... When you hear this you're gonna wish I was running things...

Ok have 24/7 live streaming video of all the inmates and interrogation rooms(obviously no sound in the interrogation rooms to protect secrets). Charge a fee for watching it. The gubmint makes money. Inmates are safe from torture. We can't be accused of torture(because everyone can see we aren't torturing via live web cam). Whiney "Liberals" can check on their favorite inmate. "Neo-Cons" can pick out their least favorite inmate.

Maybe we can even have cage matches, and battles to the death, haha er... wait... too far? :D

Allronix
01-24-2009, 03:24 AM
While it may make us a bit more vulnerable in the short term (Released detainee now Yemen al-Qaida commander (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_al_qaida)), the long-term benefits outweigh it. How many times does it have to be demonstrated that information obtained by torture is questionable at best? A human in pain will say he is a little blue Smurf if it gets the jumper cables off his joy department.

Gitmo and the practices it represents were the best damn recruitment ad our enemies had. To paraphrase Traya, we are not fighting this war with guns or bombs - those are only the tools. We are fighting a war of belief. Those who want to attack American citizens believe we are evil, and point to Abu Grahib and Gitmo as proof that we are hypocrites who seek to destroy and degrade their people and religion. By closing these black-ops prisons, by discontinuing the practice of torture, we have taken away one of their best arguments to recruit moderates and gain sympathy.

Too many of these men have languished without habeas corpus, legal representation, or even a bloody trial! If they are innocent men, they need to be set free and compensated for wrongful imprisonment. If they are guilty, then I'm sure our supermax prisons can hold them adequately. They did a fine job with home-grown nutters like McVeigh.


Seriously this was only done cause the rest of the world and the far left wanted it done, with absolutely no regard to the consequences.


Garfield, does the Eighth Amendment, the Geneva conventions, or the Nuremberg Trials mean anything to you? International law is not some "quaint, antiquated notion." If another nation, like Iran or Myanmar put our citizens in a version of Gitmo, the same laws apply. We are not above or exempt from the law. In fact, we are a nation of law, and need to act like one if we are going to have any respect in this interconnected world.

And while I already know I'm "Far Left," I'm glad that I apparently have "the rest of the world" to back me up!

I would rather risk death in a country I can be proud of than live in perpetual shame and hypocricy. America sells itself as the shining city on the hill? Then we'd better damn well walk it as much as we talk it.

Good job, Mr. President. In just two days, you've already proven yourself the right man for the job.

Tommycat
01-24-2009, 03:49 AM
Sorry, the article you posted had him saying that he was al Queda. So he may have been rightly imprisoned at Gitmo, and wrongly released. Which would indicate that we are turning loose possible terrorists to keep the ones we're more certain about. His own statements are that his imprisonment at Gitmo strengthened his resolve. Granted it may have been just sheer luck that you posted a link to the one guy that was al Q before he went in.

jrrtoken
01-24-2009, 10:36 AM
Seriously, under Clinton we had.

1. World Trade Center Bombing
2. WACO
3. Elian Gonzolas (sp?)
4. USS Cole
5. US Embasy BombingsThe Waco incident wasn't even a terrorist attack, and why is Elain Gonzalez listed as a terrorist? Oh, and the last two were not on American territory, and were targeted towards military and government personnel, not civilians.
Yet under Bush we really just had 9/11, which you can throw a lot of the blame on the Clintons for gutting the CIA.We just had 9/11? I suppose that 3,000 lives lost is nothing but a scratch. :giveup:
Obama's cabinet features some of the same bungling Idiots that screwed up everything last time. And he's returning to the Clinton style of completely wrecking our CIA....and that is with no credible proof at all, and is by your own insinuation.

Jae Onasi
01-24-2009, 02:59 PM
Either Gitmo is a unique prison, created to circumvent our own laws, and it's closure is significant or it is just like any other prison/base and closing it means nothing. I think there are a lot of sound arguments for the former. I think the latter sounds like a conservative talking point.
If they do nothing about the problems that have made it the rallying point for the anti-war crowd and Michael Moore fruitcakes, then closing the base and moving the problem elsewhere is nothing more a fancy detainee shell game. Closing it on the assumption that that will fix the problems is a useless liberal talking point and does nothing to solve the underlying problem of alleged detainee/POW violations.

The gov't either solves the POW problems at Gitmo, thus rendering closure irrelevant, or they just move the problem somewhere else, in which case the detainees are no better off than before, they just have a new landscape outside their prison windows With the latter, the liberals get to point their fingers and say "See? We fixed the problem as Gitmo!!". Sure, it got fixed at Gitmo, but that's treating the symptom and not the disease if the POW rights problem isn't also addressed. All I'm hearing is the clamor for closure, I'm not seeing significant, detailed plans on how the detainees are going to be handled. Assuming that simply closing Gitmo will be the solution to fixing any detainee human rights violations is naive at best. I'll be cynical and say I don't think that their treatment will be very much different in another setting, to be honest.

Adavardes
01-24-2009, 03:17 PM
If by good work you mean potentially another World Trade Center Bombing...

I think Obama is going to be in real trouble if there is another attack on the United States, after 9/11 there wasn't a single successful terrorist strike on US soil, and Obama has undid all the safeguards that were in place.

Two problems I see with this argument:

1. The former is little more than alarmist rhetoric, based on the latter argument that the Bush administration did something of actual worth to safeguard us from anything, other than making flying a pain in the posterior. It takes time, YEARS, to plan a terrorist attack like the World Trade Center Bombings, and 9/11. They're gonna take a little while longer to hit us again, at least hard enough to do to us what they did in 9/11. Just because they haven't attacked yet doesn't mean you've averted any real disaster. I'm sorry, but fear rules this argument, and is thusly irrational and baseless.

2. What exactly did he undo? To me, all he did was close down a prison where Bush could circumvent everything this country stands for in order to serve his own twisted agenda. There are plenty of offshore prisons to house these "terrorists", where they'll get a fair trial under the Geneva conventions and be proven innocent or guilty, which will then prove whether or not Bush just went around cherry-picking random people based on race or religious preferences.

The problem with believing that Bush did anything of actual worth is that you have to assume that his screenings and racial profilings help with finding a terrorist. They don't. They help in finding innocent muslims of middle eastern descent. You're not catching and detaining the correct people on the correct bases. And frankly, Bush just gave us strawmen to make us feel safe and warm, when in reality, terrorism is still a very real threat, because terrorists still hate us, even moreso for Bush's wrongful prosecution of their people, and are still out there. All he did was throw more **** at the fan.

Achilles
01-24-2009, 03:37 PM
If they do nothing about the problems that have made it the rallying point for the anti-war crowd and Michael Moore fruitcakes, then closing the base and moving the problem elsewhere is nothing more a fancy detainee shell game.I see a lot of words, but find very little substance here.

The whole point is that they can't do what they've done in Gitmo here. That's why they were doing it at Gitmo and not here. You ignored the entire premise in order to repeat something you've already said.

Closing it on the assumption that that will fix the problems is a useless liberal talking point and does nothing to solve the underlying problem of alleged detainee/POW violations.See above.

The gov't either solves the POW problems They aren't POWs remember? They are "enemy combatants". You are keeping track of the facts surrounding this situation, aren't you Jae?

...at Gitmo, thus rendering closure irrelevant, or they just move the problem somewhere else, in which case the detainees are no better off than before, they just have a new landscape outside their prison windows With the latter, he liberals get to point their fingers and say "See? We fixed the problem as Gitmo!!".Well, except for the whole "no longer being held in limbo" thing.

Sure, it got fixed at Gitmo, but that's treating the symptom and not the disease if the POW rights problem isn't also addressed. Upon further reflection, I think I may have misinterpreted your earlier strawman as a counter-argument and tried to address it as such. It just occurred to me that you've changed the subject to something else and I fell for it.

All I'm hearing is the clamor for closure, I'm not seeing significant, detailed plans on how the detainees are going to be handled.Wait. You mean Obama closed Gitmo without your having signed off on it first? That bastard.

Asuming that simply closing Gitmo will be the solution to fixing any detainee human rights violations is naive at best.Strawman confirmed.

I'll be cynical and say I don't think that their treatment will be very much different in another setting, to be honest.So it's legal to hold people without trial and subject them to torture on U.S. soil? Okay.

Tommycat
01-24-2009, 08:29 PM
GITMO IS US SOIL!!!!!!!!!
They cannot legally do anything at Gitmo that they cannot legally do in another military base. While the base itself might be on foreign soil, that does not mean that it is free from US laws. ANY US base becomes US soil.

The reality is that because it is a MILITARY base it has a somewhat different set of rules. So you see, the people that keep claiming that the only reason to have it at Gitmo is to circumvent US laws are only slightly right. They could have it at Ft Lumpy, Anytown, USA and still have the same protections they have in Gitmo.

GarfieldJL
01-24-2009, 08:32 PM
1. The former is little more than alarmist rhetoric, based on the latter argument that the Bush administration did something of actual worth to safeguard us from anything, other than making flying a pain in the posterior. It takes time, YEARS, to plan a terrorist attack like the World Trade Center Bombings, and 9/11. They're gonna take a little while longer to hit us again, at least hard enough to do to us what they did in 9/11. Just because they haven't attacked yet doesn't mean you've averted any real disaster. I'm sorry, but fear rules this argument, and is thusly irrational and baseless.

It is not fear that rules that argument, it is based entirely on history, Clinton gutted the CIA immediately after he took office, wiping out a significant portion of the intelligence gathering ability in an instant. It takes a long time to rebuild something of that nature. Obama appears to be doing the same thing, after Bush finally got our Intelligence Agency back up.


2. What exactly did he undo? To me, all he did was close down a prison where Bush could circumvent everything this country stands for in order to serve his own twisted agenda. There are plenty of offshore prisons to house these "terrorists", where they'll get a fair trial under the Geneva conventions and be proven innocent or guilty, which will then prove whether or not Bush just went around cherry-picking random people based on race or religious preferences.

And how will you try them, a lot of the evidence is inadmissable and a judge could release them because the soldiers didn't read them their miranda rights as soon as they captured them. The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists that deliberately target civilians.



The problem with believing that Bush did anything of actual worth is that you have to assume that his screenings and racial profilings help with finding a terrorist. They don't. They help in finding innocent muslims of middle eastern descent. You're not catching and detaining the correct people on the correct bases.

I'm sure that guys we caught in Afghanistan shooting at our troops or the mastermind of the world trade center bombing is just an innocent muslim.

And frankly, Bush just gave us strawmen to make us feel safe and warm, when in reality, terrorism is still a very real threat, because terrorists still hate us, even moreso for Bush's wrongful prosecution of their people, and are still out there. All he did was throw more **** at the fan.

No, the reality is Bush kept them from having a successful strike in the US after 9/11, that's something the mainstream media tried to keep hidden. If Bush was the idiot you claim he was, those attempted terrorist attacks that were thwarted after 9/11 would have been successful.

And I'm sorry the rest of the world can't stand the fact that we had a President willing to say "To Hell with the United Nations." When it was the right thing to do, or are you going to next try to argue that the Iraqis were all better off under Saddam than they are now. The reason we haven't heard anything more about Iraq lately is the surge worked.

Adavardes
01-24-2009, 08:35 PM
GITMO IS US SOIL!!!!!!!!!

Not for long. Because it won't exist. :D

The fact of the matter is, Obama closed Gitmo because it was the chosen prison to circumvent US law - and that is entirely true, they broke the law of this nation, period - and I very much doubt that the circumvention will be moved to another prison under his watch. Arguing that all prisons have the capability to be Gitmo is asinine. Gitmo is Gitmo, it was the chosen prison for Bush's circumvention of constitutional law, and now it's closed. That means what he did there will end, the prisoners will go to proper prisons, where the observance of constitutional law will not change, and they will recieve what is due to them as human beings.

GarfieldJL
01-24-2009, 08:40 PM
Not for long. Because it won't exist. :D


Yeah and if anything happens where one of these prisoners commits a terrorist act after getting loose it will be Obama's fault.


The fact of the matter is, Obama closed Gitmo because it was the chosen prison to circumvent US law - and that is entirely true, they broke the law of this nation, period - and I very much doubt that the circumvention will be moved to another prison under his watch. Arguing that all prisons have the capability to be Gitmo is asinine. Gitmo is Gitmo, it was the chosen prison for Bush's circumvention of constitutional law, and now it's closed. That means what he did there will end, the prisoners will go to prisons, where the observance of constitutional law will not change, and they will recieve what is due to them as human beings.

Actually it looks like the loony left will probably next demand their release because these people were illegally detained... Obama did not consider the consequences of this at all. He doesn't even know where he's going to put them yet.

Adavardes
01-24-2009, 08:50 PM
Actually it looks like the loony left will probably next demand their release because these people were illegally detained... Obama did not consider the consequences of this at all. He doesn't even know where he's going to put them yet.

Obama knew that gitmo was a direct violation of the laws this country was built on, and that it needed to be closed. The prisoners will be given fair trial, and if that means being released because they weren't treated properly and given their rights, then so be it. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to sink to the level of terrorists to try and defeat them. There are other, more effectual ways to find terrorists and bring them to justice. If this is anyone's fault, it's Bush's for opening the prison to this in the first place.

And how will you try them, a lot of the evidence is inadmissable and a judge could release them because the soldiers didn't read them their miranda rights as soon as they captured them. The Geneva convention does not apply to terrorists that deliberately target civilians.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Seems to me that a fair trial is only a legal nightmare to you. To me, it's doing what we are democratically bound to do as a nation.

Tommycat
01-24-2009, 08:54 PM
The fact of the matter is, Obama closed Gitmo because it was the chosen prison to circumvent US law - and that is entirely true, they broke the law of this nation, period - and I very much doubt that the circumvention will be moved to another prison under his watch. Arguing that all prisons have the capability to be Gitmo is asinine. Gitmo is Gitmo, it was the chosen prison for Bush's circumvention of constitutional law, and now it's closed. That means what he did there will end, the prisoners will go to proper prisons, where the observance of constitutional law will not change, and they will recieve what is due to them as human beings.

Gitmo was chosen for it's remote location, military base, and the lack of local government. Kill someone on a military base abroad, and you can still be tried in a US court. Break a federal law on ANY US base and you can still be tried in a federal court. What constitutional law was broken at Gitmo? Federal laws MUST be obeyed on any US soil.

GarfieldJL
01-24-2009, 08:58 PM
Obama knew that gitmo was a direct violation of the laws this country was built on, and that it needed to be closed. The prisoners will be given fair trial, and if that means being released because they weren't treated properly and given their rights, then so be it. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to sink to the level of terrorists to try and defeat them. There are other, more effectual ways to find terrorists and bring them to justice. If this is anyone's fault, it's Bush's for opening the prison to this in the first place.

Technically we could have just had them executed as spies and saboteurs. Since none of them were in uniform.


Innocent until proven guilty.

Seems to me that a fair trial is only a legal nightmare to you. To me, it's doing what we are democratically bound to do as a nation.

It isn't possible to give a fair trial, because some of the evidence is classified, some would be thrown out, they were captured on the battlefield, they aren't from the country we captured them in. This is a war, and the troops can't call a timeout to conduct a forensic investigation on a battlefield.

Heck a judge can have them released because the troops didn't read them their miranda rights as soon as they captured them.

Adavardes
01-24-2009, 09:11 PM
Gitmo was chosen for it's remote location, military base, and the lack of local government. Kill someone on a military base abroad, and you can still be tried in a US court. Break a federal law on ANY US base and you can still be tried in a federal court. What constitutional law was broken at Gitmo? Federal laws MUST be obeyed on any US soil.

Not at gitmo, apparently.

8th Amendment - Rights against Excessive Bail/Cruel and Unusual Punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/19/guantanamo.usa
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0805/08050102

6th Amendment - Right to a Fair Trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Habeas Corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/tuttle
http://www.ww4report.com/node/3205
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html

Looks like US soil, if Gitmo truly sits on it, meant nothing to the Bush Administration.

jrrtoken
01-24-2009, 09:18 PM
Technically we could have just had them executed as spies and saboteurs. Since none of them were in uniform.Okay, if that happened then the US would be seen as a real bastard nation.
It isn't possible to give a fair trial, because some of the evidence is classified, some would be thrown out, they were captured on the battlefield, they aren't from the country we captured them in.I'm pretty sure that most of them weren't POWs. A good deal of the detainees were probably arrested for either being associated with terrorists in some way, not actively being combatants.
This is a war, and the troops can't call a timeout to conduct a forensic investigation on a battlefield.1. The "War on Terror" is a fool's quagmire, like the War on Drugs; impossible to win, since terrorism will always exist, and can never be completely destroyed, as there will always be a cause for fanatics to cling to.

2. A bunch of the detainees were most likely arrested for pure association; a passive crime, not something active, such as being caught red-handed for attempted murder.

Tommycat
01-24-2009, 09:39 PM
Not at gitmo, apparently.

8th Amendment - Rights against Excessive Bail/Cruel and Unusual Punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/19/guantanamo.usa
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0805/08050102

6th Amendment - Right to a Fair Trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

Habeas Corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/tuttle
http://www.ww4report.com/node/3205
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html

Looks like US soil, if Gitmo truly sits on it, meant nothing to the Bush Administration.

So which US citizens are we talking about?
According to federal law any persons of foreign citezenship are not covered by constitutional protections. Unless you are going to try to claim that those non-citizens should also have the right to vote.

Adavardes
01-24-2009, 09:43 PM
So which US citizens are we talking about?
According to federal law any persons of foreign citezenship are not covered by constitutional protections. Unless you are going to try to claim that those non-citizens should also have the right to vote.

So international sovereignity means nothing to you? Just because a human being isn't an American makes it okay to torture him and deny him a fair trial, something we as a nation refuse to do to our own citizens, so much so that the laws against them are part of the base of the entire legal structure? If you went to Canada, had a battle on Canadian soil, took a Canadian back to your prison without proof that they did anything wrong, you think it'd be okay to torture that Canadian and deny him rights to a trial? Or do you reserve that particular treatment for Middle Easterners and Muslims?

Citizenship is a shield to hide behind and justify despicable actions. They are human beings, and as human beings, they have certain inaliable rights. And if we would not take an American and treat them this way, then I will look at the treatment of any non-American in this way as hypocrisy at best and a violation of basic law at worst.

Tommycat
01-24-2009, 09:58 PM
So international sovereignity means nothing to you? Just because a human being isn't an American makes it okay to torture him and deny him a fair trial, something we as a nation refuse to do to our own citizens, so much so that the laws against them are part of the base of the entire legal structure? If you went to Canada, had a battle on Canadian soil, took a Canadian back to your prison without proof that they did anything wrong, you think it'd be okay to torture that Canadian and deny him rights to a trial? Or do you reserve that particular treatment for Middle Easterners and Muslims?

Citizenship is a shield to hide behind and justify despicable actions. They are human beings, and as human beings, they have certain inaliable rights. And if we would not take an American and treat them this way, then I will look at the treatment of any non-American in this way as hypocrisy at best and a violation of basic law at worst.

Nope. Just pointing out that the laws aren't broken. Don't paint me as someone that approves of torture. I do not. I'm pointing out that it would be no different than if it were on another base within the US. You and your side keep claiming that the only reason for Gitmo was to allow violation of US laws. I am simply pointing out that that belief is wrong. There are several reasons for it. And violation of US law is not one of them as they are still subject to US law.

Terrorist attacks on the host city
Low viability of escape attempts
Centralized location
No NIMBY's

mimartin
01-24-2009, 11:15 PM
So which US citizens are we talking about?
It does not matter that they are not U.S. citizens. At least according to U.S. Supreme Court decision in June of 2008. They believe the detainees are entitled to certain rights including habeas corpus.

BTW I agree wholeheartedly with you that the military base at Guantanamo Bay Cuba is U.S. soil. As such, I believe all laws that govern the military forces in the U.S. should apply there. I would never dream of going in front of the Supreme Court of the United State of America and arguing other wise. However, the Bush Administration did.

Tommycat
01-25-2009, 12:10 AM
It does not matter that they are not U.S. citizens. At least according to U.S. Supreme Court decision in June of 2008. They believe the detainees are entitled to certain rights including habeas corpus.

BTW I agree wholeheartedly with you that the military base at Guantanamo Bay Cuba is U.S. soil. As such, I believe all laws that govern the military forces in the U.S. should apply there. I would never dream of going in front of the Supreme Court of the United State of America and arguing other wise. However, the Bush Administration did.

yup, and I disagreed with the Bush administration. We shouldn't be calling for closing Gitmo. We should be calling for FIXING Gitmo. Jae's right. This is a detainee shell game. It may actually make things worse for the detainees. The guards at Guantanamo Bay are trained specifically how to handle them. Ship them elsewhere, and chances are someone's gonna be less respectful of their needs. Or worse, you get someone with a grudge against them(or against Muslims/Arabs in general) that ends up taking their frustrations out on one of them.

But hey closing the detainment camp at gitmo is all that matters, right.

mimartin
01-25-2009, 12:23 AM
But hey closing the detainment camp at gitmo is all that matters, right.Not to me. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2570583&postcount=48);)

EnderWiggin
01-25-2009, 08:45 AM
So which US citizens are we talking about?
According to federal law any persons of foreign citezenship are not covered by constitutional protections. Unless you are going to try to claim that those non-citizens should also have the right to vote.

Technically none, but it doesn't make it right.

It does not matter that they are not U.S. citizens. At least according to U.S. Supreme Court decision in June of 2008. They believe the detainees are entitled to certain rights including habeas corpus.

BTW I agree wholeheartedly with you that the military base at Guantanamo Bay Cuba is U.S. soil. As such, I believe all laws that govern the military forces in the U.S. should apply there. I would never dream of going in front of the Supreme Court of the United State of America and arguing other wise. However, the Bush Administration did.
But mimartin, remember that the President can revoke the right of habeas corpus when the country is in a State of Emergency. Also, remember that President Bush declared an extended State of Emergency after Sept 11, 2001.

So technically, the president has the ability to revoke habeas corpus in the US today, so nothing he's doing is illegal. Of course, it is immoral, unethical, and inhumane :D

_EW_

EnderWiggin
01-25-2009, 09:09 AM
Update:

FoxNews is reporting that France has agreed to take 60 of the 245 prisoners at Gitmo. These sixty are presumably innocent, not people like the 9.11 mastermind.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482585,00.html

_EW_

Arcesious
01-25-2009, 11:42 AM
I'm not here to bebate, just to offer my opinion...

I would feel safer with the Gitmo prisoners kept in Gitmo, yes, however... I don't agree with torture or execution. I know that militarily it is required to do such things in life & death circumstances, however, I still don't agree with torture.

Web Rider
01-25-2009, 01:57 PM
If it wasn't for torture and ex-President Bush flaunting it in everyone's face, I don't think anyone would have a problem with Gitmo. Except of course for the crazies who don't believe in crime or don't believe prisons should exist, but they can be ignored. Gitmo is a good location for a war-time prison, but only as long as we don't treat it like someplace to subvert US morals.

I say "morals" because technically, torture was legal. But come on guys, we're(for those of us in the US) the US, we can do better than that.

Adavardes
01-25-2009, 02:14 PM
If it wasn't for torture and ex-President Bush flaunting it in everyone's face, I don't think anyone would have a problem with Gitmo. Except of course for the crazies who don't believe in crime or don't believe prisons should exist, but they can be ignored. Gitmo is a good location for a war-time prison, but only as long as we don't treat it like someplace to subvert US morals.

That's exactly what it was being used for. And yes, moving the issue to another prison doesn't solve something, but at the same time, you're assuming that Obama intends to just move it somewhere else. I don't think that's very likely at all. I think he closed it as quickly as he did because possibly innocent victims of unfair treatment and rigged trials wouldn't be able to wait for him to sort gitmo out. In order to stop the torture, he closed gitmo immediately, so that they can be moved to prison camps where torture isn't regularly exercised, and to resolve the issue with unfair trial, he has issued several pleas to suspend the trial of the majority of gitmo inmates.

This was to stop the activities at gitmo before they could go any further. Give President Obama the time to bring about a suspension to what's going on before expecting him to fix anything, because, frankly, it's gonna take a while to fix what's broken as far as treatment of POWs or "enemy combatants" goes. And I don't think Obama wanted to let gitmo tortures and unfair trials drag out because he had to fix the underlying problems first. It's like saying "forget the anesthesa, let's just get this heart surgery done".

Achilles
01-25-2009, 02:18 PM
If it wasn't for torture and ex-President Bush flaunting it in everyone's face, I don't think anyone would have a problem with Gitmo.Probably not.

Gitmo is a good location for a war-time prison Why?

but only as long as we don't treat it like someplace to subvert US morals.Morals = Values?

I say "morals" because technically, torture was legal. Could you please expand on this? How was it legal?

But come on guys, we're(for those of us in the US) the US, we can do better than that.Agreed. Can and should.

GarfieldJL
01-25-2009, 02:26 PM
That's exactly what it was being used for. And yes, moving the issue to another prison doesn't solve something, but at the same time, you're assuming that Obama intends to just move it somewhere else. I don't think that's very likely at all. I think he closed it as quickly as he did because possibly innocent victims of unfair treatment and rigged trials wouldn't be able to wait for him to sort gitmo out. In order to stop the torture, he closed gitmo immediately, so that they can be moved to prison camps where torture isn't regularly exercised, and to resolve the issue with unfair trial, he has issued several pleas to suspend the trial of the majority of gitmo inmates.

To be blunt, only a handful of prisoners ended up being waterboarded, and those were ones that we knew were Al Qaeda leadership, it ended up saving American lives.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html

Bush's policies kept this country safe after 9/11, the far left came up with the garbage that we were randomly torturing people at Gitmo for amusement. The situations where prisoners were water boarded were extremely rare.


This was to stop the activities at gitmo before they could go any further. Give President Obama the time to bring about a suspension to what's going on before expecting him to fix anything, because, frankly, it's gonna take a while to fix what's broken as far as treatment of POWs or "enemy combatants" goes.

Oh so you're saying they are just enemy soldiers? Don't give me that song and dance, because that is not what they are. So it's okay that these people deliberately target civilians?


And I don't think Obama wanted to let gitmo tortures and unfair trials drag out because he had to fix the underlying problems first. It's like saying "forget the anesthesa, let's just get this heart surgery done".

No, he just did it to appeal to his far left base, the far left will next call for all the detainees to be released because they were illegally held.

jrrtoken
01-25-2009, 02:33 PM
To be blunt, only a handful of prisoners ended up being waterboarded, and those were ones that we knew were Al Qaeda leadership, it ended up saving American lives.How does waterboarding save lives? So, by trying to replicate the sensation of drowning to someone, it inherently saves lives? I think it does quite the opposite, IMO.
Bush's policies kept this country safe after 9/11, the far left came up with the garbage that we were randomly torturing people at Gitmo for amusement. The situations where prisoners were water boarded were extremely rare.Okay, so torture is a perfectly reasonable tool for extracting information out of people. Who cares if they feel excruciating pain, we need to protect America in every way!
No, he just did it to appeal to his far left base, the far left will next call for all the detainees to be released because they were illegally held.I think you're simply vilifying the left to simply promote your own views, with little factual information attached. Just a hunch. :giveup:

Adavardes
01-25-2009, 02:35 PM
To be blunt, only a handful of prisoners ended up being waterboarded, and those were ones that we knew were Al Qaeda leadership, it ended up saving American lives.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html

Bush's policies kept this country safe after 9/11, the far left came up with the garbage that we were randomly torturing people at Gitmo for amusement. The situations where prisoners were water boarded were extremely rare.

Gonna need more than Fox News, mate. The Conservative tilt is just too oppressive, regardless of what you say. Nobody really knows how many people were waterboarded, but we know that they were, and there are pictures out there that show other varieties of torture as well.

Oh so you're saying they are just enemy soldiers? Don't give me that song and dance, because that is not what they are. So it's okay that these people deliberately target civilians?

I find it kind of ironic that you're calling my argument a song and dance when I have yet to see any proof that they have been proven guilty in a fair trial of targeting civilians or of terrorism. And I'm not taking the word of US soldiers, because I've seen plenty of times how reputable those men and women are, not to mention the fact that heresay was removed from the US judiciary system as viable evidence a very, very long time ago.

No, he just did it to appeal to his far left base, the far left will next call for all the detainees to be released because they were illegally held.

Okay, sure let's go with that. This is baseless, unfounded, and has no substance whatsoever.

GarfieldJL
01-25-2009, 02:40 PM
Gonna need more than Fox News, mate. The Conservative tilt is just too oppressive, regardless of what you say. Nobody really knows how many people were waterboarded, but we know that they were, and there are pictures out there that show other varieties of torture as well.

I'm going to turn around and throw your argument right back in your face and say our CIA Interrogators and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.



I find it kind of ironic that you're calling my argument a song and dance when I have yet to see any proof that they have been proven guilty in a fair trial of targeting civilians or of terrorism. And I'm not taking the word of US soldiers, because I've seen plenty of times how reputable those men and women are.

You really crossed the line, just like Murtha did and I'm going to see how that lawsuit played out cause some soldiers have sued people for liable now.



Okay, sure let's go with that. This is baseless, unfounded, and has no substance whatsoever.

No, it is based on the man's voting record, his statements, the fact he has no idea where to put them, etc.

Adavardes
01-25-2009, 02:50 PM
I'm going to turn around and throw your argument right back in your face and say our CIA Interrogators and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.

Okay. My mistake. Let's put everyone on trial and see how it turns out. I'd like nothing more than to see them face the Supreme court for their actions.

You really crossed the line, just like Murtha did and I'm going to see how that lawsuit played out cause some soldiers have sued people for liable now.

I didn't cross any line, I made an assessment based on the cruelty I have seen US soldiers stationed in Iraq exhibit on video, which is evidence not so easily proven wrong.

Edit:Okay, new vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sm6VKvRSAg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBoYaeCsuWc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyIgNBkyADE

Just a few. And, btw, my stance on heresay having no place as evidence still stands, regardless of their cruelty.

No, it is based on the man's voting record, his statements, the fact he has no idea where to put them, etc.

No, it's you making predictions based on your own bias against him.

EnderWiggin
01-25-2009, 03:21 PM
You really crossed the line, just like Murtha did and I'm going to see how that lawsuit played out cause some soldiers have sued people for liable now.
....aside from this comment not making any sense, which line did Jack cross now?

No, it is based on the man's voting record, his statements, the fact he has no idea where to put them, etc.

Yeah, I remember now. When he was on the campaign trail he said he was a far left puppet.

Oh wait. And just because he hasn't the final place to put them just yet doesn't mean much. Recall that he's only been in office 6 days, if you even count the 20th.

_EW_

Achilles
01-25-2009, 04:15 PM
I'm going to turn around and throw your argument right back in your face and say our CIA Interrogators and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.Except that the Bush Administration has already admitted that we've authorized and used waterboarding. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the due process of individuals. We don't need this (these) step(s) to know that some people, acting on behalf of the U.S. government, have tortured foreign persons. Your argument is perfectly valid within the context of putting these individuals on trial, however it has absolutely no bearing on the condemnation of the actions of our government.

GarfieldJL
01-25-2009, 05:22 PM
Except that the Bush Administration has already admitted that we've authorized and used waterboarding. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the due process of individuals. We don't need this (these) step(s) to know that some people, acting on behalf of the U.S. government, have tortured foreign persons. Your argument is perfectly valid within the context of putting these individuals on trial, however it has absolutely no bearing on the condemnation of the actions of our government.

They authorized the use of water boarding on a few high profile targets and the results were several terrorist attacks were thwarted thanks to the information gained. So you're telling me if we capture someone like Bin Laden, we shouldn't use waterboarding to get information that could thwart another terrorist attack? Are you suggesting we should just beg him to tell us what their plans are?

Seriously, they weren't captured in any uniform under the flag of a country, they are a terrorists. We're fighting fanatics here, and the situation is that these guys would slit your throat just as soon as looking at you.

Adavardes
01-25-2009, 05:30 PM
They authorized the use of water boarding on a few high profile targets and the results were several terrorist attacks were thwarted thanks to the information gained. So you're telling me if we capture someone like Bin Laden, we shouldn't use waterboarding to get information that could thwart another terrorist attack? Are you suggesting we should just beg him to tell us what their plans are?

Yes, I am telling you we don't waterboard him, for two reasons:

1. We aren't terrorists, nor are we barbarians. We don't need to drop ourselves to their level to get information, because it goes against everything we stand for. You want to sink to such pathetically depraved means as torture to get the information you want, because you're afraid or righteously angry, go ahead. Me, I'm gonna be better than that and try other tactics.

2. Torture is notorious for producing misinformation and inaccurate confessions. After you've been drowning for a few hours, I'm pretty sure you'll say whatever the hell they want to hear to make it stop. Therefore, you're running on possibly inaccurate info gained by lowering yourself to their standards. When does the degradation of our country stop? Hm?

Oh, right, it stopped on January 19th.

Seriously, they weren't captured in any uniform under the flag of a country, they are a terrorists. We're fighting fanatics here, and the situation is that these guys would slit your throat just as soon as looking at you.

That is both hilariously ignorant and fantastically wrong at the same time. Just because they aren't wearing a uniform that meets your standard for what uniforms should be, they're terrorists? Pretty sure civilians don't wear uniforms under the flag of a country, but then again, civilians wear army camo in the States all the time. I'm sorry, but appearance does not a terrorist make, though I can see you're doing ex-president Bush proud by profiling under irrational basis to give yourself people to blame.

Jae Onasi
01-25-2009, 05:42 PM
They cannot legally do anything at Gitmo that they cannot legally do in another military base. While the base itself might be on foreign soil, that does not mean that it is free from US laws. ANY US base becomes US soil.
Exactly, but people outside the military don't understand that.

And I'm not taking the word of US soldiers, because I've seen plenty of times how reputable those men and women arePlease don't paint all US soldiers and sailors with this same broad negative brush. I have met and worked with plenty of service men and women who are good, honest, law-abiding citizens who want to make a positive difference. Assuming all military personnel are disreputable based on the negative actions of a few is patently incorrect and unfair.

I see a lot of words, but find very little substance here.I'm sorry you've missed the substantive parts, but if you reread the post you'll find it I'm sure.
The whole point is that they can't do what they've done in Gitmo here. That's why they were doing it at Gitmo and not here. You ignored the entire premise in order to repeat something you've already said.
You've completely missed my point. Again. I never said what they've done is legal at all, in fact I suspect there's plenty done that will never see the light of day because it would violate all sorts of laws. If they move the prisoners, but do nothing about the underlying illegal activities, the prisoners are no better off anywhere else. You're making the naive assumption that moving them to some place in CONUS is going to solve the problem. It won't unless there's a major institutional change on what's acceptable in interrogations. Gitmo is not unique as a US base, other than location--I am highly suspicious that waterboarding and other 'aggressive interrogation techniques' have been conducted in any number of places. Do you honestly believe that what happens at Gitmo can't happen at Ft. Leavenworth, Great Lakes Naval Base or a number of other places, just because they're located in CONUS? If so, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.
They aren't POWs remember? They are "enemy combatants". You are keeping track of the facts surrounding this situation, aren't you Jae?Yes. I'm aware that there's a big discussion on whether or not they're detainees, POWs, enemy combatants, and a host of other legal names used as an attempt to circumvent their rights under the Geneva Conventions. I elected to call them what they really are. When you're done assuming that I've taken a conservative stance on this without carefully reading what I've said and then answering in a sarcastic tone, please let me know. Nowhere have I said torture at Gitmo or anywhere else is acceptable. I'm merely saying moving the torture problem somewhere else makes closing Gitmo a hollow gesture.

Well, except for the whole "no longer being held in limbo" thing.Have you seen any policy changes on that? I haven't yet, though I hope it does change soon.

Upon further reflection, I think I may have misinterpreted your earlier strawman as a counter-argument and tried to address it as such. It just occurred to me that you've changed the subject to something else and I fell for it.Why would you even begin to assume I'm trying to make you 'fall for' anything, unless you're projecting what you'd do in a similar situation? All I want to do is discuss these major issues. I have no interest in laying traps for people, nor do I care to waste my time on figuring out ways to make other people miserable.
Wait. You mean Obama closed Gitmo without your having signed off on it first? That bastard.And you're happy with Gitmo closure without knowing what's going to happen to the people there? You have no interest in how the detainees/POWs/combatants/novel new term du jour are going to be treated elsewhere? OK, fine for you, but I actually care about the gov't fixing the problem rather than just closing one place where the problem is occurring in a symbolic politically-motivated gesture. I think my tax dollars could be spent in far better ways than torturing people.
Strawman confirmed.Achilles reading something that isn't there confirmed.
So it's legal to hold people without trial and subject them to torture on U.S. soil? Okay.
How on God's green earth did you manage to read _that_ into any of my comments here? I never said the (alleged until proven guilty in court) illegal activities that happen at Gitmo are acceptable at all, nor ever remotely implied such.

Adavardes
01-25-2009, 05:48 PM
Please don't paint all US soldiers and sailors with this same broad negative brush. I have met and worked with plenty of service men and women who are good, honest, law-abiding citizens who want to make a positive difference. Assuming all military personnel are disreputable based on the negative actions of a few is patently incorrect and unfair.

If I ever suggested that all US soldiers were bad people, or cruel people, let me please formally apologise. There are many that are very good, kind, honest, and strong-willed individuals that do something I could never do.

That said, Garfield was implicating that merely because these individuals were caught on a battlefield, we should assume they are terrorists targeting civilians, because our soldiers said so. Not only does this provide heresay as evidentiary material, it lends itself to the probable honesty of US soldiers, which, frankly, is a shot in the barrel risk at best. We know that there are cruel and dishonest soldiers, so based on that alone, we can't just assume that the soldier that captured an inmate at Guantanamo was being fair or honest about what that inmate was really doing on the battlefield. And all of this is really irrelevant when you consider the fact that heresay has not mattered in the court of law for decades upon decades, so unless he can provide me evidence that proves an inmate's guilt to these accusations, then the inmate is not guilty of anything.

That means they need a fair trial. At gitmo, they didn't get that.

GarfieldJL
01-25-2009, 06:00 PM
If I ever suggested that all US soldiers were bad people, or cruel people, let me please formally apologise. There are many that are very good, kind, honest, and strong-willed individuals that do something I could never do.

That said, Garfield was implicating that merely because these individuals were caught on a battlefield, we should assume they are terrorists targeting civilians, because our soldiers said so. Not only does this provide heresay as evidentiary material, it lends itself to the probable honesty of US soldiers, which, frankly, is a shot in the barrel risk at best. We know that there are cruel and dishonest soldiers, so based on that alone, we can't just assume that the soldier that captured an inmate at Guantanamo was being fair or honest about what that inmate was really doing on the battlefield. And all of this is really irrelevant when you consider the fact that heresay has not mattered in the court of law for decades upon decades, so unless he can provide me evidence that proves an inmate's guilt to these accusations, then the inmate is not guilty of anything.

That means they need a fair trial. At gitmo, they didn't get that.

First you apologize and then you go right back to doing the same thing... First of all, they would never be convicted in a civilian court because we captured them on a battlefield and didn't read them their rights, a left wing activist judge can arbitrarily throw the case out on that alone... Second the overwhelming majority of the people at Gitmo were not waterboarded. There were only a handful of people that were and those were high profile leaders and the results were that we managed to bust up several terrorist plots.

Which would you rather have, one terrorist leader getting waterboarded, or a couple hundred innocent civilians die here in the United States because our Intelligence Ops are too afraid to even question the people captured because they are afraid of criminal prosecution?

Seriously, that's what this boils right down to, which do you want to happen.

I'd quite frankly like to know if innocent people were waterboarded, that's a legitimate concern, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the man that masterminded 9/11.

I think that things like waterboarding should only be able to be authorized by the President in an extreme circumstance, and certain key members of congress should be able to review that decision.

Adavardes
01-25-2009, 06:08 PM
First you apologize and then you go right back to doing the same thing... First of all, they would never be convicted in a civilian court because we captured them on a battlefield and didn't read them their rights, a left wing activist judge can arbitrarily throw the case out on that alone... Second the overwhelming majority of the people at Gitmo were not waterboarded. There were only a handful of people that were and those were high profile leaders and the results were that we managed to bust up several terrorist plots.

1. No I didn't. I said that allowing heresay from soldiers shouldn't be taken as truth automatically because we know that some soldiers, not all, but some, have been cruel for no reason. There is evidence that proves that above, in the video links I provided.

2. You mean a Judge following constitutional law might throw a case out because they weren't arrested in a way that followed said law? :O

3. You don't know what you're claiming about waterboarding. Sorry, you don't.

Which would you rather have, one terrorist leader getting waterboarded, or a couple hundred innocent civilians die here in the United States because our Intelligence Ops are too afraid to even question the people captured because they are afraid of criminal prosecution?

Seriously, that's what this boils right down to, which do you want to happen.

This is reliant on the idea that these prisoners are all terrorists. Frankly, none of them have been proven to be terrorists, not in a way that is satisfactory to me, and also happens to be satisfactory to the US Supreme Court. So, I'd like to see what inmates are actually terrorists, if any of them are.

I'd quite frankly like to know if innocent people were waterboarded, that's a legitimate concern, but I have absolutely no sympathy for the man that masterminded 9/11.

Based on my argument above, you have no idea for an actual fact that any of them had anything to do with 9/11, let alone if they masterminded it.

I think that things like waterboarding should only be able to be authorized by the President in an extreme circumstance, and certain key members of congress should be able to review that decision.

I think it should never be allowed to happen. Period.

jrrtoken
01-25-2009, 06:11 PM
:words:You're completely missing the point, and are seemingly regurgitating previous information.
Which would you rather have, one terrorist leader getting waterboarded, or a couple hundred innocent civilians die here in the United States because our Intelligence Ops are too afraid to even question the people captured because they are afraid of criminal prosecution?That's something incredibly ignorant, and you know it. By actively torturing suspected terrorists with practices that go back towards the inquisition, the US is stooping to the same level as the terrorists, by using pain and aggression to get what they want.

GarfieldJL
01-25-2009, 06:16 PM
1. No I didn't. I said that allowing heresay from soldiers shouldn't be taken as truth automatically because we know that some soldiers, not all, but some, have been cruel for no reason. There is evidence that proves that above, in the video links I provided.

And those links are genuine, somehow I doubt it because those soldiers would be up on charges by now.


2.You mean a Judge following constitutional law might throw a case out because they weren't arrested in a way that followed said law? :O

If I understand what you're saying the way you want them tried is saying that even Afghanistan isn't a war it's just a police action. Seriously, if they went through the traditional stuff we'd see with a police officer we'd end up with a lot more fatalities.


3. You don't know that. Sorry, you don't.

And neither do you, the burden of proof is on you, our troops are innocent until proven guilty.


This is reliant on the idea that these prisoners are all terrorists. Frankly, none of them have been proven to be terrorists, not in a way that is satisfactory to me, and also happens to be satisfactory to the US Supreme Court. So, I'd like to see what inmates are actually terrorists, if any of them are.

So you're telling me the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't a terrorist, just some farmer that the US rounded up and tortured for fun is that it? Because that's what you're implying you just apologized for insulting US Troops and you go right back to doing it all over again.



Based on my argument above, you have no idea for an actual fact that any of them had anything to do with 9/11, let alone if they masterminded it.


It's called they bragged about it beforehand, it's stuff we probably also gained from the wiretaps that people are against even though they were overseas.


I think it should never be allowed to happen. Period.

And I must disagree.


That's something incredibly ignorant, and you know it. By actively torturing suspected terrorists with practices that go back towards the inquisition, the US is stooping to the same level as the terrorists, by using pain and aggression to get what they want.

Yeah I'm sure Bin Laden's driver is just a poor peasant that didn't know whom he was driving around.

jrrtoken
01-25-2009, 06:21 PM
If I understand what you're saying the way you want them tried is saying that even Afghanistan isn't a war it's just a police action. Seriously, if they went through the traditional stuff we'd see with a police officer we'd end up with a lot more fatalities.Where have you been?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Movie_poster_team_america.jpgAnd neither do you, the burden of proof is on you, our troops are innocent until proven guilty.Same thing with the detainees, except they ain't American, so screw 'em.So you're telling me the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't a terrorist, just some farmer that the US rounded up and tortured for fun is that it? Because that's what you're implying you just apologized for insulting US Troops and you go right back to doing it all over again.I don't think several hundred foreigners all masterminded 9/11, k?Yeah I'm sure Bin Laden's driver is just a poor peasant that didn't know whom he was driving around.Pretty close, but yeah. Oh, and thanks for completely ignoring my point.

EnderWiggin
01-25-2009, 06:23 PM
And you're happy with Gitmo closure without knowing what's going to happen to the people there?
Damn right I am. Not satisfied, no, but certainly happy. It's a step in the right direction.

You have no interest in how the detainees/POWs/combatants/novel new term du jour are going to be treated elsewhere?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Achilles is going to answer that he does has an interest (as do I).

The point is, there needs to be a certain amount of politicking as well as resolution to problems. Now, if Obama came out and said "Well, folks, we've fixed Gitmo and we're giving them a fair trial and we've stopped torturing! Have a nice January!" I feel like it wouldn't have had the same effect as what he did, completing those objectives (by year's end) and letting everyone walk around saying "Obama closed Gitmo!"

Second the overwhelming majority of the people at Gitmo were not waterboarded. There were only a handful of people that were and those were high profile leaders and the results were that we managed to bust up several terrorist plots.

Oh, well then. Could you please give (read: make up) a percentage of those in this "overwhelming majority"? And maybe even specific plots stopped by torture. Thanks.

Which would you rather have, one terrorist leader getting waterboarded, or a couple hundred innocent civilians die here in the United States because our Intelligence Ops are too afraid to even question the people captured because they are afraid of criminal prosecution?

Do you know why they're afraid of criminal prosecution? Because, in 2006, the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decided (that would be our Supreme Court, by the way) that all "enemy combatants" are entitled to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (i.e. no waterboarding). [They] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


Also, re: all those who are being held without charges, see the case Boumediene v. Bush, which decided that "the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right."

_EW_

Adavardes
01-25-2009, 06:23 PM
Oh man, I've been waiting for this:

So you're telling me the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't a terrorist

And neither do you, the burden of proof is on you, our troops are innocent until proven guilty.

Take your own advice and prove to me he's the mastermind. I want to hear those recorded confessions, or read a confirmation from the Supreme Court that says the confessions exist and are valid.

Oh, and as for proof against some soldiers' cruelty, *points at videos*. NOW, MOVING ON.

Because that's what you're implying you just apologized for insulting US Troops and you go right back to doing it all over again.

Again, stop insulting me by oversimplifying what I've said, because you assume that a soldier will stand trial for committing acts of cruelty (doubtful with Bush). I insulted the soldiers that committed those crimes, not the soldiers that did not.

GarfieldJL
01-25-2009, 06:37 PM
The point is, there needs to be a certain amount of politicking as well as resolution to problems. Now, if Obama came out and said "Well, folks, we've fixed Gitmo and we're giving them a fair trial and we've stopped torturing! Have a nice January!" I feel like it wouldn't have had the same effect as what he did, completing those objectives (by year's end) and letting everyone walk around saying "Obama closed Gitmo!"


And next we'll see them be released and they go right back to trying to kill Americans all over again.


Oh, well then. Could you please give (read: make up) a percentage of those in this "overwhelming majority"? And maybe even specific plots stopped by torture. Thanks.

Oh you mean the fact there was only 3 terrorists that were waterboarded total?

But there was one spy chief on the Hill this week with good news. CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed that the CIA has used waterboarding and that it works prodigiously. The agency only used this technique of simulated drowning three times since September 11, 2001, saving it for terror leaders who have posed the utmost threat to our security, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of attack on the USS Cole, Abu Zubaydah, the brains behind the thwarted millennium attacks, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who directed September 11 as deserving a trio of barbarians as any waterboardist can imagine.

From these brutes and in the wink of an eye Mr. Hayden reports the CIA got a quarter of all the human intelligence it obtained from 2002 to 2006. Now we also know that this impressive interrogation technique was undertaken not only with the knowledge of the Bush administration but also that of then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and then ranking Senate Intelligence Committee member Jay Rockefeller.
--Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/08/a-page-one-story-that-wasnt/)


How many people are imprisoned at Gitmo? Cause only 3 people have been waterboarded.


Do you know why they're afraid of criminal prosecution? Because, in 2006, the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decided (that would be our Supreme Court, by the way) that all "enemy combatants" are entitled to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

And what does it say about deliberately targetting innocent civilians, particularly children. Seriously, the Supreme Court in this case was wrong because they were not enemy soldiers in uniform.


Also, re: all those who are being held without charges, see the case Boumediene v. Bush, which decided that "the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right."

And in this case we are at war, if you study your history you'd find that Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-25-2009, 07:42 PM
And in this case we are at war, if you study your history you'd find that Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.and it was ruled unconstitutional

GarfieldJL
01-25-2009, 09:56 PM
But you're not a member of military. :confused:

Yes, I know that Jimbo is (works in the dentist's office, correct?), however the point remains that you fail your own test. It would seem that people outside the military are capable of understanding certain things, regardless of your opinions

P.S. My brother-in-law is a drill seargent, but I don't pretend that the association somehow bolsters my credentials to speak on military topics. Doing so would make me guilty of introducing appeal to authority flavored arguments.

So what, I have a cousin in the military, plus I had two grandparents in the military, that doesn't make you an expert in military affairs, nor would your brother-in-law necessarily have a clue, because the Army field manual has nothing to do with the CIA.


I read every post that I respond to at least twice. Had I found any valid arguments there, I would've responded to them, just as I have with every one of your posts that I've ever replied to.

To contradict you, Jae's arguments seemed perfectly logical and valid to me.


And you missed the point again. By moving the prisoners, they directly address the underlying illegal activities. Again, unless you want to argue that torture and illegal detention are legal within the U.S..

And to again to contradict you, it doesn't do anything but create more problems because there isn't a facility that is as secure as Gitmo. If you send them stateside you're gonna end up with all kinds of other problems.


And before you're tempted to reply with intentionally murky point that bases are U.S. soil, please consider why the Bush Administration selected Gitmo and other CIA "black sites" in foriegn countries if they could have just done it all right here.

That would in theory have been part of it, the bigger part was that if they escaped they wouldn't be in the states so they'd have a harder time attacking our citizens. It's kinda hard to swim through shark infested waters in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico.


My points are right there any time you chose to address them. Or continue your hand-waving. Either option is fine with me.

Your points quite frankly appear naive, the idea that simply moving them with no idea as to where to move them solves anything is quite frankly ridiculous. As I've just shown there have only been three people waterboarded total. And there are probably over 300 prisoners at Gitmo, that's less than 1%. Three people, you're making it sound like every other prisoner is being waterboarded.

You want to see human rights abuses visit a prison in China.


Well, I guess I'd have to know how many Gitmo-style interrogations take place within the "CONUS" before I could see your point, let alone respond to it.

The type of interrogations you're referring to was only 3 total. That's hardly what you're making it out to be.


I am highly suspicious that gnomes steal my underwear.


Okay?


POWs? Even the ones that don't meet the criteria for POW status?

Hmmm. If they were captured during "the war on terror", wouldn't that make them "terrorists"? Terrorists don't qualify for POW status, so based on the pretenses that Bushy, Cheney, and Rumey offered, none of them are POWs. Why are you calling them something they are not?

Terrorists also aren't under the protection of the Geneva Convention, under your own statements you just threw out your own argument.


Jae, how could I possibly identify all your mistakes unless I read your posts carefully? Accusing me of sloppy work hurts my feelings.

How about you stop bashing Jae, while Jae and I disagree a lot, I won't sit idly by and watch somebody treat someone like the way you're treating Jae right now.


Which, of course, presumes that closing Gitmo moves the torture problem. If you remove that premise, the argument falls apart.

Which fails to address my argument about it being grossly irresponsible.


Yep. Unequivocally. If for no other reason than the "token" reason you've derided here, which is that it's no longer a rallying cry for Al-Qaeda. Sometimes symbolic gestures have meaning unto themselves. And ignoring this one sounds like something a conservative would do in an attempt to trivalize the efforts of the new President. My 2 cents.

Oh, so now we're going to have attempts to bust out their cohorts and escapes in the middle of the US and potentially people being killed by these lunatics.


and it was ruled unconstitutional
After the war was over, and if you'll look at the ruling about the suspension it was kinda interesting and you can honestly compare Bush to Abraham Lincoln, both were liberators, both led the nation under crisis. The court was concerned about future Presidents that might lack Lincoln's integrity.

Adavardes
01-25-2009, 10:07 PM
After the war was over, and if you'll look at the ruling about the suspension it was kinda interesting and you can honestly compare Bush to Abraham Lincoln, both were liberators, both led the nation under crisis. The court was concerned about future Presidents that might lack Lincoln's integrity.

No. Never. Ever. No.

1. Lincoln was a democrat. Yes, his party was called the Republican party at the time, but they became the democrat party, and the Whigs became the Republican party. He was the old equivalent of a democrat. Bush is a modern Republican, the old equivalent of a Whig.

2. Lincoln suspended certain acts of habeas corpus, but in the long run of his term, drastically improved and expanded rights for all citizens of the US, most notably African Americans. Bush worked to drastically reduce rights in all cases for all human beings.

3. Lincoln ended a war that was, at the time of his inaguration, unavoidable, and worked to resolve the economic hardships caused by it. Bush started a war over literally nothing and caused us to go into economic hardship with a war debt that is in the trillions.

Bush will never, ever be considered at the level Lincoln was. Bush lacked every ounce of integrity he showed, and I assure you that history will show it.

EnderWiggin
01-25-2009, 10:44 PM
And in this case we are at war, if you study your history you'd find that Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.
If you would read what I write, you'll find that I said the same earlier, that the President can in a State of Emergency revoke the right of Habeas Corpus. However, the Boumediene v. Bush case is quite clear in saying that what Bush did was unconstitutional (due to the manner in which he did it, I think). Thank goodness for judicial review.

So what, I have a cousin in the military, plus I had two grandparents in the military, that doesn't make you an expert in military affairs, nor would your brother-in-law necessarily have a clue, because the Army field manual has nothing to do with the CIA.

That was his point :dozey:

And what does it say about deliberately targetting innocent civilians, particularly children. Seriously, the Supreme Court in this case was wrong because they were not enemy soldiers in uniform.

Listen closely, please. This supreme court decision decided that the people captured were entitled to Article 3, which says that "Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause" are awarded the rights I previously posted.

"out of the fight due to... detention" would be the key phrase there.

Even you can't dispute that they're combatants that are detained.

1. Lincoln was a democrat. Yes, his party was called the Republican party at the time, but they became the democrat party, and the Whigs became the Republican party. He was the old equivalent of a democrat. Bush is a modern Republican, the old equivalent of a Whig.

Not quite, but points for being close. The Republican party (the one in the 1860 election) had already overtaken the Whig party as the opposition to the 1860 Democrats.

_EW_

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-25-2009, 10:48 PM
After the war was over, and if you'll look at the ruling about the suspension it was kinda interesting and you can honestly compare Bush to Abraham Lincoln, both were liberators, both led the nation under crisis. The court was concerned about future Presidents that might lack Lincoln's integrity.bush didnt free anyone. to use a dnd analogy, he changed things in afghanistan and iraq from lawful evil to chaotic evil.

Adavardes
01-25-2009, 10:58 PM
Not quite, but points for being close. The Republican party (the one in the 1860 election) had already overtaken the Whig party as the opposition to the 1860 Democrats.

_EW_

My bad. XD

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-25-2009, 11:40 PM
liberal slander

EnderWiggin
01-26-2009, 12:05 AM
My bad. XD

Not a big deal. Lincoln was actually a whig anyway just in Republican clothes.

_EW_

GarfieldJL
01-26-2009, 08:19 AM
1. Lincoln was a democrat. Yes, his party was called the Republican party at the time, but they became the democrat party, and the Whigs became the Republican party. He was the old equivalent of a democrat. Bush is a modern Republican, the old equivalent of a Whig.

Adavardes, I'm going to call you out on this one, because I've studied Constitutional History. The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, that is a fact and no amount of attempts to rewrite history will change that. The Republican Party was created in 1854 and it still exists as the Republican Party today.


2. Lincoln suspended certain acts of habeas corpus, but in the long run of his term, drastically improved and expanded rights for all citizens of the US, most notably African Americans. Bush worked to drastically reduce rights in all cases for all human beings.

I didn't realize the right to vote was reducing the rights of human beings.


3. Lincoln ended a war that was, at the time of his inaguration, unavoidable, and worked to resolve the economic hardships caused by it. Bush started a war over literally nothing and caused us to go into economic hardship with a war debt that is in the trillions.

Actually the Dems got us into the economic hardship with their bad loan practices with Freddie Mac and blocking the Republicans attempts to fix things.


Bush will never, ever be considered at the level Lincoln was. Bush lacked every ounce of integrity he showed, and I assure you that history will show it.

Oh you mean like how Reagan was supposed to be a lousy President and it turned out he was one of our best Presidents. Seriousily, stop blaming everything on Bush.

Not a big deal. Lincoln was actually a whig anyway just in Republican clothes.

Calling you out on this one too, because the Whig party had fallen apart, Lincoln joined the Republican Party, which was for ending slavery. I took a history course on this so I know quite a bit about the topic.

jrrtoken
01-26-2009, 08:30 AM
Adavardes, I'm going to call you out on this one, because I've studied Constitutional History. The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, that is a fact and no amount of attempts to rewrite history will change that. The Republican Party was created in 1854 and it still exists as the Republican Party today.Yeah, except Lincoln was a bona-fide liberal.
Oh you mean like how Reagan was supposed to be a lousy President and it turned out he was one of our best Presidents. Seriousily, stop blaming everything on Bush.Yeah, except Reagan gutted all of the important government programs, except for defense, which he overloaded. He's also credited for winning the Cold War, which makes sense, especially when he essentially made the USSR compete with the US's arsenal, except Gorbachev was the one who helped Russia turn into a democracy.

GarfieldJL
01-26-2009, 09:17 AM
Yeah, except Lincoln was a bona-fide liberal.

Actually, by today's standards Lincoln would be a Conservative, he was against slavery, it was just considered to be way out there at the time by Democrats to be against slavery.


Yeah, except Reagan gutted all of the important government programs, except for defense, which he overloaded. He's also credited for winning the Cold War, which makes sense, especially when he essentially made the USSR compete with the US's arsenal, except Gorbachev was the one who helped Russia turn into a democracy.

What did he gut, seriously give me a list please? And Reagan caused the USSR to spend itself to death.

EnderWiggin
01-26-2009, 09:51 AM
Calling you out on this one too, because the Whig party had fallen apart, Lincoln joined the Republican Party, which was for ending slavery. I took a history course on this so I know quite a bit about the topic.
Lincoln was in politics before the election of 1860, right? Well, what party do you think he was a part of beforehand? The Dems? False.

He was a Whig who became part of the Republicans when the issue of slavery splintered the Whigs into multiple pieces.

I passed high school history too. :dozey:

_EW_

Jae Onasi
01-26-2009, 10:15 AM
Feel free to discuss Whig/Republican/liberal conservative stuff, but let me know if you all want the thread split here to continue that particular branch of discussion.

GarfieldJL
01-26-2009, 11:10 AM
Lincoln was in politics before the election of 1860, right? Well, what party do you think he was a part of beforehand? The Dems? False.

He was a Whig who became part of the Republicans when the issue of slavery splintered the Whigs into multiple pieces.

I've taken classes too, but nice try.

_EW_

While I know he was a Whig, before that party fell apart fact is though, he chose to join the Republican party because it fit his ideology. Lincoln is the icon that makes up the Republican Party.

Furthermore it was Republicans in Congress when President Johnson was in office, to push through Civil Rights Legislation for Johnson to sign. The Democrats were notably absent in supporting that legislation.

I'm a Republican because I believe a person shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin. People shouldn't get special treatment for their skin color, nor should they be discriminated against.

Also, you may have been in High School History, but I took Constitutional History at College. The formation of the Republican Party is something that a lot of Democrats of the time were extremely dismayed.

EnderWiggin
01-26-2009, 11:17 AM
While I know he was a Whig, before that party fell apart fact is though, he chose to join the Republican party because it fit his ideology. Lincoln is the icon that makes up the Republican Party.

I agree, here.

But I hope you'll also agree that the only reason that he joined the Republican party was because A) it was just like the Whig party and B) it opposed slavery while the Whigs did not necessarily.

The only reason the Whigs stopped being a worthwhile party was because they began to run two different platforms, the pro-slavery Whigs and the pro-abolitionism Whigs. This allowed the Republican party, which had a centralized platform of anti-slavery and opposition to the Democrats, to move in and take the place of the Whigs, creating the GOP we know today.

_EW_

EDIT:: In response to your ninja:

Also, you may have been in High School History, but I took Constitutional History at College. The formation of the Republican Party is something that a lot of Democrats of the time were extremely dismayed.

My point was that it only required rudimentary knowledge of United States History to understand how the Whigs became the Republicans. And of course the democrats were dismayed.

GarfieldJL
01-26-2009, 11:32 AM
But I hope you'll also agree that the only reason that he joined the Republican party was because A) it was just like the Whig party and B) it opposed slavery while the Whigs did not necessarily.


He joined the party because it fit his values, that's why he didn't join the Democrats. It was also why he was nominated as the Presidential Candidate for the Republican Party.


The only reason the Whigs stopped being a worthwhile party was because they began to run two different platforms, the pro-slavery Whigs and the pro-abolitionism Whigs. This allowed the Republican party, which had a centralized platform of anti-slavery and opposition to the Democrats, to move in and take the place of the Whigs, creating the GOP we know today.

Well to add to that it was also Anti-Slavery Democrats that joined the Republicans.


My point was that it only required rudimentary knowledge of United States History to understand how the Whigs became the Republicans. And of course the democrats were dismayed.

Well there is more to it than that, the Democrat Chief Justice tried to through the Dredd Scott case, cause the Republican Party to implode by settling the slavery issue once and for all, it ended up backfiring.

My point was that the idea that Lincoln was a Democrat is factually incorrect.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-26-2009, 01:56 PM
Actually, by today's standards Lincoln would be a Conservative, he was against slavery, it was just considered to be way out there at the time by Democrats to be against slavery.



What did he gut, seriously give me a list please? And Reagan caused the USSR to spend itself to death.reagan was a terrible president and the ussr was already spending itself to death before reagan, which may have not even been a good thing since it destabilized the region and let a bunch of nuclear weapons fall into the hands of whoever they happened to be near to at the time. diplomacy would have also solved the problem of the mess the us and ussr made with our little pissing contest.

reagan also decimated south america with such lovely ideas as the contra and the war on drugs.

GarfieldJL
01-26-2009, 02:06 PM
reagan was a terrible president and the ussr was already spending itself to death before reagan, which may have not even been a good thing since it destabilized the region and let a bunch of nuclear weapons fall into the hands of whoever they happened to be near to at the time. diplomacy would have also solved the problem of the mess the us and ussr made with our little pissing contest.

reagan also decimated south america with such lovely ideas as the contra and the war on drugs.

Tell that to the people from former east Germany, or some of the other countries that were under the iron curtain. They've named streets after Ronald Reagan. Also, I don't particularly like the idea of illegal drugs that are highly addictive being on the streets.

Diplomacy doesn't always work, if it did we wouldn't have had the situation where the USSR took over half of Europe, nor would we have had to do the Berlin Airlift.

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-26-2009, 02:10 PM
Tell that to the people from former east Germany, or some of the other countries that were under the iron curtain. They've named streets after Ronald Reagan. Also, I don't particularly like the idea of illegal drugs that are highly addictive being on the streets.

Diplomacy doesn't always work, if it did we wouldn't have had the situation where the USSR took over half of Europe, nor would we have had to do the Berlin Airlift.your ability to praise reagan without knowing all that much about him or what he did is astounding

Web Rider
01-26-2009, 03:36 PM
Tell that to the people from former east Germany, or some of the other countries that were under the iron curtain. They've named streets after Ronald Reagan.
East Germany was going to heck in a handbasket because they had no way to keep educated people in their country, and the style of government they had was just a mess. Germany as a whole is still suffering under trying to compensate for absorbing East Germany. Half the people I talk to who used to be "under the iron curtain" wish they still were because they liked being part of something big and powerful.

Would you rather be a citizen of New Jersey or a citizen of the USA? You'd rather be part of the USA, not necessarily because the USA is better than New Jersey, but because the USA has power, and Jersey doesn't.

Also, I don't particularly like the idea of illegal drugs that are highly addictive being on the streets.
And yet cigarettes and alcohol are still on the streets. "Illegal" is just an abstract definition tacked on to something that the people of a country object to. If we worshipped a blood god ritual sacrifices would be legal. Heck, if we were most Puritan, burning witches would be legal!

Getting rid of drugs is impossible, you'll never do it. Ever. Any government operation to try and eliminate them is going to fail.

Diplomacy doesn't always work, if it did we wouldn't have had the situation where the USSR took over half of Europe, nor would we have had to do the Berlin Airlift.
Yeah....because going to war with the USSR while Stalin was in power would have been a greaaaat idea. Please, just, don't even suggest things like that. Yes I'm well away you think the US should kick more ass and take take names, but please, at least try to think that talking to people may solve more problems than killing them.

jrrtoken
01-26-2009, 03:51 PM
Getting rid of drugs is impossible, you'll never do it. Ever. Any government operation to try and eliminate them is going to fail.QFT, to the maxxx. The war on drugs is a seemingly pointless campaign, since drugs have been around since the dawn of civilization, and every time a certain drug is made unpopular or scarce, another one takes its place.Actually, by today's standards Lincoln would be a Conservative, he was against slavery, it was just considered to be way out there at the time by Democrats to be against slavery.In order to free the slaves, that means that you would have to grant them rights. Now, that's essentially social reform, right? That's a pretty radical idea, and is most certainly progressive. The point: Lincoln was a liberal on a great deal of his issues; the same goes for Theodore Roosevelt and LBJ, who all preached and practiced progressive policies, which in today's light are considered liberal. Oh, and they were Republicans.

GarfieldJL
01-26-2009, 04:12 PM
QFT, to the maxxx. The war on drugs is a seemingly pointless campaign, since drugs have been around since the dawn of civilization, and every time a certain drug is made unpopular or scarce, another one takes its place.

Yeah I'm sure drugs like LSD where you had people jumping to their deaths because they were hallucinating are real beneficial to society.


In order to free the slaves, that means that you would have to grant them rights. Now, that's essentially social reform, right? That's a pretty radical idea, and is most certainly progressive. The point: Lincoln was a liberal on a great deal of his issues; the same goes for Theodore Roosevelt and LBJ, who all preached and practiced progressive policies, which in today's light are considered liberal. Oh, and they were Republicans.

Actually there is more to this than you're letting on. Republicans believe in individual rights, individuals owning their own labor, which is contrary to the Democrat platform. If you work hard and end up being rich then a Republican would be all for you keeping what you made, the Democrat Platform is to penalize you.

Also LBJ was a Democrat, not a Republican, he was Kennedy's VP.

Web Rider
01-26-2009, 04:19 PM
Yeah I'm sure drugs like LSD where you had people jumping to their deaths because they were hallucinating are real beneficial to society.
Nobody said they were "good" for society, stop twisting things around. There are plenty of ways to reduce drug use, but the idea that drugs can be eliminated is stupid. Not to mention that LSD taken in small doses is said to produce good experinces, not to mention if you do it safely with friends, there's less chances of something bad happening, and if drugs were cleaner and not mixed with all kinds of crap, they'd be a lot safer too.

Actually there is more to this than you're letting on. Republicans believe in individual rights, individuals owning their own labor, which is contrary to the Democrat platform. If you work hard and end up being rich then a Republican would be all for you keeping what you made, the Democrat Platform is to penalize you.
No, the Democrats believe in freedom and free enterprise and blah blah, A: stop painting Democrats like they're evul communists out to eat your soul. I'd like you to go to the Democrat webside and find me where in their platform is says "if you make money you suck and need to suffer."

Astor
01-26-2009, 04:26 PM
No, the Democrats believe in freedom and free enterprise and blah blah, A: stop painting Democrats like they're evul communists out to eat your soul. I'd like you to go to the Democrat webside and find me where in their platform is says "if you make money you suck and need to suffer."

Pfft. They're not going to just outright say it... :p

Det. Bart Lasiter
01-26-2009, 04:28 PM
Yeah I'm sure drugs like LSD where you had people jumping to their deaths because they were hallucinating are real beneficial to society.you have no idea what you're talking about. the story you're referring to is that of frank olsen, an army scientist who was participating in the cia's project mkultra, a mind control and interrogation project in which he was dosed with lsd (among other things) without his knowledge until he supposedly suffered a mental breakdown and committed suicide.

EnderWiggin
01-26-2009, 04:34 PM
My point was that the idea that Lincoln was a Democrat is factually incorrect.

Luckily I never claimed that ;) I said that he was a whig who became a Republican. I'm not sure why we're still talking about this seeing as we agree for once :xp:

_EW_

jrrtoken
01-26-2009, 05:05 PM
Yeah I'm sure drugs like LSD where you had people jumping to their deaths because they were hallucinating are real beneficial to society.Hm... I've taken acid before, and none of that ever happened to me. I'd suggest that you'd actually take some in order to really know what you're talking about, k? And what jmac said.
Actually there is more to this than you're letting on. Republicans believe in individual rights, individuals owning their own labor, which is contrary to the Democrat platform. If you work hard and end up being rich then a Republican would be all for you keeping what you made, the Democrat Platform is to penalize you.I think your association of political spectrum and political party is illogical. I also think that your bias is showing.
Also LBJ was a Democrat, not a Republican, he was Kennedy's VP.Oh, my bad. I forgot that not all Texan politicians were Republicans. :xp:

Yar-El
02-10-2009, 06:59 PM
MSNBC Article - Guantanamo prisoner freed, arrested again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29071536/)

KABUL, Afghanistan - It was 2 a.m. when a rocket launcher sent a grenade slamming into the front gate of Hafizullah Shahbaz Khiel's walled compound. Screeching children and women ran into a small underground room. American and Afghan soldiers shouted: "Get over here, get over here. On the floor, heads down."

Hafizullah, a former Guantanamo prisoner, knew not to resist. And so, his family says, he was wrongly taken into custody by the United States for the second time.

Hafizullah's story shows just how difficult it is for the U.S. to determine who is guilty and who is not in Afghanistan, where corruption rules and grudges are held for years, if not decades. It is a conundrum that the U.S. faces as it prepares to close Guantanamo and empty it of the 245 prisoners still there.
We are closing Gitmo why? :giveup:

jrrtoken
02-10-2009, 07:06 PM
We are closing Gitmo why? :giveup:So that guards won't abuse suspected terrorists, making the prisoners even more pissed off and more willing to commit acts of systematic violence against civilians. Either way, he was apprehended.

JediMaster12
02-11-2009, 01:26 PM
So which US citizens are we talking about?
According to federal law any persons of foreign citezenship are not covered by constitutional protections. Unless you are going to try to claim that those non-citizens should also have the right to vote.

You forget Article 6 of the US Constitution that specifically states that any treaties signed by the United States becomes part of the supreme law of the land and we all know that the Constitution is the highest law in the United States.

Since we signed the UN Charter and the Geneva accords, we are thus bound to obey these tenets, something that was not done at the prisoner base at Gitmo. So with the reports of prisoner cruelty and possible unlawful detentions of people, we actually violated our own laws. Gitmo may be a military base but it is still bound by US law under the checks and balances system we have in place.

As to the brillancy of closing Gitmo, I have to ask if it just the prison we have there or does it mean the base as a whole?

Astor
02-11-2009, 02:51 PM
You forget Article 6 of the US Constitution that specifically states that any treaties signed by the United States becomes part of the supreme law of the land and we all know that the Constitution is the highest law in the United States.

Since we signed the UN Charter and the Geneva accords, we are thus bound to obey these tenets, something that was not done at the prisoner base at Gitmo. So with the reports of prisoner cruelty and possible unlawful detentions of people, we actually violated our own laws. Gitmo may be a military base but it is still bound by US law under the checks and balances system we have in place.

As to the brillancy of closing Gitmo, I have to ask if it just the prison we have there or does it mean the base as a whole?

Just 'Gitmo', the Prison. I don't think Obama's planning on closing the base.