• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames American flag [W:508,759]

JUG said:
He was never convicted of such crimes. How do you know he's a murdering terrorist?
Click to expand...


Indeed.

Cut him lose like all of the other Gitmo detainees that were never convicted of a Crime so he can show us how to honor the American flag.

( He'll show us by heading straight back to the battlefield and or terrorist activities that cost American soldiers their lives )

Bless his patriotism.
 
JUG said:
I recently came across this article of Samir Naji's 13 year incarceration at Gitmo. Obviously, this is a pretty convienent time for him to tell the tales of his cruel and unusual punishment. Which made me think; isn't that exactly what's being clamed here? Cruel and unusual punishment on United States territory. I've heard from my professor that an obvious consequence of closing Gitmo would be that if we brought these inmates back to the United States we would have to give them due-process. Well...I may be mistaken, but last time I checked, Guantanamo Bay is United states territory. I found it interesting how this man's story was written. Check it out if you wish to.

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames U.S. flag - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Gitmo is a US Naval Base located on 45 acres of leased land in Cuba. It is not US territory.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Gitmo is a US Naval Base located on 45 acres of leased land in Cuba. It is not US territory.
Click to expand...
It is U.S. territory. Otherwise, they wouldn't have juristiction there. You can say any Embassy or Naval base is "leased", but it's U.S. territory.
 
JUG said:
I recently came across this article of Samir Naji's 13 year incarceration at Gitmo. Obviously, this is a pretty convienent time for him to tell the tales of his cruel and unusual punishment. Which made me think; isn't that exactly what's being clamed here? Cruel and unusual punishment on United States territory. I've heard from my professor that an obvious consequence of closing Gitmo would be that if we brought these inmates back to the United States we would have to give them due-process. Well...I may be mistaken, but last time I checked, Guantanamo Bay is United states territory. I found it interesting how this man's story was written. Check it out if you wish to.

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames U.S. flag - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Guantanamo is not US territory. Moreover, we are under no obligation to provide criminal justice due process to our enemies in war.
 
JUG said:
It is U.S. territory. Otherwise, they wouldn't have juristiction there. You can say any Embassy or Naval base is "leased", but it's U.S. territory.
Click to expand...

No. It was selected as a site for detainees specifically because it is beyond US Constitutional protections.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. It was selected as a site for detainees specifically because it is beyond US Constitutional protections.
Click to expand...

Maybe they thought it was.
Supreme court majority opinion disagree with you.
They said it is .
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/06-1195/

The dissenting minority opinion aligns with yours, Scalias makes the best argument supporting your side I think.

They had to let 56 % of the brown people ( that had asked for habeus corpus ) go, but after Obama changed the law again to tighten some loopholes , "Military Commision Act 2009 " to keep the Judges out of the torture chamber, the brown people appelant release rate dropped back down to 8%.

Rock and a hard place, sack full of terrorists mixed with falsely accused cab drivers, some minors, you can either open the sack or not, absent a common law procedure.

There was a mini guantonoma bay in Canada, much smaller scale, 7 or eight people disappeared into it without charge , same idea.
Not too far from Toronto. Wasnt as big on the news, wouldn't surprise me that most Canadians don't even know about it.
 
Last edited:
Fred said:
Maybe they thought it was.
Supreme court majority opinion disagree with you.
They said it is .
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/06-1195/

The dissenting minority opinion aligns with yours, Scalias makes the best argument supporting your side I think.

They had to let 56 % of the brown people ( that had asked for habeus corpus ) go, but after Obama changed the law again to tighten some loopholes , "Military Commision Act 2009 " to keep the Judges out of the torture chamber, the brown people appelant release rate dropped back down to 8%.

Rock and a hard place, sack full of terrorists mixed with falsely accused cab drivers, some minors, you can either open the sack or not, absent a common law procedure.

There was a mini guantonoma bay in Canada, much smaller scale, 7 or eight people disappeared into it without charge , same idea.
Not too far from Toronto. Wasnt as big on the news, wouldn't surprise me that most Canadians don't even know about it.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks.
 
whysoserious said:
What's ignorant?

1) Reading that a person was injected with an unknown substance; kept in a small, cold cell without any clothing to keep warm; deprived of sleep; denied due process; slapped; force fed; interrogated for hours; subjected to odd pornography; forcibly shaved; stepped on; hit; pushed to the point of hypothermia; etc and then saying "pornography is torture now?"
2) Reading the above and wondering if that person is sane?

You're right, I'm out of line. Make it a great one. It will be a pleasure never having to talk to you again.
Click to expand...

I did think the word 'psychopath' was a bit extreme.

But after thinking about it a bit...
 
JUG said:
Which places it as downright unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I think the legal issue is too complicated to assert that it's "downright" unconstitutional, if we use the court to describe it as one or the other . ( What else can we use , though)

We can consider it ( or some act ) unethical, and cast around for court rulings to give form and authority to our indignation .

But that aside, it was constitutional, (e.g Supreme court siding with the U.S government in the case of German prisoners held by American Military in China , Johnson v. Eisentrager, and constitutional in the lower courts rulings that supported cases derived under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 , which was passed to answer constitution violation problems after the government lost in Rasul v. Bush ,
then unconstitutional, in the latest case I cited Boumediene v. Bush
But, I guess, Obamas Military Commissions Act of 2009 , so far , anyway answered the supreme courts problems we're back to constitutional.

So, no downrights
Shades of grey
 
JUG said:
I recently came across this article of Samir Naji's 13 year incarceration at Gitmo. Obviously, this is a pretty convienent time for him to tell the tales of his cruel and unusual punishment. Which made me think; isn't that exactly what's being clamed here? Cruel and unusual punishment on United States territory. I've heard from my professor that an obvious consequence of closing Gitmo would be that if we brought these inmates back to the United States we would have to give them due-process. Well...I may be mistaken, but last time I checked, Guantanamo Bay is United states territory. I found it interesting how this man's story was written. Check it out if you wish to.

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames U.S. flag - CNN.com
Click to expand...

You're believing Gitmo inmates?
 
Why do so many people accept that it's ok for a man to be held for 13 years with no charges pressed, no evidence of his guilt shown, just because he's a foreigner? If he's a terrorist, charge him and execute him, if he's not, then let him go. 13 years is just ****ing ridiculous.
 
tres borrachos said:
Did you just call me a psychopath?
Click to expand...

You're not a psychopath, that comment was definitely out of line. But I am kinda curious as to what you were thinking when you made that post. The OP outlines a dozen gruesome and inhumane torture tactics, pornography only being one of them. Not to mention that it wasn't just simple pornography, it was weird and designed to **** with the brain.
 
Declan said:
Yes there is nothing more pathetic than society evolving toward civility. Thanks for reaffirming my belief that libertarians have no interest in having a functioning society.
Click to expand...

OH FFS. Everything has to devolve into whining about goddamn libertarians. "Wah, someone on the internet that identifies as a libertarian said something I don't like, therefore libertarians don't want a functioning society."

1). Not everyone on this site that has their lean set to libertarian is actually a libertarian. Some only lean that direction on some issues, hence why it's called "lean", and many just have it set there to troll. Several people on this site have admitted to that. I would give you names but that would count as a "call-out" and would thus be against the rules.

2). The typical, mainstream libertarian position is actually to close gitmo. So get over yourself.
 
TeleKat said:
You're not a psychopath, that comment was definitely out of line. But I am kinda curious as to what you were thinking when you made that post. The OP outlines a dozen gruesome and inhumane torture tactics, pornography only being one of them. Not to mention that it wasn't just simple pornography, it was weird and designed to **** with the brain.
Click to expand...

Let me help you out.

Showing someone pornography isn't torture in my book. Pouring gasoline down someone's throat and setting her ablaze is torture. Cutting off someone's ears and legs before killing them is torture. Taking a knife and slowly cutting someone to bits is torture.

To you pornography is torture.

My post was clear. And very brief.
 
TeleKat said:
OH FFS. Everything has to devolve into whining about goddamn libertarians. "Wah, someone on the internet that identifies as a libertarian said something I don't like, therefore libertarians don't want a functioning society."

1). Not everyone on this site that has their lean set to libertarian is actually a libertarian. Some only lean that direction on some issues, hence why it's called "lean", and many just have it set there to troll. Several people on this site have admitted to that. I would give you names but that would count as a "call-out" and would thus be against the rules.

2). The typical, mainstream libertarian position is actually to close gitmo. So get over yourself.
Click to expand...

1) Libertarians do not offer any cohesive vision of a functioning society. Little House on the Prairie and The Waltons were TV shows. Life was not bliss. and

2) Of course they do because they want everything closed, disassembled, unfunded--See #1 above.
 
OrphanSlug said:
What we did to "protect this nation" does shame everything we stand for. We are no longer a nation based on the principles of freedoms and rule of law. But it should surprise no one how we got to this point. But to the article, there is no reasonable argument to justify many of the things we do out of national security. A security that we now need simply because of how we view our role as the world's police department.
Click to expand...

I agree with your last sentence in a general sense, but disagree that it applies in this case.

If we were capturing people who are perpetrating crimes of humanity against non-Americans and holding them at Gitmo (for instance, Palestinians), that would be a very true statement. But the ones we captured were accused of or thought to have committed crimes against Americans. So it's policing crimes against its own citizens and also, on many occasions (like Khalid Sheik Mohammed), crimes committed on our shores.
 
Amadeus said:
America: "Hey, at least we don't chop off heads..."

*wipes a patriotic tear from his eye*
Click to expand...

Nor do we throw Gay people off a bridge and then stone them to death, and with nice big chunks of Rocks. Like ISIS did yesterday making a big deal all about Executing a Gay Man and making sure word got round to the US.

But then I guess you will tell us we should empathize and respect our enemy for that.....huh? That we need to feel their pain and try to understand them.
 
tres borrachos said:
I agree with your last sentence in a general sense, but disagree that it applies in this case.

If we were capturing people who are perpetrating crimes of humanity against non-Americans and holding them at Gitmo (for instance, Palestinians), that would be a very true statement. But the ones we captured were accused of or thought to have committed crimes against Americans. So it's policing crimes against its own citizens and also, on many occasions (like Khalid Sheik Mohammed), crimes committed on our shores.
Click to expand...

That would make sense (still would not be right, but perhaps sense) if we did something with all this, but largely we just held them somewhere without process or trial. 5, 10, even more years depending upon the subject in question. The jury is still out on the matter of all the torture doing something meaningful for intelligence operations. Those we still hold, unsure of their disposition. Those released, probably right back to the battlefield.

So at the end of the day we found a mechanism to ignore our own legal and moral principles to questionalbe results but with one hell of a black-eye on our nation internationally speaking. I have to ask, anyone really feel more safe today for this exchange? Anyone make a good argument that the world is more stable or safe with this exchange? I would have a good counter argument for both.

I do not think we can ever question again why we are hated by a good third of the planet and distrusted by the majority of the planet (including those we call an ally.) Our own citizens even distrust our own government with these abilities to spy on and go after us as well. This is the real consequence of being the world's police department in the manner we have gone about it.

Where the hell are our ethics? Our principles as a nation given the results we see today from all this?
 
MMC said:
Nor do we throw Gay people off a bridge and then stone them to death, and with nice big chunks of Rocks. Like ISIS did yesterday making a big deal all about Executing a Gay Man and making sure word got round to the US.
Click to expand...

No, the US just does business with those who do these things (e.g. Saudis). Certainly America looks the other way with regard to stonings and beheadings when it suits them.

But then I guess you will tell us we should empathize and respect our enemy for that.....huh? That we need to feel their pain and try to understand them.
Click to expand...

Empathize and respect are two completely different things. You use the terms as if they are related. Maybe you just don't understand empathy.
 
MMC said:
Nor do we throw Gay people off a bridge and then stone them to death, and with nice big chunks of Rocks. Like ISIS did yesterday making a big deal all about Executing a Gay Man and making sure word got round to the US.

But then I guess you will tell us we should empathize and respect our enemy for that.....huh? That we need to feel their pain and try to understand them.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should have 'respect' for our enemy but I think we are just better than that. Like we should set an example not lay down in the gutter. Would you want someone a captured Amercian to get that same treatment?
 
OrphanSlug said:
That would make sense (still would not be right, but perhaps sense) if we did something with all this, but largely we just held them somewhere without process or trial. 5, 10, even more years depending upon the subject in question. The jury is still out on the matter of all the torture doing something meaningful for intelligence operations. Those we still hold, unsure of their disposition. Those released, probably right back to the battlefield.

So at the end of the day we found a mechanism to ignore our own legal and moral principles to questionalbe results but with one hell of a black-eye on our nation internationally speaking. I have to ask, anyone really feel more safe today for this exchange? Anyone make a good argument that the world is more stable or safe with this exchange? I would have a good counter argument for both.

I do not think we can ever question again why we are hated by a good third of the planet and distrusted by the majority of the planet (including those we call an ally.) Our own citizens even distrust our own government with these abilities to spy on and go after us as well. This is the real consequence of being the world's police department in the manner we have gone about it.

Where the hell are our ethics? Our principles as a nation given the results we see today from all this?
Click to expand...

I don't really care what the majority of the planet thinks of us, to be honest. This isn't something that just happened in the last decade. Not sure why anyone is surprised to think we aren't the most popular people on the planet.

I don't agree with what they did. But I also don't disagree with what they did. I agree with Brennan that isn't unknowable if it worked or not, but I do wonder in my mind just how much Mohammed would have given up for a cookie and a soft warm bed. But again, that would be like speculating how different my life would have been if I'd taken a left turn on November 18, 1979 instead a right. You can't answer it.

So now that this is all out in the open (even though everyone knew years ago, which is why the EITs were stopped), what does the report suggest be done about it?
 
Amadeus said:
No, the US just does business with those who do these things (e.g. Saudis). Certainly America looks the other way with regard to stonings and beheadings when it suits them.



Empathize and respect are two completely different things. You use the terms as if they are related. Maybe you just don't understand empathy.
Click to expand...



Which major countries do not use the Saudis for Business and in not doing so, use regimes or Governments that are worse than the Saud? Then we want all those who do business with the Saud. Major countries and major players. Did you want to harp on your country's Business with the Saud?

No I understand it. Its you that can't figure out the part about walking in their shoes. I used the terms Hillary stated for the left and their alleged and hyped Smart Power. But then I don't have any trouble with you tearing apart Hillary and the lefts new Term for many things. While trying to explain empathizing with an enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom