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

Dilbert_X wrote:

Lowing wrote:

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

You too.
Seriously, less than 10% have even been charged (I'll check that tomorrow when the bottle of red has worn off) so your statement is ridiculous.

I didn't say a thing about charges.  I said you were probably guilty of the reason you were there.

Using the words probably & guilty together is retarded.

m3thod wrote:

Using the words probably & guilty together is retarded.

I agree with you, I do not agree however  that these people are subject to the standards of our constitution when a. they are not ctizens and b. It is a battlefield not a crime scene so physical evidence is not preserved to accomadate the standards under our constitution. FOr anyone to expect those standards to be utilized is equally "retarded"

Lowing wrote:

I guess you forgot the article that show a significant portion of them are returning to terrorism.

First of all 'returning' is an assumption by you.
Secondly you don't know how many innocent people were so pissed off they went into terrorism as  response, could be all of them.

Lowing wrote:

I do not agree however  that these people are subject to the standards of our constitution when a. they are not ctizens and b. It is a battlefield not a crime scene so physical evidence is not preserved to accomadate the standards under our constitution. FOr anyone to expect those standards to be utilized is equally "retarded"

Either its a battlefield, in which case slates are generally wiped clean after the battle, or its criminal in which case there is some kind of burden of proof on the accuser.

You can't have this half-arsed halfway house -  which hasn't worked so far anyway.

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Before you state anything about this lowing you firstly have to know for certain that he was in gitmo for a reason, do you know that for sure? ... no you don't!

Secondly you would have to know what kind of "treatment" he got while at gitmo, do you know that for sure? ... no you don't!

You presume everything and know nothing and that's the whole point about gitmo, you could be right and those claiming the opposite could be right ... he could have been there because he is a terrorist or he could be a terrorist because he was there ...

Discussing the matter is kinda retarded because we will never know the one or the other!

Yer right, we don't know. But lets test your opinion of the matter, honesty is of course required here.

You are forced to put your life savings on a bet: Given what you and I know of any specific detainee which is nothing, do yu bet your life savings he was guilty? Or do you put your life savings on him being an innocent victim?

This is not a yes or no question lowing, why do you have such a hard time understanding not everything can be easily explained, the simplicity in your argument just doesn't excist ...

So

Varegg wrote:

... he could have been there because he is a terrorist or he could be a terrorist because he was there ...

is the only answer i can give you because the lack of knowledge in the case is to great ...

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Before you state anything about this lowing you firstly have to know for certain that he was in gitmo for a reason, do you know that for sure? ... no you don't!

Secondly you would have to know what kind of "treatment" he got while at gitmo, do you know that for sure? ... no you don't!

You presume everything and know nothing and that's the whole point about gitmo, you could be right and those claiming the opposite could be right ... he could have been there because he is a terrorist or he could be a terrorist because he was there ...

Discussing the matter is kinda retarded because we will never know the one or the other!

Yer right, we don't know. But lets test your opinion of the matter, honesty is of course required here.

You are forced to put your life savings on a bet: Given what you and I know of any specific detainee which is nothing, do yu bet your life savings he was guilty? Or do you put your life savings on him being an innocent victim?

This is not a yes or no question lowing, why do you have such a hard time understanding not everything can be easily explained, the simplicity in your argument just doesn't excist ...

So

Varegg wrote:

... he could have been there because he is a terrorist or he could be a terrorist because he was there ...

is the only answer i can give you because the lack of knowledge in the case is to great ...

I understand it is not a yes or no question, but you seem to find it easy enough to either say he is guilty or let him go. With such a complex issue it goes deeper than knowing what this person will do if let go and having evidence to the standards of the US constitution and Johnny fuckin' Cochran to release him.

YOu think if he was not read his rights than the case should be thrown out and the guy released. Problem is the guy you wanna release has the capacity and where with all t ocarry out massive terror attacks killing hundreds if not thousands. Yet you insist we release them.

If you admit that things aren't that simple, why can you not admit that just releasing them and forgetting about it, isn't that of a solution either?

Keeping them over all is the safer more prudent play. As the article pretty much proves

PureFodder wrote:

How about when there's a crime we just round up everyone that we suspect and keep them all in prison. Undoubtably we'd end up making the streets safer as we'd be much more likely to get the criminal.

It's the safer more prudent play after all.

Sorry you think a B and E in the US, is the same thing as this issue.

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

How about when there's a crime we just round up everyone that we suspect and keep them all in prison. Undoubtably we'd end up making the streets safer as we'd be much more likely to get the criminal.

It's the safer more prudent play after all.

Sorry you think a B and E in the US, is the same thing as this issue.

Say there was a mass murder and there are several suspects but not enough evidence to be able to definately convict the right person/people. Would you lock all the suspects up knowing that there's a reasonable chance that at least some of the suspects are innocent?

For the public safety and all that.

Oh God, not another "what if" scenerio.

lowing wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry you think a B and E in the US, is the same thing as this issue.

Say there was a mass murder and there are several suspects but not enough evidence to be able to definately convict the right person/people. Would you lock all the suspects up knowing that there's a reasonable chance that at least some of the suspects are innocent?

For the public safety and all that.

Oh God, not another "what if" scenerio.

You're entire argument is based on 'what if they were already terrorists'.

mikkel wrote:

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.

It's definitely a slippery slope, but I'm willing to allow moving somewhat in that distance.  I just stop short of torturing people who aren't convicted of anything.  Again, I have no problem with torturing guilty people.

mikkel wrote:

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.

Fighting terrorism is more about sustaining order than protecting human rights.  If human rights were the main agenda, we'd do more about Africa.  That's clearly not the case.  This is about economics and maintaining a certain amount of order that is necessary for trade and such.

In a perfect world, it would be nice if human rights were the main agenda, but it's simply not reality.

The general point that can be made is...  no matter how bad we get, we're still not the Taliban.  We still have higher standards than a lot of the world.  It's easy for small First World countries to point the finger at how we act, but if they were as large as us and had as significant of a role in international relations as us, they'd probably act the same.

Most of the more significant countries in Europe have their own skeletons in their closets, so it's not like the U.K., France, or Germany can say much about what we do.  The Oil for Food scandal was pretty corrupt and despicable in its own right.

So overall, what makes us better than the terrorists is not our morals but the fact that we offer so much more to this world than they do.  All a terrorist is good for is killing people.  We do our fair share of killing people too, but at least we advance technology and society in the process.

As stupid as the invasion of Iraq was, we have managed to transform that country into something with potential now.  The same goes for Afghanistan.  I'm not saying the ends justify the means, but ultimately, results matter more than intentions.

When it comes to torturing convicted terrorists, I have no problem with it if the results are that we discover more terrorists in the process.  Sometimes, we actually do get information from torture that is accurate.

Still, what matters far more than whether or not we torture people is whether or not people know about it.  Torture is like spying -- it must be a clandestine thing.  You can't have it known by the public, and this administration has clearly failed at keeping torture discrete.  Now, the best thing we can do is close Gitmo and then continue whatever interrogation is necessary in a more secret fashion.

This is a very Machiavellian approach, but when it comes to this sort of thing, Machiavelli really did have the most practical ideas.  Image matters more than practice in terms of fighting an ideological war.

Kmarion wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Should be considered part of WWII.

Since we're being pedantic, WWII didn't start until a year later.

That's ridiculous. I'm sure that's exactly what you were thinking when you said people were treated humanly.

You should really investigate the other atrocities.

like the fucking flame-thrower is humane.... burning ppl to death is a great way to treat a human being...

Turquoise wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That's ridiculous. I'm sure that's exactly what you were thinking when you said people were treated humanly.

You should really investigate the other atrocities.

like the fucking flame-thrower is humane.... burning ppl to death is a great way to treat a human being...

True...  flamethrowers are pretty grisly in their results.

Still, no matter what we did, it can be shown quite clearly that the Imperial Japanese were more animalistically brutal than we ever were.  Just ask various countries neighboring Japan what they thought of them (and what the Japanese did to them).

It really is to easy to judge atrocities from the comfort of a peaceful enviroment ... one of my favorite sayings:

If you are born in a country or time where nobody comes to kill your wife or kids and neither does someone come to ask you to kill another mans wife and kids so thank your God and go in peace. But hold steady with this thought: You might be more lucky than me but you are not a better man.

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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.

It's definitely a slippery slope, but I'm willing to allow moving somewhat in that distance.  I just stop short of torturing people who aren't convicted of anything.  Again, I have no problem with torturing guilty people.

I guess we aren't going to see eye to eye on that.

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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.

Fighting terrorism is more about sustaining order than protecting human rights.  If human rights were the main agenda, we'd do more about Africa.  That's clearly not the case.  This is about economics and maintaining a certain amount of order that is necessary for trade and such.

In a perfect world, it would be nice if human rights were the main agenda, but it's simply not reality.

Obviously that's not the reality. There'd be no premise for this thread if it was. I believe it should be reality, though, and that leading by example in consistently upholding human rights is not only the right way to go, but the only way to go for the US with respect to the founding principles.

Peace on Earth is not reality either, but that doesn't mean that you might as well work contrary to the idea.

Turquoise wrote:

The general point that can be made is...  no matter how bad we get, we're still not the Taliban.  We still have higher standards than a lot of the world.  It's easy for small First World countries to point the finger at how we act, but if they were as large as us and had as significant of a role in international relations as us, they'd probably act the same.

Most of the more significant countries in Europe have their own skeletons in their closets, so it's not like the U.K., France, or Germany can say much about what we do.  The Oil for Food scandal was pretty corrupt and despicable in its own right.

So overall, what makes us better than the terrorists is not our morals but the fact that we offer so much more to this world than they do.  All a terrorist is good for is killing people.  We do our fair share of killing people too, but at least we advance technology and society in the process.

What I see as being the error in your judgement of this is that you're vindicating the actions of current government by comparing them to the actions of the worst that the human race has to offer. If one strives for freedom, fairness and justice, one should compare their actions to the principles and ideals that define these goals.

In a fight for justice and freedom, your enemy will always provide a poor basis for comparison.

Turquoise wrote:

Still, what matters far more than whether or not we torture people is whether or not people know about it.  Torture is like spying -- it must be a clandestine thing.  You can't have it known by the public, and this administration has clearly failed at keeping torture discrete.  Now, the best thing we can do is close Gitmo and then continue whatever interrogation is necessary in a more secret fashion.

This is a very Machiavellian approach, but when it comes to this sort of thing, Machiavelli really did have the most practical ideas.  Image matters more than practice in terms of fighting an ideological war.

So you're arguing for a secretive government with no public accountability, yet still funded by and representative of the public and the country as a whole? What happens when the shadows that these people jump at turn from being people in countries far away to being people like you and me?