BF2S Forums what a surprise, gitmo detainees return to terrorism.

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Oh yes, trying to blow or shoot up a group of people is so much better, especially when you get thrown back in the slammer almost straight away. Bizarre they way people turn around in these threads sometimes. Innoncent people are allowed to die because one man was wronged and should be allowed to take fiery revenge on others, awesome strategy.

Hold on there slick.  I could have sworn we were debating if it was possible a gitmo prisoner would potentially turn to terrorism as a consequence of torture.  How you derive some of think this is okay for this potential eventuality is well baffling.

Apparently exacting revenge - i.e taking lives because you were tortured - is A-OK, that's what I've picked up by some posts.

It's possible, and maybe understandable.  Still doesn't mean its right.

m3thod wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Hold on there slick.  I could have sworn we were debating if it was possible a gitmo prisoner would potentially turn to terrorism as a consequence of torture.  How you derive some of think this is okay for this potential eventuality is well baffling.

Apparently exacting revenge - i.e taking lives because you were tortured - is A-OK, that's what I've picked up by some posts.

It's possible, and maybe understandable.  Still doesn't mean its right.

I never said it was, its possible yes, but some seem to think they should because they would apparently.

m3thod wrote:

yeah that doesn't make any sense.

Really?

Nothing to do with this then,

ghettoperson wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

It proves what I always though, that Gitmo doesn't work.

Also kinda proves they weren't that innocent either.

Frankly, if I'd been locked up and 'tortured' (depending of your definition of it) by the US, you can be damn sure as soon as I was released the first thing I'd go do was blow up as much American shit as possible.

Sounds like a definition of 'what I'd do if'.

M.O.A.B wrote:

m3thod wrote:

yeah that doesn't make any sense.

Really?

Nothing to do with this then,

ghettoperson wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Also kinda proves they weren't that innocent either.

Frankly, if I'd been locked up and 'tortured' (depending of your definition of it) by the US, you can be damn sure as soon as I was released the first thing I'd go do was blow up as much American shit as possible.

Sounds like a definition of 'what I'd do if'.

I'm sure you'd be more than a touch pissed off at your captors if the same had happened to you. And yes, I'm saying if I had been tortured for 5 years I would probably be pissed off enough/mentally deranged enough to join a cause that I previously didn't agree with.

Again, we're talking about someone in a very unstable mental state, you have no idea how they or you would react. And if they perhaps supported the AQ cause at the beginning, but did not actively get involved, this treatment would certainly be enough to push them from a passive to an active role.

ghettoperson wrote:

It proves what I always though, that Gitmo doesn't work.

Actually, it proves Gitmo worked just fine, as these individuals never engaged in terrorism while they were detained.  Gitmo was never some kind of 're-education' facility.

CameronPoe wrote:

If I was innocent and was incarcerated in Gitmo and then released you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be out for revenge.

And if you were guilty and incarcerated only to be set free I'd guess it's a safe bet you'd still be out for revenge?  They should feel so lucky as their enemy has shown them far more mercy and compassion than they reciprocate.  I still have yet to see the internet videos of US soldiers beheading pows.

*edit... Oh that's right.  There's none.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-01-15 10:42:32)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

If I was innocent and was incarcerated in Gitmo and then released you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be out for revenge.

And if you were guilty and incarcerated only to be set free I'd guess it's a safe bet you'd still be out for revenge?  They should feel so lucky as their enemy has shown them far more mercy and compassion than they reciprocate.  I still have yet to see the internet videos of US soldiers beheading pows.

*edit... Oh that's right.  There's none.

We supposedly hold ourselves to a higher standard.  You know, hearts and minds, moral high ground, all that good stuff.

Gitmo then would be a higher standard than theirs.

mikkel wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

We supposedly hold ourselves to a higher standard.  You know, hearts and minds, moral high ground, all that good stuff.

Gitmo then would be a higher standard than theirs.

Not high enough.

I don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people who are found guilty of terrorism.  The only part of Gitmo I didn't like was how we'd torture people not convicted of anything.

But if someone is found guilty of terrorism...  well, anything goes under my standards.

Poseidon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Not high enough.

I don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people who are found guilty of terrorism.  The only part of Gitmo I didn't like was how we'd torture people not convicted of anything.

But if someone is found guilty of terrorism...  well, anything goes under my standards.

Eh. I'm not really into the "stooping to their level" kind of thing.

I know what you mean.  I realize that torture isn't usually very effective, but when it is...  well, why not use it?

I think, more than anything, the biggest mistake here was that word ever got out.  If you're going to torture people, do it secretly.  Renditions at least made more sense.

Turquoise wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't think there's anything wrong with torturing people who are found guilty of terrorism.  The only part of Gitmo I didn't like was how we'd torture people not convicted of anything.

But if someone is found guilty of terrorism...  well, anything goes under my standards.

Eh. I'm not really into the "stooping to their level" kind of thing.

I know what you mean.  I realize that torture isn't usually very effective, but when it is...  well, why not use it?

I think, more than anything, the biggest mistake here was that word ever got out.  If you're going to torture people, do it secretly.  Renditions at least made more sense.

Upholding human rights is not done as a benefit to the captured, but as a principle of the captor. They aren't upheld because it's practical, but because it's an injustice to humanity to go against them. By submitting certain individuals to torture out of percieved practicality, you aren't harming the individual nearly as much as you're harming yourself as a country by letting despicable people drag you down to the point of doing despicable things.

Most people don't want torture and human rights abuses in their country, and it's the job of the government to make sure that these things don't happen. What are you going to do as a citizen when it's the government itself that's bringing that kind of behaviour to your country? When your elected representatives orchestrate and carry out precisely the kind of acts that they've been elected to keep out of the country? It's a very, very slippery slope.

Terrorist organisations, and certain Middle Eastern countries are often referred to as being medieval and uncivilised, especially with regards to their stances on human rights. Are you really suggesting that we adopt elements of this? How is a civilised world going to stand together and bring it forward, when individual countries abandon the principles that brought them forward in the first place? You need the strength to protect your principles to bring you forward as a country.

CameronPoe wrote:

If I was innocent and was incarcerated in Gitmo and then released you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be out for revenge.

You do know though if you were at gitmo, the probablity that you belonged there is pretty damned high.