• 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!

Obama in "final stages" of closing Gitmo plan

I would add normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba as a third feather in the cap.

Yes, I'm calling his Cuban policy (less Guantanamo) and his Iran policy his FP successes.
 
We are a nation of laws. All you are doing is trying to find excuses to not apply the law to X people. Therefore you are for subverting the law.

Also, a POW is to be repatriated when the war is over and cannot be prosecuted for their soldierly acts. But we are in an indefinite undeclared war so... no war, no POW's.

Law is law.

Remember who you are trying to reason with. They seem to believe that laws and justice only apply to U.S. citizens. WSUwarrior seem to think we should just kill them all and let God sort them out. I glad I hate religion.
 
Remember who you are trying to reason with. They seem to believe that laws and justice only apply to U.S. citizens. WSUwarrior seem to think we should just kill them all and let God sort them out. I glad I hate religion.

I had a guy go off on me because I was threatening his second amendment rights by suggesting extended background checks and then, in a different thread, that same guy proposed burning every quran and locking up every single muslim in an internment camp until we could be sure they were "safe."

Some people.
 
I rememebr watching Wolf Hall and thinking how horrible it must have been in those days. The King could just throw you into the Tower of London for the rest of your life and that was that.

This is pretty much happening in Guantanomo. At least give these people a trial .
 
Rules of war to a non-conventional combatant.

I love the lefts "standards".

Let em rot.

The overwhelming majority of them have not been charged! Do you understand this. How would you like to be held, indefinitely, and without charges. Conservatives are the authoritarians that don't give a **** about international law, our own constitution, rules of war and ingagment. Just a heavy handed abuseive ideology is all we ever see there.
 
Terrorism preceded GITMO by many years. And there is no evidence that it was used as a "recruitment tool". Never has been. It's the opinion of people, and it may or may not be accurate, but for people to pretend it's been proven is just plain dishonest.
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.
 
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.

And, a consensus report amongst America's intelligence agencies confirm your experience. The rights continued defense of Bush's failure both in Iraq specifically and his bogus "War on Terror" generally, is proof that partisan politics trump truth, any concerns for constitutional law, international law, ethics and real sound FP. Party is superior to vital American interests, and certainly the interests of the innocent civilians that continue to SUFFER in those countries that our FP has torn apart.
 
And, a consensus report amongst America's intelligence agencies confirm your experience. The rights continued defense of Bush's failure both in Iraq specifically and his bogus "War on Terror" generally, is proof that partisan politics trump truth, any concerns for constitutional law, international law, ethics and real sound FP. Party is superior to vital American interests, and certainly the interests of the innocent civilians that continue to SUFFER in those countries that our FP has torn apart.

Sorry, I reposted this from the 2nd page, the link did not transfer:

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

They are the words of "Mathew Alexander":
Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006. He is the author of "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq." He is writing under a pseudonym for security reasons.
 
Sorry, I reposted this from the 2nd page, the link did not transfer:

I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq

They are the words of "Mathew Alexander":
Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006. He is the author of "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq." He is writing under a pseudonym for security reasons.

For security reasons? Makes a convenient cover for a lie. It's not surprising that this person will not identify himself. For all anyone knows, he does not even exist. It is not beyond the people who run leftist propaganda organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times to cook up lies to defame this country, which has never authorized any practices that constitute torture under applicable U.S. laws. They and their anti-American communist acolytes believe in Goebbels' idea of the "big lie"--just repeat a lie often enough, and people will start to believe it is the truth.

Andy McCarthy had it right in his very fine book, "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America." The fact leftists and Muslim jihadists both loathe America gives them a common cause: bring this country down. The commies just know better to admit what they are up to, because if they did they would not be safe among many other Americans.
 
The overwhelming majority of them have not been charged! Do you understand this. How would you like to be held, indefinitely, and without charges. Conservatives are the authoritarians that don't give a **** about international law, our own constitution, rules of war and ingagment. Just a heavy handed abuseive ideology is all we ever see there.
It's not unusual for POW's not to be formally charged and given a public trial. Quite often their involvement is self-evident.

If Gitmo closes they'll wisely kill the terrorists in the field and no one will be the wiser.
 
How does it make logical sense? How would going to prison indefinitely make one want to become a terrorist? Has GITMO ever been attacked? Did terrorism precede GITMO, or was it the other way around?

How in the HELL does it make logical sense?

We have some information that those released were not terrorist before being released but became radicalized once interned. We can also surmise that families of those so held would join the fight even if the person was actually a combatant, and more so if they weren't. So, no one is talking about while they are held, but at the point of release.
 
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.

I call complete BullBLEEP.
 
For security reasons? Makes a convenient cover for a lie. It's not surprising that this person will not identify himself. For all anyone knows, he does not even exist. It is not beyond the people who run leftist propaganda organs like the Washington Post and the New York Times to cook up lies to defame this country, which has never authorized any practices that constitute torture under applicable U.S. laws. They and their anti-American communist acolytes believe in Goebbels' idea of the "big lie"--just repeat a lie often enough, and people will start to believe it is the truth.
Tony Camerino is a former senior military interrogator and author of Kill or Capture: How a Special Operations Task Force Took Down a Notorious Al Qaeda Terrorist and the acclaimed How to Break a Terrorist (both written under the pen name Matthew Alexander). He has conducted or supervised over 1,300 interrogations and led the interrogation team in Iraq that located Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaeda leader who was subsequently killed in an airstrike.
 
Rules of war to a non-conventional combatant.

I love the lefts "standards".

Let em rot.

Yup. Stated like a true conservative authoritarian. **** the law. Let em rot... Brilliant.
 
every word you posted here applies to you

I have no idea what that means. I have not seen anyone here--including you--disclose his full name. But making vile slanders against the United States in a newspaper is a completely different thing from posting comments on a website. Those slanders have no credibility, when the person making them lacks the courage to stand up and identify himself. They are all the more suspect, when they appear in a leftist rag like the Washington Post.
 
We are a nation of laws. All you are doing is trying to find excuses to not apply the law to X people. Therefore you are for subverting the law.

Also, a POW is to be repatriated when the war is over and cannot be prosecuted for their soldierly acts. But we are in an indefinite undeclared war so... no war, no POW's.

Law is law.

I doubt you understand the law that applies to this subject. Why would a captured jihadist who had engaged in war crimes be a prisoner of war? Unlawful enemy combatants are not prisoners of war with the privileges set out in the Geneva Convention. They have almost no rights at all if they are aliens held outside the U.S. And even a U.S. citizen who has committed a war crime on U.S. soil does not enjoy the usual constitutional rights of citizens.

Herbert Haupt was a saboteur who was captured after landing here by U-boat with seven other men in 1942. Haupt was a U.S. citizen, and yet he had no Fifth Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury, and no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. He was convicted of several war crimes by a military tribunal and electrocuted right along with his German pals, only two months after they landed. See Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). Next you'll be telling us how mean that President Roosevelt was, to treat that poor man in such an icky way.

Law is law, all right, and the laws of war do not require this country to handle its enemies with kid gloves. To hell with them all, as soon as possible, and may all the people taking up space in America who share their loathing of it join them there.
 
Rules of war to a non-conventional combatant.

I love the lefts "standards".

Let em rot.

Again no war has been declared so all combatants are "non-conventional" and none are POW's. It always amazes me the lack of trust the Right has in our laws. It makes me worry they would support an authoritarian regime here. They still blindly support the law breaking policies that Bush initiated. Since when are torture and unlawful imprisonment American policies?
 
Last edited:
I doubt you understand the law that applies to this subject. Why would a captured jihadist who had engaged in war crimes be a prisoner of war? Unlawful enemy combatants are not prisoners of war with the privileges set out in the Geneva Convention. They have almost no rights at all if they are aliens held outside the U.S. And even a U.S. citizen who has committed a war crime on U.S. soil does not enjoy the usual constitutional rights of citizens.

Herbert Haupt was a saboteur who was captured after landing here by U-boat with seven other men in 1942. Haupt was a U.S. citizen, and yet he had no Fifth Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury, and no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. He was convicted of several war crimes by a military tribunal and electrocuted right along with his German pals, only two months after they landed. See Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). Next you'll be telling us how mean that President Roosevelt was, to treat that poor man in such an icky way.

Law is law, all right, and the laws of war do not require this country to handle its enemies with kid gloves. To hell with them all, as soon as possible, and may all the people taking up space in America who share their loathing of it join them there.

How many of those Guantanamo prisoners were captured on American soil? None. How many have been tried and convicted of any crime? Only a few.
 
How many of those Guantanamo prisoners were captured on American soil? None. How many have been tried and convicted of any crime? Only a few.

These Islamist mutts are lucky they were seen as possible sources of valuable information, or they would have had a hell of a lot more to worry about than whether a soldier held a German Shepherd in front of them, or splashed urine on their Koran. They could just have been given a quick drumhead trial and shot right where they were captured, if they couldn't explain why they were running around armed and out of uniform within shooting distance of our servicemen. That is exactly what the U.S. did to a number of English-speaking Germans who had concealed themselves in American uniforms (a war crime) that were captured during the Battle of the Bulge at the end of 1944. Standing these war criminals before a firing squad was so clearly within the laws of war that the U.S. Army even filmed the executions to document them.
 
Greetings, Janfu. :2wave:

Did no one verify anything before locking them up and throwing away the key? It bothered people when five known terrorists were exchanged for Bergdahl - why were those chosen instead of those who maybe shouldn't have been there in the first place? I guess they weren't as "valuable" to those making the demands? Weird!

Many of which a substantial number were innocent were turned in for rewards. It was a real mess on who was taken into custody.
And once in custody, well good luck at proving innocence.
 
How many of those Guantanamo prisoners were captured on American soil? None. How many have been tried and convicted of any crime? Only a few.

They had even fewer rights for being unlawful enemy combatants captured abroad. And they had no right whatever to an ordinary, Article III U.S. court. I agree that they should have been tried years ago, and any who were convicted of war crimes either imprisoned abroad or executed.

These Islamist mutts are lucky they were seen as possible sources of valuable information, or they would have had a hell of a lot more to worry about than whether a soldier held a German Shepherd in front of them, or splashed urine on their Koran. They could just have been given a quick drumhead trial and shot right where they were captured, if they couldn't explain why they were running around armed and out of uniform within shooting distance of our servicemen. That is exactly what the U.S. did to a number of English-speaking Germans who had concealed themselves in American uniforms (a war crime) that were captured during the Battle of the Bulge at the end of 1944. Standing these war criminals before a firing squad was so clearly within the laws of war that the U.S. Army even filmed the executions to document them.
 
I have no idea what that means. I have not seen anyone here--including you--disclose his full name. But making vile slanders against the United States in a newspaper is a completely different thing from posting comments on a website. Those slanders have no credibility, when the person making them lacks the courage to stand up and identify himself. They are all the more suspect, when they appear in a leftist rag like the Washington Post.

You do not post under your own name, while accussing others who do not reveal their name. You make vile slanders about the US while whining about others who tell the truth. Your blatherings have no credibility by your own standards which are extremely hypocritical. Like most right wingers, you think it's wrong when others do it, but it's OK when you do it
 
You do not post under your own name, while accussing others who do not reveal their name. You make vile slanders about the US while whining about others who tell the truth. Your blatherings have no credibility by your own standards which are extremely hypocritical. Like most right wingers, you think it's wrong when others do it, but it's OK when you do it

I don't know of anyone on this site who posts under his real name, so I suspect the rules here do not allow it. Someone who has made his disdain for this country clear as often as you have here is in no position to accuse me, or anyone else, of "vile slanders against the U.S." Anyone who has read my posts knows very well that I love this country and am always ready to defend it against the degenerates who never tire of running it down.

I say again--this person who has falsely accused this country of condoning torture in a major newspaper is not man enough to sign his name to his article. But then most leftists are faint-hearted liars, much like the person currently shaming the presidency.

If you think what I say is hypocritical and lacks credibility, I take that as a sign I'm right on target.
 
Back
Top Bottom