What about the ones held there who were innocent and subsequently released having lost several years of their life to a miscarriage of justice? Several years in which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture. Oh yeah that's right: "guilty until proven innocent" - point out to me where it says that in the US constitution...DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea... LOL... Guantanmo bayers have it better than our own troop overseas have it.... Don't these guys blow themselves up when give the chance anyways?usmarine2005 wrote:
lolBraddock wrote:
physical and psychological hell that is Guantanamo bay.
Lol. I think I made the wittle guy angwy.....HunterOfSkulls wrote:
You, dumbshit who doesn't understand due process of law, that "soldier" doesn't automatically equal "saint" or how colossally stupid you sound for declaring any group of people is "in need of extermination". It's people like you who almost, against my better judgement and sense of self-preservation, make me wish that US citizens could end up in Gitmo on a more regular basis. We could make it really ironic for you and have you end up there because of an anonymous tip or maybe sell you to the US authorities for a big wad of cash, like a good number of the folks that have ended up there all ready. Of course if you really lucked out and they thought you actually had some sort of value (how that would happen is beyond me) you might get a nice little vacation at one of our many extraordinary rendition resorts. Unfortunately the only amusements there involve water and they're not amusing for you, just the people watching you struggle and choke.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
Ok, I'll try and explain this with little words, as it seems you lack the ability to comprehend. Soldier good, soldier best of humanity, do good, selfless things for many other people, soldier finest humanity have to offer. Prisoner in Gitmo, waste of flesh, useless, and in need of extermination. You see difference now?
I do so love it when people post purely from emotion without any factual or logical base, it makes things so much easier.....thanks "HunterOfSkulls" , lol. You did more for my arguement than I ever could.
Corithus and Hunter this is Debate and Serious Talk.
Last edited by zeidmaan (2007-06-01 03:09:48)
Kmarion, it would benefit everyone else's argument if your comments did not exist.
You haven't answered to me yet though, you little immature kid.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
Lol. I think I made the wittle guy angwy.....
I do so love it when people post purely from emotion without any factual or logical base, it makes things so much easier.....thanks "HunterOfSkulls" , lol. You did more for my arguement than I ever could.
-konfusion
Seeing how you think of those people in Gitmo, I would suspect you would be a 100% Nazi if was somewhere around 1940 now.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
Lol. I think I made the wittle guy angwy.....HunterOfSkulls wrote:
You, dumbshit who doesn't understand due process of law, that "soldier" doesn't automatically equal "saint" or how colossally stupid you sound for declaring any group of people is "in need of extermination". It's people like you who almost, against my better judgement and sense of self-preservation, make me wish that US citizens could end up in Gitmo on a more regular basis. We could make it really ironic for you and have you end up there because of an anonymous tip or maybe sell you to the US authorities for a big wad of cash, like a good number of the folks that have ended up there all ready. Of course if you really lucked out and they thought you actually had some sort of value (how that would happen is beyond me) you might get a nice little vacation at one of our many extraordinary rendition resorts. Unfortunately the only amusements there involve water and they're not amusing for you, just the people watching you struggle and choke.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
Ok, I'll try and explain this with little words, as it seems you lack the ability to comprehend. Soldier good, soldier best of humanity, do good, selfless things for many other people, soldier finest humanity have to offer. Prisoner in Gitmo, waste of flesh, useless, and in need of extermination. You see difference now?
I do so love it when people post purely from emotion without any factual or logical base, it makes things so much easier.....thanks "HunterOfSkulls" , lol. You did more for my arguement than I ever could.
How can you have such a disrespect for human lives?
They have a StairMaster, but no Bowflex? That is torture. At least when you're held prisoner in the Middle East you get a complete gym.
And Checkers? I'll take my chances in a Middle Eastern prison with Hungry Hungry Hippos.
And Checkers? I'll take my chances in a Middle Eastern prison with Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-06-01 04:44:51)
We noticed - you do it constantly.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
I do so love it when people post purely from emotion without any factual or logical base
Firtstly Religious freedom ...how come there have been several accounts of guards pissing on copies of the Koran and throwing them in the toilets? That doesn't smack of religious freedom or tolerance to me. Secondly you seem to justify their detention in Guantanamo by saying that back home they'd be either tortured or executed anyway ...would the innocent ones be tortured and executed back home too?JoD=Corinthus wrote:
Ahh yes, because providing someone 3 hot meals a day, a roof over their heads, and unlimited Religious expression is so inhumane, never mind the fact that in the countries the majority of these....heh, people, come from, in they'd either be tortured, (by the way, if you are still confused as to what real torture is, I'm willing to give examples, just say so.) , or straight out executed. You want to see torture and inhumane treatment? Go get yourself arrested in the middle east, that will give your comments some weight and validity.
Judging from this comment you are totally deluded and have a very black and white view of the world. You do realise that the Nazis were soldiers, could the same definition be applied to them or is it just American soldiers who are angels sent straight from Heaven to bless us with their services?JoD=Corinthus wrote:
Ok, I'll try and explain this with little words, as it seems you lack the ability to comprehend. Soldier good, soldier best of humanity, do good, selfless things for many other people, soldier finest humanity have to offer. Prisoner in Gitmo, waste of flesh, useless, and in need of extermination. You see difference now?
As for your definition of the Guantanamo detainees ...again, what about the innocent ones?
This is a more reasonable response and I can at least appreciate this point of view to some extent but I myself feel that if you are trying to fight a war that is predominantly driven by principals i.e the spreading of freedom, the fighting of terror etc. then you HAVE to keep the moral high ground. The minute you start to act and look like your enemy the war is lost. This is why America, in its attempts to fight terrorism, are growing to be seen more and more around the world as on of the great terrorist nations themselves.Iamangry wrote:
I TOTALLY agree with you as an American. But in fighting an enemy you unfortunately tend to gain some of his traits. I hate what we've had to do, and I hate the enemy even more for pushing us into doing some of it (most of it is our politicians, what can I say, they're not looking out for me or any other citizens other than themselves). However, while I know we must try to hold the moral high ground as much as we can by being moral, being human demands resiliency and an ability to adapt. I just wish that adapting didn't mean sacrificing some of our ideals.
Do the innocent people in Guantanamo bay blow themselves up too?DBbrinson wrote:
Yea... LOL... Guantanmo bayers have it better than our own troop overseas have it.... Don't these guys blow themselves up when give the chance anyways?
UM. It doesn't and they aren't US citizens so our constitution doesn't apply to them.CameronPoe wrote:
What about the ones held there who were innocent and subsequently released having lost several years of their life to a miscarriage of justice? Several years in which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture. Oh yeah that's right: "guilty until proven innocent" - point out to me where it says that in the US constitution...DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea... LOL... Guantanmo bayers have it better than our own troop overseas have it.... Don't these guys blow themselves up when give the chance anyways?usmarine2005 wrote:
lol
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
In Northern Ireland during the troubles we had internment, prison without trial. As a child I couldn't understand such an unfair concept. Internment probably made nearly as many people commit to the cause as bloody Sunday did. These kind of measures are counter productive in many ways. Institutions like Guantanamo bay run the risk of converting moderates into extremists.DBBrinson1 wrote:
UM. It doesn't and they aren't US citizens so our constitution doesn't apply to them.CameronPoe wrote:
What about the ones held there who were innocent and subsequently released having lost several years of their life to a miscarriage of justice? Several years in which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture. Oh yeah that's right: "guilty until proven innocent" - point out to me where it says that in the US constitution...DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea... LOL... Guantanmo bayers have it better than our own troop overseas have it.... Don't these guys blow themselves up when give the chance anyways?
Oh I'm sorry - I mistook you for someone with principles, morals and integrity. My bad.DBBrinson1 wrote:
UM. It doesn't and they aren't US citizens so our constitution doesn't apply to them.CameronPoe wrote:
What about the ones held there who were innocent and subsequently released having lost several years of their life to a miscarriage of justice? Several years in which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture. Oh yeah that's right: "guilty until proven innocent" - point out to me where it says that in the US constitution...DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea... LOL... Guantanmo bayers have it better than our own troop overseas have it.... Don't these guys blow themselves up when give the chance anyways?
That is probably the same thing as those Extremist think when they have captured an Allied soldier.DBBrinson1 wrote:
UM. It doesn't and they aren't US citizens so our constitution doesn't apply to them.CameronPoe wrote:
What about the ones held there who were innocent and subsequently released having lost several years of their life to a miscarriage of justice? Several years in which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture. Oh yeah that's right: "guilty until proven innocent" - point out to me where it says that in the US constitution...DBBrinson1 wrote:
Yea... LOL... Guantanmo bayers have it better than our own troop overseas have it.... Don't these guys blow themselves up when give the chance anyways?
But then it is bad all of a sudden.
Exactly, the same logic and reasoning is at play. 'He's not one of us he is one of them so let's not bother treating him with the same basic rights we would treat one of our own'.Gillenator wrote:
That is probably the same thing as those Extremist think when they have captured an Allied soldier.DBBrinson1 wrote:
UM. It doesn't and they aren't US citizens so our constitution doesn't apply to them.CameronPoe wrote:
What about the ones held there who were innocent and subsequently released having lost several years of their life to a miscarriage of justice? Several years in which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture. Oh yeah that's right: "guilty until proven innocent" - point out to me where it says that in the US constitution...
But then it is bad all of a sudden.
I am not trying to say that the extremists aren't more brutal and extreme, it's the attitude that is similar on both sides that I'm getting at.
This argument is being pulled into the ridiculous by someone/a few individuals who has an obvious lack of principles.
-konfusion
-konfusion
QFE.Braddock wrote:
...if you are trying to fight a war that is predominantly driven by principals i.e the spreading of freedom, the fighting of terror etc. then you HAVE to keep the moral high ground. The minute you start to act and look like your enemy the war is lost. This is why America, in its attempts to fight terrorism, are growing to be seen more and more around the world as on of the great terrorist nations themselves...
CameronPoe wrote:
Oh I'm sorry - I mistook you for someone with principles, morals and integrity. My bad.
Meh. Why the hell should I show sympathy to those who want me dead? As I posted before, those prisoners have nicer facilities than our troops overseas do. Why should the US afford those assholes the luxury of constitutional protection when they believe things like stoning raped women ?Konfusion wrote:
This argument is being pulled into the ridiculous by someone/a few individuals who has an obvious lack of principles.
Do we cut the heads off our prisoners or torture them? No.Gillenator wrote:
That is probably the same thing as those Extremist think when they have captured an Allied soldier.
But then it is bad all of a sudden.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2007-06-01 06:23:50)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Where/when did the US decide not to take the moral high ground? How do we resemble our enemy? Do we treat prisoners better than they treat ours? Has one captured soldier of ours ever been released alive?Braddock wrote:
...if you are trying to fight a war that is predominantly driven by principals i.e the spreading of freedom, the fighting of terror etc. then you HAVE to keep the moral high ground. The minute you start to act and look like your enemy the war is lost. This is why America, in its attempts to fight terrorism, are growing to be seen more and more around the world as on of the great terrorist nations themselves...
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2007-06-01 06:28:02)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Cutting heads of, No.DBBrinson1 wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
Oh I'm sorry - I mistook you for someone with principles, morals and integrity. My bad.Meh. Why the hell should I show sympathy to those who want me dead? As I posted before, those prisoners have nicer facilities than our troops overseas do. Why should the US afford those assholes the luxury of constitutional protection when they believe things like stoning raped women ?Konfusion wrote:
This argument is being pulled into the ridiculous by someone/a few individuals who has an obvious lack of principles.Do we cut the heads off our prisoners or torture them? No.Gillenator wrote:
That is probably the same thing as those Extremist think when they have captured an Allied soldier.
But then it is bad all of a sudden.
Torture, Yes!
Show me where car batteries are hooked up to prisoners/ or where we've cut off limbs/burned them... I remember Abu, but that was isolated -not standard operating procedure.Gillenator wrote:
Cutting heads of, No.
Torture, Yes!
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Erm, again, what about the innocents incarcerated within? Do they want you dead too? Probably after getting incarcerated in that hellhole they do, including their extended family!DBBrinson1 wrote:
Meh. Why the hell should I show sympathy to those who want me dead? As I posted before, those prisoners have nicer facilities than our troops overseas do. Why should the US afford those assholes the luxury of constitutional protection when they believe things like stoning raped women ?
As Gilly said: decapitation no, torture yes.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Do we cut the heads off our prisoners or torture them? No.Gillenator wrote:
That is probably the same thing as those Extremist think when they have captured an Allied soldier.
But then it is bad all of a sudden.
Because you are better then them by your own admision. Seriously sometimes I feel that this world wide anti-Americanism has severely influenced many Americans, and caused them to loose their self respect. You used to think highly of your selves and you had and still have every right to do so.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Meh. Why the hell should I show sympathy to those who want me dead?
Im from Bosnia and I would never approve of my government If they kept imprisoning and torturing Serbs. Even the worst of them, that without a shadow of a doubt committed atrocities, get a fair trial in court and if found guilty they still get a humane sentence and treatment, definitely better than those in Gitmo. Why? Because we dont want a single innocent Serb to go to jail.
We give better treatment to those rightfully convicted of genocide than you give those suspected of terrorism. Do you not see how wrong is that? A democracy less than 20 years old can school you in Democracy.
Are you kidding me? QFE? Maybe instead of capturing them, we should have just shot them...or maybe cut of their heads instead. Moral high ground.....WTF are you talking about. If I remember correctly, Bush said back in 2001 we will hunt them down and kill or capture them. Well we are / did. Where is the "moral high ground" BS coming from? Man you people are out there.B.Schuss wrote:
QFE.Braddock wrote:
...if you are trying to fight a war that is predominantly driven by principals i.e the spreading of freedom, the fighting of terror etc. then you HAVE to keep the moral high ground. The minute you start to act and look like your enemy the war is lost. This is why America, in its attempts to fight terrorism, are growing to be seen more and more around the world as on of the great terrorist nations themselves...
Ah, pictures from Guantanamo. That proves everything! Must mean that everything is heaven over there......
The International Red Cross makes frequent visits also to check the conditions and health of the Prisoners.SteikeTa wrote:
Ah, pictures from Guantanamo. That proves everything! Must mean that everything is heaven over there......
There is no doubt in my mind that this has happened. I would like to see the evidence that this is happening "a lot". Maybe this is why so many have been released? Either way we just don't know anything beyond speculation.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
The problem is a lot of these folks weren't taken under force of arms and surrendering. Some were kidnapped and sold by Northern Alliance thugs in Afghanistan looking to make some bank off all the money the Coalition is throwing around for people with information on "Al Qaeda operatives" which some seem to interpret as "that jerk Hamish who owes me money" or "that cabdriver over there". This would be a lot more clear-cut if they were being taken in combat, not dumped on the Coalition's doorstep with a note that says "Heer iz Al Kada oprative, send mony pls kthxbye".
The possibility of having an end to hostilities in a war against an abstract idea is ridiculous. So yes, I agree.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
A lot more people should have a problem with this, as it cuts way too close to "We have always been at war with Eastasia" for anyone's good.
I was a little too broad in my wording. I was speaking directly to the point of Habeas Corpus. Many of the detainees are not on trial. I think that's part of the beef the civil rights people have (Charge them or release them). They are being held to collect intelligence from them. After the DOD gathers information a good portion of the prisoners are released. Very few prisoners have actually been sentenced. They are not just Prisoners but rather Prisoners of war. POW's are released in Prisoner exchanges or at the end of wars. The United States itself has had thousands of soldiers held in POW situations, many are never seen again. I would like to see my government hold itself to higher standards than the Vietcong of course. The topic seems to be suggesting that these prisoners are so mistreated that suicide is the only answer. I guess no one can really judge what it must be like to be in a situation unless they have personally experienced it, but I just don't see it from my view (Comfortably behind my computer drinking my Starbuck's).HunterOfSkulls wrote:
Actually, here we run into another problem. One, as I understand it, and I may be wrong since I am not a student of constitutional law but here goes, the only provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that non-US citizens are not covered by are those expressly reserved for citizens: office holding, voting, the basic activities of citizen-participatory government. Naturally non-citizens wouldn't be extended those rights. Regarding the basic human rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they are indeed covered. You can't deprive a non-US citizen of property, liberty or life without due process just because they're not a US citizen. You can't take someone here on holiday and make them your indentured servant because they weren't born here. You can't rape a non-citizen and say it's not against the law because they have no rights on US soil.
The second problem is, if they're POWs, that means they were engaged in a legitimate military conflict with the United States and as such they shouldn't be on trial for squat unless they've personally done something vile and monstrous that is above and beyond that which a soldier is permitted. The US didn't sentence rank-and-file German soldiers to prison terms; they were only held until the conflict ceased. The only German military members who ended up on trial were those found to have engaged in war crimes or aided the Holocaust. The US government seems to want to have it both ways: they're POWs who have no right to a jury trial or counsel and they're criminals who need to be tried and punished.
Please don't think I am defending this. I have stated numerous times that this is very sketchy. What I am trying to explain is that what we are doing has been done throughout history in nearly every War. However, with the uncertainty of determining who the enemy is, and the authority the President (as CIC) now has to declare any combatant unlawful (No Geneva convention protection), we are loosing our system of balancing powers.
Xbone Stormsurgezz