PDA

View Full Version : Guantanamo Bay - What are its solution?



Toxin
4 Oct 2009, 11:11am
A simple school project. Anyone mind sharing their knowledge with me?

Edit: Sorry 5 solutions.

Ganzta
4 Oct 2009, 04:20pm
its going to be closed

PotshotPolka
4 Oct 2009, 04:33pm
It's not going anywhere.

Bad Dog
4 Oct 2009, 04:52pm
Its necessary.

Toxin
4 Oct 2009, 05:05pm
ITS IN CUBA

+1



Seriously guys?

Jaffa
4 Oct 2009, 06:20pm
Unclear OP

Solutions to Guantanamo Bay? what, to make it run more efficently?

Toxin
4 Oct 2009, 06:35pm
No. The problem is the mistreatment of prisoners of war we capture in the Middle Easter, and the central point is Guantanamo Bay.

Shmoked
4 Oct 2009, 07:06pm
Well the states is really fucked them selves on this one...
They've been trying to get allied countries to take their BS inmates as Guantanamo is stacked full!

They tried asking Canada for the millionth time to allow Guantanamo inmates to Canadian jails.

"The Canadian government balked at several requests from Washington to provide asylum to men cleared for release from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, say newly released documents."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/16/detainees-canada.html

Ultramarine
4 Oct 2009, 07:13pm
Well the states is really fucked them selves on this one...
They've been trying to get allied countries to take their BS inmates as Guantanamo is stacked full!

They tried asking Canada for the millionth time to allow Guantanamo inmates to Canadian jails.

"The Canadian government balked at several requests from Washington to provide asylum to men cleared for release from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, say newly released documents."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/16/detainees-canada.html

the article contradicts your statement... those people the US asked Canada to take in where no longer inmates, they where cleared of what ever charges they had.

trakaill
4 Oct 2009, 08:11pm
No. The problem is the mistreatment of prisoners of war we capture in the Middle Easter, and the central point is Guantanamo Bay.

You talk about mistreated middle eastern prisoners ... I say erase the middle east from the surface of the planet ...that solves all your problems!

DoubleSb
4 Oct 2009, 09:33pm
You talk about mistreated middle eastern prisoners ... I say erase the middle east from the surface of the planet ...that solves all your problems!

What in the hell?

Alpha2
5 Oct 2009, 12:58am
Open fire. They have no rights. They aren't citizens. Same with illegals here. They aren't protected from cruel and unusual punishment as they aren't, "The people of the United States."

Toxin
5 Oct 2009, 05:19am
Open fire. They have no rights. They aren't citizens. Same with illegals here. They aren't protected from cruel and unusual punishment as they aren't, "The people of the United States."

There is something called the Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention) :usa2:

Alpha2
5 Oct 2009, 06:10am
There is something called the Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention) :usa2:

Which should be abandoned. Makes no sense when only one side follows it.

Shmoked
5 Oct 2009, 09:04am
Uhm... "cleared" ?? ?

More like this. ( truth )

I'll let you out of Guantanamo here if you SIGN this forum that SAYS:

1)I am a terrorist.

2)I am in the eye of the Enemy of the United States of America.

3)I take full responsibility to all terrorism acts, and I will be subject for prosecution at any time.

There is more to the release documents I know.. That's just some cut & paste from it.
People didn't want to sign the document and be release back to their countries because nobody wants to take a "cleared inmate from Guantanamo"

It was on TV just a while ago on Nat-Geo TV!
People went on hunger strikes, than the US would force-feed them to keep them alive..
Than it went on prayer strikes no eating sleeping nothing but praying the entire time.

If I were an inmate who didn't know what hour, day, month or year it was I'd simply get out when I can and just take the gun to myself.. ugh.. what a terrible..terrible life.
Lemme see if I can find more info on their release documents..
Anybody else heard / watched that show?? it was a cpl hrs long...

Creeping Death
5 Oct 2009, 01:58pm
the used metallica's enter sandman and other song as a torture device

Toxin
5 Oct 2009, 02:30pm
Which should be abandoned. Makes no sense when only one side follows it.

orly?
The U.S. is not following the Geneva Convention (i.e. Guantanamo Bay) which is a mistake that has been done. We do not want this done to our soldiers either.
You say to kill the terrorist POWs we take, since they have no legal rights.
Yet when your brother/father/cousin/uncle gets taken POW I know you don't want that happening to them either.

Red
5 Oct 2009, 03:02pm
No. The problem is the mistreatment of prisoners of war we capture in the Middle Easter, and the central point is Guantanamo Bay.

Tell your pussy teacher to take the brainwashing elsewhere.

and as for "We do not want this done to our soldiers either", do you really think insurgents give a flying fuck about the Geneva convention at all?

And what we do/did to them is no where near what they do to us; sawing soldiers/civilians fucking heads off with machetes while they scream and writhe on the floor gargling blood in absolute terror for the last moments of their lives with people shouting " ALLAHU AKBAR!" while they videotape it and put it on the internet.

Give me a fucking break.

Lordcrazy
5 Oct 2009, 03:14pm
Well i would say reopen Alcatraz and put them there. Plus I agree with Red Tampon you don't see those bitches giving a fuck about the convention they take hostages all the time and murder them give me one reason why we should'nt we treat them the same unless theyre clean :)!

Italian Jew
5 Oct 2009, 03:19pm
give me one reason why we should'nt we treat them the same unless theyre clean :)!

Because we're better than that.

Red
5 Oct 2009, 03:20pm
give me one reason why we should'nt we treat them the same unless theyre clean :)!

I wouldn't go that far.

Ganzta
6 Oct 2009, 03:17pm
and again, according to our dear president, it should be closed by Jan 22, 2010
but the obama administration probably can't meet the deadline when the House bitch slaps them in the face
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091001/pl_nm/us_usa_guantanamo

Bullet Wound
6 Oct 2009, 08:02pm
How would closing the place do anything? All it means is that the prisoners would be moved, and who gives a flying fuck how they are treated, their POWs, they were in a war against the US, they should be dead to begin with.

LegalSmash
7 Oct 2009, 04:08am
Open fire. They have no rights. They aren't citizens. Same with illegals here. They aren't protected from cruel and unusual punishment as they aren't, "The people of the United States."

So wrong it makes my head explode.

LegalSmash
7 Oct 2009, 04:09am
orly?
The U.S. is not following the Geneva Convention (i.e. Guantanamo Bay) which is a mistake that has been done. We do not want this done to our soldiers either.
You say to kill the terrorist POWs we take, since they have no legal rights.
Yet when your brother/father/cousin/uncle gets taken POW I know you don't want that happening to them either.

Geneva Con applies is war. This is not war.Also, GC does NOT preclude internment camps, only weapons, methods and conditions that the POW/person of interest/enemy combatant can and cant be treated.

Harpr33t
7 Oct 2009, 11:08am
There is something called the Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention) :usa2:

In order for the Geneva Convention to work. You actually have to follow it yourself and have signed it. Its basically a contract between nations. Since these are non state actors.....

Ms. Blargh
7 Oct 2009, 01:52pm
In order for the Geneva Convention to work. You actually have to follow it yourself and have signed it. Its basically a contract between nations. Since these are non state actors.....

this ^


Guantanamo Bay does not violate the GC because of a loophole, called Unlawful combatants;

The GC covers POWs who belong to a "state" who do unlawful acts a against another state in international war.

Unlawful combatants are POWs who don't belong to a "state" (Terrorists and such) who have done an unlawful act against a state. Then they are in that states jurisdiction for treatment.


You talk about mistreated middle eastern prisoners ... I say erase the middle east from the surface of the planet ...that solves all your problems!

Please tell me your not serious.

PingPong
7 Oct 2009, 02:03pm
Tell your pussy teacher to take the brainwashing elsewhere.

and as for "We do not want this done to our soldiers either", do you really think insurgents give a flying fuck about the Geneva convention at all?

And what we do/did to them is no where near what they do to us; sawing soldiers/civilians fucking heads off with machetes while they scream and writhe on the floor gargling blood in absolute terror for the last moments of their lives with people shouting " ALLAHU AKBAR!" while they videotape it and put it on the internet.

Give me a fucking break.

So fuckin true. Teachers are trying to make the world look wonderfull with rainbows and great. Its idiotic in my opinion. Theyre showing us the good side rather then the cruel truth. I had a really good social teacher who wasnt like other pussy teachers and we had a lot of amazing discussions about these type of issues. What those pricks do to our soldiers is nothing compared to what we do to them.

Drox
7 Oct 2009, 03:53pm
I'll keep it simple to the subject at hand

"Guantanamo Bay - What are its solution?"

Keep it open ;) thats the solution

Jaffa
7 Oct 2009, 04:45pm
So fuckin true. Teachers are trying to make the world look wonderfull with rainbows and great. Its idiotic in my opinion. Theyre showing us the good side rather then the cruel truth. I had a really good social teacher who wasnt like other pussy teachers and we had a lot of amazing discussions about these type of issues. What those pricks do to our soldiers is nothing compared to what we do to them.

Did you read Red's post? I'm pretty sure his point wasn't that what happens in Gunatanamo is worse than what the terrorists do to hostages

trakaill
7 Oct 2009, 09:39pm
Please tell me your not serious.

well they are inconsiderate bastards... but no not serious because though it is a solution...its not conceivable in 2009 for obvious reasons.

Toxin
8 Oct 2009, 05:16am
well they are inconsiderate bastards... but no not serious because though it is a solution...its not conceivable in 2009 for obvious reasons.

You know you are being openly racist against Middle Easterns, right?

trakaill
8 Oct 2009, 08:07am
You know you are being openly racist against Middle Easterns, right?

tbh I wouldnt really give a flying fuck about middle eastern countries if they werent the subject of every war/upcoming wars on the planet as well as every terrorist actions that has happen...so yeah considering the fact that things wont change...
I guess the bottom line is yes I dont like them but Im not racist...
I have islamic friends... in the US..
And Im not even gonna go on about what they do in France...Im sure you know

PingPong
8 Oct 2009, 01:54pm
Did you read Red's post? I'm pretty sure his point wasn't that what happens in Gunatanamo is worse than what the terrorists do to hostages I have read red's post thank you and i think that was his point

Red
8 Oct 2009, 01:58pm
I think you're confused ping.

I meant the opposite.

What the extremists do to us is worse than what we do to them.

Toxin
8 Oct 2009, 04:44pm
I think you're confused ping.

I meant the opposite.

What the extremists do to us is worse than what we do to them.

I still don't see how it's right to misuse their prisoners. Aren't we supposed to lead by example and such?

Alpha2
8 Oct 2009, 09:43pm
orly?
The U.S. is not following the Geneva Convention (i.e. Guantanamo Bay) which is a mistake that has been done. We do not want this done to our soldiers either.
You say to kill the terrorist POWs we take, since they have no legal rights.
Yet when your brother/father/cousin/uncle gets taken POW I know you don't want that happening to them either.

Wrong. The Geneva conventions only apply to wars between two nations, we follow them when engaged with another nation. I'd nuke the douchebags so I wouldn't have to worry about anyone I know dying. It got the Japs to settle down, it would work again...

Italian Jew
8 Oct 2009, 10:07pm
I'd nuke the douchebags so I wouldn't have to worry about anyone I know dying. It got the Japs to settle down, it would work again...

Nuking them? Let's assume that the whole world wouldn't give a shit about us nuking someone. We can't find the locations of our enemies, so we would be nuking large pieces of land under the rule of other nations.

The only reason dropping nukes on Japan worked was because it was the first time it was done and no other country at the time could compete with or chastise the US for doing so. Nuking them would endanger everyone you know because the rest of the world would actually care about the US dropping nukes on enemies it refuses to handle conventionally. You would have many nations dropping alliances, maybe even forming new ones against us.

What would prevent Russia from launching its own attacks against its enemies? Who would we be then to say they shouldn't do the same as us?

Here it is plain and simple; that is the dumbest fucking thing you could do.

PotshotPolka
8 Oct 2009, 10:49pm
Wrong. The Geneva conventions only apply to wars between two nations, we follow them when engaged with another nation. I'd nuke the douchebags so I wouldn't have to worry about anyone I know dying. It got the Japs to settle down, it would work again...

The largest "troop" movement of Taliban/Insurgent forces was around 300 in that assault on a U.S. outpost a while ago. So you would deploy strategic weapons against enemies in close contact and in such small numbers that even high yield conventional bombs would be overkill?

Or do you mean annihilation of an entire religion or ethnicity? I'm sure that'd fly, seeing as how there are roughly 1.5 billion Muslims world wide and somewhere around half a billion to 3/4 of a billion people of supposed Middle-Eastern descent.

This isn't even the Vietnam issue, where an overwhelming percent (90%ish) were pro-Communist or basically insurgent, if that makes sense, seeing as how they were the large majority. The war was lost the moment the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed.

In this case there is no clear majority of people for or against. There is a general principal, being extremist, usually Wahhabi ideology at the center of the movements, it is not precisely regional, and is not only a religious but political movements. Organizations like the Taliban really take root in what is already a more conservative Islamic region, which is run by some form of Islamic court Sharia law, which isn't exactly bad in all cases, but they then begin enforcing extremely strict, radical interpretations. The entire area soon becomes indoctrinated or ostracized, and it occurs in a matter of months, not just years (for an example look at the Swat Valley in Pakistan).

The war is against an idea, not a country or single organization. Since the insurgents work individually in cells, regionally or otherwise, there is no true single hierarchy. It isn't a country either. Conventional warfare only ends when the cessation of combat is recognized by both belligerents, in this case that isn't possible either.

The only true way to destroy an idea is through the complete annihilation of its supporters, otherwise it would always resurface in some way. So yes, unless you are actually such a sick, warped fucker, to think it's actually feasible to commit genocide against 1/4 the world's population is out of the question; try to think in rational concepts of refuting the idea, not destroying it.

So please, go to OTF and get the hell out of here.

Alpha2
9 Oct 2009, 12:37am
I don't know, my nuke plan seems like it would work. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We pay all their bills, plus what have they ever done worth mentioning.

Ms. Blargh
9 Oct 2009, 12:47am
I don't know, my nuke plan seems like it would work. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We pay all their bills, plus what have they ever done worth mentioning.

LOL? I cant tell if your trolling or retarded.

Yes lets piss of the rest of the world. Its not like they outnumber us or anything. We pay all the bills? Do you not realize how much money we owe china and other countries? Right now they are paying OUR bills.

What have they done worth mentioning? Apparently you failed every history class you ever took or slept through them.

Its your kind of thinking that creates terrorists in the first place. Thinking we are better then everyone else and we can do what ever the fuck we want.

Seriously GTFO, And don't propagate.

roach coach
9 Oct 2009, 01:01am
Well what school subject is the assignment for? We could have put the detainees in an empty Montana supermax prison (no one has escaped a supermax to this date so I don't see the reason why, plus we have lots of other terrorists in prisons across America). Also, we have a problem with detaining people this way-- it's against the Constitution, and courts will throw out case after case because of our experience with Admiralty Courts in the 1700s.

And look at this article, this may play a big role in the future, and a lot of Obama supporters not like this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4332499/Afghanistans-Guantanamo-poses-new-prison-problem-for-Barack-Obama.html

edit: btw we have a problem differentiating between terrorists, and prisoners of war. I think that's why we have the term "enemy combatants". There should be an obvious difference between either-- terrorists = Al Qaeda, who we are there to take down-- Taliban are a tricky group, it's a lot of ideology but some of those who fight for them are working for the side paying them the most.

Repeat
9 Oct 2009, 01:41am
It's pretty simple. America rocks. I don't give a fuck what anyone says. I might catch hell for this, but I STRONGLY feel that we are the greatest country on the earth. We might be encountering some hardships right now, but we'll prevail, I'm certain of it. It's a small bump in our road, but it's one we'll pass. It doesn't necessarily matter who's in office (libs or conservatives), everything will eventually work itself out and we'll rock out once again.

Some may say my thoughts are the very reason that we're having troubles in the first place, but they're wrong. The United States of America is strong because of our thoughts, ideas and ideals. And we'll continue to be strong. Our current situation isn't ideal, but it could be worse. Americans will prevail, we will succeed, and we'll grow stronger because of it.

Also, I lost the game.

Ganzta
9 Oct 2009, 02:42am
I don't know, my nuke plan seems like it would work. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We pay all their bills, plus what have they ever done worth mentioning.

Did you not read what IJ and Potshot just posted?


So please, go to OTF and get the hell out of here.

http://www.steamgamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25459
And here's a nice thread for you.

Toxin
9 Oct 2009, 04:51am
It's pretty simple. America rocks. I don't give a fuck what anyone says. I might catch hell for this, but I STRONGLY feel that we are the greatest country on the earth. We might be encountering some hardships right now, but we'll prevail, I'm certain of it. It's a small bump in our road, but it's one we'll pass. It doesn't necessarily matter who's in office (libs or conservatives), everything will eventually work itself out and we'll rock out once again.

Some may say my thoughts are the very reason that we're having troubles in the first place, but they're wrong. The United States of America is strong because of our thoughts, ideas and ideals. And we'll continue to be strong. Our current situation isn't ideal, but it could be worse. Americans will prevail, we will succeed, and we'll grow stronger because of it.

Also, I lost the game.

I'm loving this quote, bitch :)

Anyways, hella good post Potshot. It makes me lol when I listened to the solution that some of my other classmates gave.

PotshotPolka
9 Oct 2009, 08:51am
I don't know, my nuke plan seems like it would work. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We pay all their bills, plus what have they ever done worth mentioning.

And this is why you should be banned from this section.

Italian Jew
9 Oct 2009, 09:24am
I don't know, my nuke plan seems like it would work. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We pay all their bills, plus what have they ever done worth mentioning.

I dunno; it seems the rest of the world gave us everything because America was founded by.............

(DUN DUN DUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!)


people from the REST OF THE WORLD.





Technically, some countries are paying OUR bills. Also, by demonstrating your lack of common sense with your outrageous plan, you have shown you are nothing more than the people we are actually fighting against.

To be honest, you seem to be even lower than them because at least they have some belief system you can understand or relate to in some way. You just want to nuke shit because you think it would be cool and solve our problems. Hell, you probably even thought nuking Russia during the Cold War would have solved everything.

The "fuck everyone else" attitude only goes so far in politics. However it does wonders on your stupidity.

PingPong
9 Oct 2009, 01:47pm
I think you're confused ping.

I meant the opposite.

What the extremists do to us is worse than what we do to them.
Thats what i was trying to say, i think i might have mis worded the sentence

roach coach
9 Oct 2009, 02:43pm
It's pretty simple. America rocks. I don't give a fuck what anyone says. I might catch hell for this, but I STRONGLY feel that we are the greatest country on the earth. We might be encountering some hardships right now, but we'll prevail, I'm certain of it. It's a small bump in our road, but it's one we'll pass. It doesn't necessarily matter who's in office (libs or conservatives), everything will eventually work itself out and we'll rock out once again.

Some may say my thoughts are the very reason that we're having troubles in the first place, but they're wrong. The United States of America is strong because of our thoughts, ideas and ideals. And we'll continue to be strong. Our current situation isn't ideal, but it could be worse. Americans will prevail, we will succeed, and we'll grow stronger because of it.

Also, I lost the game.

Quoted for truth-- we have admirable ideals for our country, it's just been partisan as hell for a long time. Things better pull through, I wanna keep waving my flag around chanting USA :usa2:

phatman76
14 Oct 2009, 03:01am
Well what school subject is the assignment for? We could have put the detainees in an empty Montana supermax prison (no one has escaped a supermax to this date so I don't see the reason why, plus we have lots of other terrorists in prisons across America). Also, we have a problem with detaining people this way-- it's against the Constitution, and courts will throw out case after case because of our experience with Admiralty Courts in the 1700s.

And look at this article, this may play a big role in the future, and a lot of Obama supporters not like this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4332499/Afghanistans-Guantanamo-poses-new-prison-problem-for-Barack-Obama.html

edit: btw we have a problem differentiating between terrorists, and prisoners of war. I think that's why we have the term "enemy combatants". There should be an obvious difference between either-- terrorists = Al Qaeda, who we are there to take down-- Taliban are a tricky group, it's a lot of ideology but some of those who fight for them are working for the side paying them the most.

Once we let a prisoner on U.S. soil, they will have a much stronger case when they petition for more rights. They will have access to lawyers eventually, the pro bono fuck-shit-up kind. Keeping the prisoners in Guantanamo - a U.S. military base that is extranational, allows us to operate in the gray. That is not evil. While many would have you think that guantanamo is a poorly managed pit we throw men into, it is in fact a massively controlled environment. Every move and interrogation procedure is monitored, needs approval directly from people in the pentagon, and is recorded. True, there was little oversight back in 2001-2003 when it immediately opened, but that situation has changed drastically in the last 7 years.

Detaining enemy combatants is not against the Constitution of the United States, especially considering that they are not U.S. citizens. It does fly in the face of a few sections in the Geneva Conventions, but not in the face of Congress. The history of United States jurisprudence and legislation has shown that national practice and law has supreme precedent over any foreign treaties or conventions. Congress and the President have not passed a law saying what goes on in Gitmo is illegal as far as I understand it.

I am certainly a moral absolutist. I do not think we have to compromise our standards or sink to the level of our foe to beat them. We have not fallen to their level at Gitmo, we have not hurt prisoners. We have only threatened and interrogated them strongly enough when it was evident or strongly suspected that they had information that would directly lead to the immediate protection of American lives.

As for Afghanistan, we can't very well bomb them back to the stone age as some fools have suggested. We certainly had the chance though, back in 2001-2003. I felt at the time, and I still feel now, that an overwhelming conventional strike against Iraq and the complete, systematic surgical annihilation of Al Qaeda was a smarter option than a conventional or semi-conventional war. However, that was then, this is now. Now we may have made a mistake, but it is too late to retreat. We have the extraordinary opportunity to build two stable, democratic nations with pro-american leaders. These could be trump cards when we finally have to confront Iran. Looking even further ahead, I see a day where we are no longer completely at the mercy of Saudi oil barons.

LegalSmash
14 Oct 2009, 06:51pm
It's pretty simple. America rocks. I don't give a fuck what anyone says. I might catch hell for this, but I STRONGLY feel that we are the greatest country on the earth. We might be encountering some hardships right now, but we'll prevail, I'm certain of it. It's a small bump in our road, but it's one we'll pass. It doesn't necessarily matter who's in office (libs or conservatives), everything will eventually work itself out and we'll rock out once again.

Some may say my thoughts are the very reason that we're having troubles in the first place, but they're wrong. The United States of America is strong because of our thoughts, ideas and ideals. And we'll continue to be strong. Our current situation isn't ideal, but it could be worse. Americans will prevail, we will succeed, and we'll grow stronger because of it.



Also, I lost the game.

I agree in the spirit of patriotism, but lets be honest with ourselves: our NATION is a great idea, and a great, if not THE greatest place to live on earth, but our population's behavior often leaves a lot to be desired.

I strongly believe that once america drops the schtick of cowtowing to religious groups on either side of the aisle, and taking logical considerations ONLY into political debate, we will truly live up to the hopes and aspirations of our forefathers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha2
I don't know, my nuke plan seems like it would work. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We pay all their bills, plus what have they ever done worth mentioning.

Dude seriously, just gtfo and diaf. I would say that sort of thing playing, or playing devils advocate, but you really have to read the REST of the textbook to get a handle on geopolitics.

LOL? I cant tell if your trolling or retarded.

Yes lets piss of the rest of the world. Its not like they outnumber us or anything. We pay all the bills? Do you not realize how much money we owe china and other countries? Right now they are paying OUR bills.

What have they done worth mentioning? Apparently you failed every history class you ever took or slept through them.

Its your kind of thinking that creates terrorists in the first place. Thinking we are better then everyone else and we can do what ever the fuck we want.

Seriously GTFO, And don't propagate.

You TOTALLY made me laugh and grin here. Cheers, and points for good form. (Golf Clap)



Once we let a prisoner on U.S. soil, they will have a much stronger case when they petition for more rights. They will have access to lawyers eventually, the pro bono fuck-shit-up kind. Keeping the prisoners in Guantanamo - a U.S. military base that is extranational, allows us to operate in the gray. That is not evil. While many would have you think that guantanamo is a poorly managed pit we throw men into, it is in fact a massively controlled environment. Every move and interrogation procedure is monitored, needs approval directly from people in the pentagon, and is recorded. True, there was little oversight back in 2001-2003 when it immediately opened, but that situation has changed drastically in the last 7 years.

Detaining enemy combatants is not against the Constitution of the United States, especially considering that they are not U.S. citizens. It does fly in the face of a few sections in the Geneva Conventions, but not in the face of Congress. The history of United States jurisprudence and legislation has shown that national practice and law has supreme precedent over any foreign treaties or conventions. Congress and the President have not passed a law saying what goes on in Gitmo is illegal as far as I understand it.

I am certainly a moral absolutist. I do not think we have to compromise our standards or sink to the level of our foe to beat them. We have not fallen to their level at Gitmo, we have not hurt prisoners. We have only threatened and interrogated them strongly enough when it was evident or strongly suspected that they had information that would directly lead to the immediate protection of American lives.

As for Afghanistan, we can't very well bomb them back to the stone age as some fools have suggested. We certainly had the chance though, back in 2001-2003. I felt at the time, and I still feel now, that an overwhelming conventional strike against Iraq and the complete, systematic surgical annihilation of Al Qaeda was a smarter option than a conventional or semi-conventional war. However, that was then, this is now. Now we may have made a mistake, but it is too late to retreat. We have the extraordinary opportunity to build two stable, democratic nations with pro-american leaders. These could be trump cards when we finally have to confront Iran. Looking even further ahead, I see a day where we are no longer completely at the mercy of Saudi oil barons.


[B]As the only lawyer here, let me say I don't speak for all of them. Gtmo is not illegal but it IS politically sensitive and a hot button issue for pretty much any person with half a brain (Actors), and human rights groups. Part of the problem with Gtmo is not the "we are in training camp when captured Alqaeda" its the "Huigars", or the "I look like an arab and got detained" people.

Bottom line, we are a nation terrified of false positives. We would rather have a criminal go unpunished than possibly put an innocent man behind bars. This being the case, its not likely that Gtmo, a holding facility, for all intents and purposes, is going to last forever, nor are the people within going to be held indefinitely without legal attacks upon the basis for which they are held. That's not just Zany ACLU lawyers, thats ALL lawyers. The constitution may not cover these enemy combatants, but even the USSR repatriated much of the 7th army that surrendered at Stalingrad in WWII, and the reality is just that... we CAN'T hold them forever.

Two choices result: Try them in US courts under US law, and give them the right to due process and fair trial, or let them go back to their country. Those are the only morally acceptable choices, because the other, uglier option: Execute them, is politically distasteful and will be about as effective as nuking large swathes of desert to kill three guys in a cave.

Lastly, there should be little to no fear in this country of these people geting attorney representation... do you really distrust your fellow American enough to just let these guys go on a Jury?

Playing the devils advocate here:

Gtmo inmates get lawyers, go to trial for acts of terrorism, endangerment of US lives:

At worse, the CIA, FBI, HLS and other agencies are shown to NOT have enough evidence to hold them, embarrassed thoroughly and the person is deported.

At best, if they are convicted, they get sentenced to death, and executed, I doubt anyone would complain with legitimacy of the proceedings... the accused got the same shake we all would... a jury of our peers.

The problem here lies in the former scenario, we have guys in there that ARE dead to rights, red handed guilty of something, then you have people that were brought up on suspicion with very little hard ground to stand the accusation on.... At this point, 8 years after the event that set it all off ended, we STILL have these guys, but without charges in many cases... the last administration did in a way mess up by NOT charging immediately, while the iron was hot and having a public trial.... THAT is the problem, and THAT will ultimately be the embarrasing price to deal with here... but being told "I told you so" is not so bad when you can deal with it easily by throwing these guys to the wolves... a jury.

phatman76
14 Oct 2009, 11:28pm
Bottom line, we are a nation terrified of false positives. We would rather have a criminal go unpunished than possibly put an innocent man behind bars. This being the case, its not likely that Gtmo, a holding facility, for all intents and purposes, is going to last forever, nor are the people within going to be held indefinitely without legal attacks upon the basis for which they are held. That's not just Zany ACLU lawyers, thats ALL lawyers. The constitution may not cover these enemy combatants, but even the USSR repatriated much of the 7th army that surrendered at Stalingrad in WWII, and the reality is just that... we CAN'T hold them forever.

Fact check that shit right there. USSR put those Germans in the gulags, some for over a decade, and in the end only about 5,000 of the 90,000 living German prisoners at the time of surrender ever returned home.

edit: It was the German 6th army also.

As for the worst case scenario, I can picture a lot worse. By bringing the prisoners here, trying them here, and even (if we do execute them) convicting them or acquitting them here, may set up some dangerous precedents. Being tried in a U.S. courts grants the prisoners rights they do not have right now (all those things about self-incrimination, being held without charges, Miranda Rights, etc. ) How will the U.S.A. or intelligence community hold prisoners in the field after that, if they have to fear that the prisoner could be acquitted on U.S. soil on appeal because he wasn't given the rights we here enjoy.

I agree that the Huigars may not all be terrorists, just unlucky, and that we may have very well turned innocent men into lifelong pariahs. However, the solution to this is not to treat everybody at Gitmo like citizens. The very concept of war is tied to the fact that a prisoner of war or enemy combatant waives their liberties and Constitutional guarantees the moment they commit war.

We DO NOT need to treat terrorists like criminals, it is not immoral to treat them for what they are, men who fight against our nation under no flag. To surrender them to international courts would compromise our sovereignty. To surrender them to American courts would grant them rights they do not have. By rights the military may try them. We should go ahead and have the military tribunals judge them, hang the guilty from the yardarm, and let the innocent go free. While they will not be granted rights, we can rest assured that their cases will be thoroughly investigated, argued and judged by impartial judges and lawyers. Put umpteen congressional oversight committees over it, I am certain that our top notch military judicial system will not fail.

But politics (rather the left) dictates that tribunals are wrong. So we have the infinitely more morally ambiguous and embarrassing need to keep the prisoners in limbo.

Toxin
15 Oct 2009, 05:54pm
So basically what we are saying is... that terrorists are basically rebels that fight for no specific nation, rather for an idea, and that they do not deserve to be treated the same way POWs are?

LegalSmash
15 Oct 2009, 06:37pm
Fact check that shit right there. USSR put those Germans in the gulags, some for over a decade, and in the end only about 5,000 of the 90,000 living German prisoners at the time of surrender ever returned home.

edit: It was the German 6th army also.

As for the worst case scenario, I can picture a lot worse. By bringing the prisoners here, trying them here, and even (if we do execute them) convicting them or acquitting them here, may set up some dangerous precedents. Being tried in a U.S. courts grants the prisoners rights they do not have right now (all those things about self-incrimination, being held without charges, Miranda Rights, etc. ) How will the U.S.A. or intelligence community hold prisoners in the field after that, if they have to fear that the prisoner could be acquitted on U.S. soil on appeal because he wasn't given the rights we here enjoy.
miranda only applies to situations where miranda should have applied, the same law that governs the cases now would govern the cases in court... its called jury instructions and applicable law in a case. Nothing would change.

As for Self incrimination, understand that standing in court and NOT saying something in a situation like this is EVERY BIT AS DAMAGING as a 747 on a building when it comes to these guys' credibility, especially in the eyes of a bunch of pissed off jurors.

As for "held without charges", we SHOULD charge them, and be done with it. I'm FOR gtmo and I'm against limbo holding with no charges. , as for your "fact check" comment... I know they were held in gulags for a decade... Gmto has been open and holding people for the better part of 8 years... really, is there such a difference in timing? Granted, we haven't offed 85% of them... but to the unassuming eye, there's little difference... and its that eye that makes public opinion.



I agree that the Huigars may not all be terrorists, just unlucky, and that we may have very well turned innocent men into lifelong pariahs. However, the solution to this is not to treat everybody at Gitmo like citizens. The very concept of war is tied to the fact that a prisoner of war or enemy combatant waives their liberties and Constitutional guarantees the moment they commit war.

We DO NOT need to treat terrorists like criminals, it is not immoral to treat them for what they are, men who fight against our nation under no flag. To surrender them to international courts would compromise our sovereignty. To surrender them to American courts would grant them rights they do not have. By rights the military may try them. We should go ahead and have the military tribunals judge them, hang the guilty from the yardarm, and let the innocent go free. While they will not be granted rights, we can rest assured that their cases will be thoroughly investigated, argued and judged by impartial judges and lawyers. Put umpteen congressional oversight committees over it, I am certain that our top notch military judicial system will not fail.

We are not treating them like criminals, or even the accused in a military court... we are treating them like mothballed old winter clothing from the 1970s.... thats what people are mad at.. I'm up for shooting them, or trying them, or even dropping them into the ocean... but action is better for inaction.

Also, a military accused person has similar rights to a civilian accused, the procedures are different as is the law applied... but its pretty similar, trying them on either side achieves the same effect... the difference is where the jury comes from


But politics (rather the left) dictates that tribunals are wrong. So we have the infinitely more morally ambiguous and embarrassing need to keep the prisoners in limbo.



or perhaps we can finally put politics aside and figure out what to do with this expensive and unsightly situation

comments in bold

Bullet Wound
16 Oct 2009, 06:22am
So basically what we are saying is... that terrorists are basically rebels that fight for no specific nation, rather for an idea, and that they do not deserve to be treated the same way POWs are?

Well, since they aren't an official part of any country's army, they can't be considered acting on behalf of any country, therefore cannot be considered declaring an act of war, therefore are not POWs.

I also wouldn't really consider them rebels, at least, from our perspectives they are better classified as Terrorist rather than rebels.

So since their are affiliated with no country, and are Terrorist, no they do not deserve to be treated as POWs, they don't treat our soldiers that way (in fact many of them kill anyone just for being white) so why should they be treated that way.

phatman76
16 Oct 2009, 06:17pm
As for "held without charges", we SHOULD charge them, and be done with it. I'm FOR gtmo and I'm against limbo holding with no charges. , as for your "fact check" comment... I know they were held in gulags for a decade... Gmto has been open and holding people for the better part of 8 years... really, is there such a difference in timing? Granted, we haven't offed 85% of them... but to the unassuming eye, there's little difference... and its that eye that makes public opinion.

I can see we have common ground here. We both want to charge those in Gitmo. But it shouldn't happen in regular courts, these aren't regular criminals. We have a system of military justice set up to handle captured enemy combatants. Obama refuses to do so.

To me, trying terrorists or terror suspects in a federal court is wrong. I would rather the combatants continue to languish in Gitmo than be brought into a standard Federal Court. If Obama wants to set up a special court with special judges (basically an exact model the military tribunals had) I could be okay with it. This special court would prevent creating a precedent where enemy terrorists can expect a regular criminal trial. He will not however. He will not pursue justice if it means burning his political capital with the far left (who don't think Gitmo detainees should be treated like enemy combatants at all, but like regular criminals with criminal rights).

As per the gulags, no reasonable man would ever compare Gitmo to the death pits of Siberia. Gulags were built to kill people while extracting a minimum amount of labor, Gitmo was designed to be a controlled environment for terror suspects where they could also be interrogated. I have never heard the most die hard liberal ever compare Gitmo to the Gulags.

LegalSmash
17 Oct 2009, 10:16pm
I can see we have common ground here. We both want to charge those in Gitmo. But it shouldn't happen in regular courts, these aren't regular criminals. We have a system of military justice set up to handle captured enemy combatants. Obama refuses to do so.
not to be rude, but I believe you misunderstand the military court's role. The military court is not tasked with dealing with captured enemy combatants, its tasked with meting out penalties under the UCMJ to our own soldiers. It has no application on non-US servicemen.

To me, trying terrorists or terror suspects in a federal court is wrong. I would rather the combatants continue to languish in Gitmo than be brought into a standard Federal Court.

The constitution, the federal law in general, the rules of civil and criminal procedure ALL state that the place for a non-US citizen to seek redress or be tried before under US law is in a federal court. This is basic civil and criminal procedure, as well as constitutional law. We have a LOT of dumbasses in this country who say they want their 'Constitutional rights' but have never bothered to read the remainder of the document. Technically, the supreme court is the place where a foreign citizen should seek redress under original intent, but with the legislative control of the scope of article 3 federal courts, the district and circuit courts DO technically have jurisdiction....

Not to sound cliche, but this entire confusion is a result of the past administration not being headed by a lawyer, or putting an unassuming, poorly spoken guy in the AG spot.

If Obama wants to set up a special court with special judges (basically an exact model the military tribunals had) I could be okay with it.

President cannot set up courts... its a legislative power to set up administrative courts, create agencies, and give the currently existing article 3 courts (supreme court and federal courts) power... the same way it was unconstitutional for clinton to line item veto, or for the US to hold US citizens as enemy combatants without appearance before an impartial judge (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), iin which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.

The legal reality is, that the longer we wait to deal with this eyesore of a problem, the more damaging it will be to us

This special court would prevent creating a precedent where enemy terrorists can expect a regular criminal trial. He will not however. He will not pursue justice if it means burning his political capital with the far left (who don't think Gitmo detainees should be treated like enemy combatants at all, but like regular criminals with criminal rights).

Special courts can't pre


As per the gulags, no reasonable man would ever compare Gitmo to the death pits of Siberia.

Yes they would, holding someone without charge against law is no different than stuffing them in a death pit according to most libertarians, liberals, and everyone who has been held without bail, release, or charge... In this country, you release if you are not going to charge. If you are going to make a separate rule for enemy noncombatants, etc. then go out and make the rule... don't hide behind the mantra of "home of the free, land of the brave ****" because it tarnishes our reputation both as a nation and as a people. The reality is that we've a penchant for doing this in our country, during the 20's we strung up several purported "anarchists", in the second world war, we collected up all of the asians, regardless of descent, and put them in prison camps in the west. In the late 19th and early 20th century, we had the chinese exclusion act that lasted for 70 years before it was repealed.

The bottom line is that we are a nation that gets a knee jerk reaction to an event, and we go batshit bananas dealing with the consequences of our actions when reeling from surprise, dismay, etc.

The japanese internment is just ONE example.



, considering some of the activities that have gone on due to the "indiscretion" of our soldiers, its not an easy argument to win, in reality.


Gitmo was designed to be a controlled environment for terror suspects where they could also be interrogated.


I have never heard the most die hard liberal ever compare Gitmo to the Gulags.

I'm not a die hard liberal, I'm a lawyer. I could care less for political capital of either side, I WILL however, state where the actions of the past and current administration are not in line with applicable law. In the case of Gitmo, its not.


If our administration, past or present had ANY balls whatsoever, , they would have tried John walker lindh, a US Born Citizen, for treason, endangering the lives of servicemen, carrying arms against his sovereign nation, publicly tried him, had HIM hung, and then worried about corralling up Alqaeda and taliban fighters. Instead Johnny Walker gets a 20 year bid, a book deal, and we hold noncitizens without trial under the guise of "security'. In my opinion either try them, kill them, or boot their asses to another country... its bad publicity and bad precedent to keep them.


Phatman, I love my country enough to know when to criticize it... here is the time to. If you truly, TRULY care for the underlying principles this nation is founded on, you would agree that the administration du jour, whomever it is, REALLY needs to shit or get off the pot on this issue.




my commentary is in bold.

PotshotPolka
17 Oct 2009, 10:39pm
my commentary is in bold.

To basically cut down my half page response down to a sentence: They're pedaling for time until the Healthcare Bill is passed.

LegalSmash
18 Oct 2009, 06:49am
To basically cut down my half page response down to a sentence: They're pedaling for time until the Healthcare Bill is passed.

Basically.

ReGIONALS
21 Oct 2009, 05:26pm
No. The problem is the mistreatment of prisoners of war we capture in the Middle Easter, and the central point is Guantanamo Bay.

ROFL

LegalSmash
21 Oct 2009, 05:42pm
ROFL

seriously?

phatman76
22 Oct 2009, 12:26am
Well shit Legal, you have convinced me that we need to try the Gitmo detainees as soon as possible. I realize the president cannot create special courts, but could Congress? Even if any Federal Court has precedent in this case, I feel that few Federal Judges are experts on torture. Which Court would the detainees go to if they haven't committed a crime in the United States? Also, what sort of precedence would international law have? Could a defending attorney bring up the Geneva Conventions? I feel like these problems need to be dealt with, or at least considered, beforehand.

LegalSmash
22 Oct 2009, 07:53pm
Well shit Legal, you have convinced me that we need to try the Gitmo detainees as soon as possible. I realize the president cannot create special courts, but could Congress? Even if any Federal Court has precedent in this case, I feel that few Federal Judges are experts on torture. Which Court would the detainees go to if they haven't committed a crime in the United States? Also, what sort of precedence would international law have? Could a defending attorney bring up the Geneva Conventions? I feel like these problems need to be dealt with, or at least considered, beforehand.

To answer your questions in order: Yes, congress could.

re judges who are experts in torture, the thing is, judges are NOT supposed to be experts in the subject of torture, that would spoil the process... judge is supposed to have knowledge of the factual issue, only applicable law, in this case, the issues would be something more like "whether the facts, info, statistics, etc. the dept. of homeland security had on X detainee allow for indictment. If yes, then go to trial, if not, either send them to random hell country A or B or C.

International law would have NO control, because its a US court, Geneva is only brought up where defendant is an enemy soldier/pow... which none are, because they fight for no 'country' and therefore do not fall within its purview as to trying them.

Remember, a judge has an awesome word he can use called "irrelevant" and that ban-hammers a LOT of attorney ideas to the 6th layer of hell.

roach coach
23 Oct 2009, 08:53pm
To answer your questions in order: Yes, congress could.

re judges who are experts in torture, the thing is, judges are NOT supposed to be experts in the subject of torture, that would spoil the process... judge is supposed to have knowledge of the factual issue, only applicable law, in this case, the issues would be something more like "whether the facts, info, statistics, etc. the dept. of homeland security had on X detainee allow for indictment. If yes, then go to trial, if not, either send them to random hell country A or B or C.

International law would have NO control, because its a US court, Geneva is only brought up where defendant is an enemy soldier/pow... which none are, because they fight for no 'country' and therefore do not fall within its purview as to trying them.

Remember, a judge has an awesome word he can use called "irrelevant" and that ban-hammers a LOT of attorney ideas to the 6th layer of hell.

What about those who were fighting for the Taliban government?

Toxin
23 Oct 2009, 09:41pm
What about those who were fighting for the Taliban government?

Fighting for a country doesn't mean you are a soldier of that country. Example: You can pick up a gun and shoot foreign intruders to defend the United States without being a part in the Armed Forces.

LegalSmash
24 Oct 2009, 03:24pm
What about those who were fighting for the Taliban government?

the Taliban is not a national government.

Toxin
24 Oct 2009, 05:24pm
the Taliban is not a national government.

I don't know why I said that. I wasn't thinking when I wrote my other post. Didn't read it correctly. Thanks for clearing it up.

Simmons1114
16 Nov 2009, 05:38pm
I think the best solution is to deport all of em back to their own countrys.
Im sure lots of them are innocent anyways, and what american lives are they indangering? the americans that come to their country to kill them?

Or give them fair trials and sentence them due to their crimes not treat them all as if they have commited the same crime.

Also the only reason these ppls current mindset exist is becuse they think americans are assholes.

So arnt all we doing is making ourselfs more hated?

PotshotPolka
16 Nov 2009, 06:15pm
I think the best solution is to deport all of em back to their own countrys.
Im sure lots of them are innocent anyways, and what american lives are they indangering? the americans that come to their country to kill them?

Or give them fair trials and sentence them due to their crimes not treat them all as if they have commited the same crime.

Also the only reason these ppls current mindset exist is becuse they think americans are assholes.

So arnt all we doing is making ourselfs more hated?

You're telling me you fucking read all seven of these pages, or at least the more constructive posts, and STILL came to this conclusion?

Simmons1114
19 Nov 2009, 10:02am
You're telling me you fucking read all seven of these pages, or at least the more constructive posts, and STILL came to this conclusion?

yes

PotshotPolka
19 Nov 2009, 11:08am
yes

Well congrats, it'll get you an A in highschool government courses, but you'd be backhanded at the college level.

LegalSmash
19 Nov 2009, 05:38pm
Well congrats, it'll get you an A in highschool government courses, but you'd be backhanded at the college level.

Or not. I'm satisfied to know that he's just not grasping the point.

Simmons1114
20 Nov 2009, 08:54pm
what point?

All i see is we are keeping a large number of ppl captive, in a way that violates many if not all human rights conventions.

And they need to be released or moved.

LegalSmash
20 Nov 2009, 10:40pm
what point?

All i see is we are keeping a large number of ppl captive, in a way that violates many if not all human rights conventions.

And they need to be released or moved.

Wait for it...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Okay where do I start:

"Human Right Conventions" apply when they are applicable: to prisoners of war in declared and recognized conflicts, prisoners of war in declared wars, and citizens and persons of one nation who are held by the government of another nation on charges stemming from offenses against the state holding them. Also it applies to the mistreatment and proper treatment of these persons...

Here's the problem and where your axles fall off your wagon: These guys fall into two groups: "individuals of interest", which were collected up by blackwater and the CIA at random based on the wonderful principle of "Rat your neighbor out the the Americans because he pissed you off" and "because we thought you looked like the other 300,000 extremist douches with the beard and the dress"; these people, by all means, should be either tried or released. HOWEVER the other group, "enemy combatants" which no country will claim, and who only have a loyalty to Al-Qaeda, do not need to be released or taken care of.

Technically, if not for the hope that someone had that the illiterate opium poppy and lamb farmer might give up his homies, they could have just shot him upon capture and no one would have really said much.

These guys however, are generally treated REALLY well. They are treated better than the average united states federal prisoner, and a LOT better than a state prisoner. The fact that we were nice enough to let them pray, get their blankets, eat halaal, and sing "blow me up allah, blow me up" to the tune of Kumbaya; and the last Americans caught out of the US were strung up tells me that pretty much aside from US and England, no one gives a flying fuck about "human rights" as it applies to their own actions.

Get off your high horse... its wheels fell off.

Simmons1114
21 Nov 2009, 12:21pm
So we are using a technicality to torture ppl who might be innocent?

And thats ok? what becuse some idiot americans went to the middle east to hike or something were murdered?

Attributing that crime to other ppl just becuse they are from the same race or area. Isnt that called racism?

I used lots of question marks

Also i need my high horse how else am i gonna get around?

Dracula
21 Nov 2009, 12:31pm
So we are using a technicality to torture ppl who might be innocent?

And thats ok? what becuse some idiot americans went to the middle east to hike or something were murdered?

Attributing that crime to other ppl just becuse they are from the same race or area. Isnt that called racism?

I used lots of question marks

Also i need my high horse how else am i gonna get around?

It has nothing to do with their race at all, also a few is quite an understatement seems to me like youve got no idea what your talking about.

Simmons1114
21 Nov 2009, 01:20pm
There is a difference between not understanding and not agreeing.

Its not that i dont understand.

TORTURE IS WRONG

Torture is inaccurate unnecessary and wrong, whats being done to those ppl can be called torture im sure.

Their not american citizens and their not official P O Ws is a lame excuse to condone torture

PotshotPolka
21 Nov 2009, 01:32pm
There is a difference between not understanding and not agreeing.

Its not that i dont understand.

TORTURE IS WRONG

Torture is inaccurate unnecessary and wrong, whats being done to those ppl can be called torture im sure.

Their not american citizens and their not official P O Ws is a lame excuse to condone torture

No, you clearly don't understand, especially because after sinking your first ship you left to another, more ambigious one.The Bush Admin called up psychologists, lawyers, and many other specialists to define the act of torture, and how it differed from an intensive interrogation. Interrogation are MADE to coherce the target into divulging information, by making him uncomfortable, anxious, fatigued, and stressed. For matter, its the same things cops in the States do when they throw you into holding until your lawyer shows up to take over. The only question is how the intensity of the interrogation can go before it reaches O LORDY, WE OUGHTA BREAK OUT THE ELECTRIC BATTERY AND MAKE HIM SQUEAL.Also, records show that waterboarding was authorized only twice I believe, with the order coming from the highest levels, and it was used on a KNOWN terrorist plotters to prevent a strike.

Simmons1114
21 Nov 2009, 01:37pm
No, you clearly don't understand, especially because after sinking your first ship you left to another, more ambigious one.The Bush Admin called up psychologists, lawyers, and many other specialists to define the act of torture, and how it differed from an intensive interrogation. Interrogation are MADE to coherce the target into divulging information, by making him uncomfortable, anxious, fatigued, and stressed. For matter, its the same things cops in the States do when they throw you into holding until your lawyer shows up to take over. The only question is how the intensity of the interrogation can go before it reaches O LORDY, WE OUGHTA BREAK OUT THE ELECTRIC BATTERY AND MAKE HIM SQUEAL.Also, records show that waterboarding was authorized only twice I believe, with the order coming from the highest levels, and it was used on a KNOWN terrorist plotters to prevent a strike.

i guess your right

LegalSmash
21 Nov 2009, 03:26pm
So we are using a technicality to torture ppl who might be innocent?

And thats ok? what becuse some idiot americans went to the middle east to hike or something were murdered?

Attributing that crime to other ppl just becuse they are from the same race or area. Isnt that called racism?

I used lots of question marks

Also i need my high horse how else am i gonna get around?

Seriously... you are retarded, do you just come in here after huffing some terpentine? There are no technicalities there. The people are not covered by the convention... if you consider that to be a technicality you are a bigger retard than I'd thought.

Feed your fucking horse to your friends the detainees... just make sure its halaal.


There is a difference between not understanding and not agreeing.

Its not that i dont understand.

TORTURE IS WRONG

Torture is inaccurate unnecessary and wrong, whats being done to those ppl can be called torture im sure.

Their not american citizens and their not official P O Ws is a lame excuse to condone torture

Torture is not wrong... its sexy... check out BDSM.



No, you clearly don't understand, especially because after sinking your first ship you left to another, more ambigious one.The Bush Admin called up psychologists, lawyers, and many other specialists to define the act of torture, and how it differed from an intensive interrogation. Interrogation are MADE to coherce the target into divulging information, by making him uncomfortable, anxious, fatigued, and stressed. For matter, its the same things cops in the States do when they throw you into holding until your lawyer shows up to take over. The only question is how the intensity of the interrogation can go before it reaches O LORDY, WE OUGHTA BREAK OUT THE ELECTRIC BATTERY AND MAKE HIM SQUEAL.Also, records show that waterboarding was authorized only twice I believe, with the order coming from the highest levels, and it was used on a KNOWN terrorist plotters to prevent a strike.

I lolled. Part of the problem though, is that bush chose to have 11,200 people define the torture.


i guess your right
Yes. Just defer to him from now on.

PotshotPolka
21 Nov 2009, 05:18pm
Yes. Just defer to him from now on.

I don't want him to shut up, I want him to think constructively, not just flipping a coin and then sponging in everything from only one side.