• 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!

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison

tessaesque said:
Right, but they did not rule that HC is to be granted on a constitutional leve, as was stated in my link.
Click to expand...

But again you miss the point about the constitution. It is not THEIR rights in question. It is OUR BEHAVIOR that is under question. We do not leave law and order to a place where anything goes. We are US citzens and are expected to behave like US citizens. We are expected to provide due process. Like I said earlier, we either believe our ideals, that these are rights given by god to all men, or we don't. We either believe in rule of law, or we don't. We're either human beings or ruthless, lawless animals (which is an insult to anmials who would never do what we've done).
 
Boo Radley said:
But again you miss the point about the constitution. It is not THEIR rights in question. It is OUR BEHAVIOR that is under question. We do not leave law and order to a place where anything goes. We are US citzens and are expected to behave like US citizens. We are expected to provide due process. Like I said earlier, we either believe our ideals, that these are rights given by god to all men, or we don't. We either believe in rule of law, or we don't. We're either human beings or ruthless, lawless animals (which is an insult to anmials who would never do what we've done).
Click to expand...

Okay, I think it's best to say we agree to disagree. You can hold every single person in this country, born here without their consent or understanding, to some arbitrary notion of morality and ethics. That's fine, keep on keepin' on. I get your point, I do. I just don't see things in the shame shade as you do. And that's fine, too.
 
tessaesque said:
Okay, I think it's best to say we agree to disagree. You can hold every single person in this country, born here without their consent or understanding, to some arbitrary notion of morality and ethics. That's fine, keep on keepin' on. I get your point, I do. I just don't see things in the shame shade as you do. And that's fine, too.
Click to expand...

I thought conservatives always talked about core values? I always suspected that such was selective. Thanks for confirming that.

However, that is not all that was posted above. We have mentioned rule of law, and the courts have ruled in favor of due process, which forced Bush to form the tribunnels. We also know that torture is illegal both internationally and by US law. So, if you don't have any core valuees to guide you, rule of law should.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease with the personal attacks and snide comments or else.
 
Boo Radley said:
I thought conservatives always talked about core values? I always suspected that such was selective. Thanks for confirming that.

However, that is not all that was posted above. We have mentioned rule of law, and the courts have ruled in favor of due process, which forced Bush to form the tribunnels. We also know that torture is illegal both internationally and by US law. So, if you don't have any core valuees to guide you, rule of law should.
Click to expand...

I think to lump everything of value to you into a "core values" argument is nothing but selective. I have strong personal beliefs. You have strong personal beliefs. I believe that a few "innocents" just might be worth the handful of willing martyrs. You don't. I believe that a woman's body is hers, but I also believe that beyond the point of viability I can't say for certain that I still agree. I believe that everybody has a right to bear arms until the point that they cause persistent physical harm to others, or until the point they are declared mentally unstable. I believe that religion and political doctrine should stay the h*ll out of schools, regardless of who is funding or who is teaching. I believe that I should be allowed to practice my beliefs until such time as they begin to infringe upon the constitutionally granted rights of the other citizens of this country. I belive that those guilty of certain crimes deserve to die. I believe that prisons in this country are a massive failure and focus more on containment than rehabilitation, but I also believe that many criminals cannot be rehabilitated, so there's the rub, there, I guess. I believe it is the individual's right to secure a future for themselves, and not the responsibility of th government to take on their care in any way shape or form. I believe that a return to a time when families cared for their own instead of farming out the infirm or elderly to big brother is paramount. I believe that children should have as many positive adult influences as possible, but I don't care whether they live with mom and dad or mom and mom, as long as the child is not abused, neglected, mistreated, or irreparably harmed by their guardian. I believe that class warfair is BS and I refuse to take part in a victimization/villianization process against the less or more successful.

I believe that you have every right to your opinion, and I respect you for them. I believe that I have a right to my opinions. I believe that karma is an evil b*tch and judgmental, condescending behavior and snide remarks will come back to you someday. That's why I try to avoid making them.
 
Your argument works well for things that are in some part questionable. Torture, for example, is really not questionable.

As for your return to a time, you might have an overly idealized view of a time you didn't really live in. Those times had serious problems and we're actually improved today in many, many ways.

And class warfare is a reality, often perpetrated by all sides. Those who see those at the bottom as welfare cheats, but ignore the corporate welfare are also perpetrating class warfare.

But the point earlier was that we also have rule of law.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your argument works well for things that are in some part questionable. Torture, for example, is really not questionable.

As for your return to a time, you might have an overly idealized view of a time you didn't really live in. Those times had serious problems and we're actually improved today in many, many ways.

And class warfare is a reality, often perpetrated by all sides. Those who see those at the bottom as welfare cheats, but ignore the corporate welfare are also perpetrating class warfare.

But the point earlier was that we also have rule of law.
Click to expand...

How many times must I clarify that I understand your statement regarding a "rule of law". I just debate the definition and what is applicable under that very large umbrella.

Also, I never said that any time was better than today. I did say that family obligation instead of government dependence is better than what we currently have. Again, that is my opinion.

Lastly, I'm not stating anything to be fact, except where indicated. I am posting my opinions regarding topics that are little more than opinion and supposition already. Perhaps that is where you're getting frustrated, or why you feel the need to continually repeat yourself.

Perhaps you're viewing your assertions as fact, when they are at best very vague opinions tucked in neatly around a generic turn of phrase that, on it's own, means absolutely nothing in context to anything.

As I said before, I am more than willing to agree to disagree. I absolutely respect your opinions. I still vehemently disagree with them. And there isn't anything wrong with that.
 
Its ok people, Obabma is going to close Gitmo.....
oh, wait, never mind, proceed
 
Boo Radley said:
Since when has that ever happened?
Click to expand...

How a Detainee Became An Asset - washingtonpost.com

After enduring the CIA's harshest interrogation methods and spending more than a year in the agency's secret prisons, Khalid Sheik Mohammed stood before U.S. intelligence officers in a makeshift lecture hall, leading what they called "terrorist tutorials."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.

Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad.

"Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals -- many of who we had never heard of before -- that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations," according to the CIA summary.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
we either believe our ideals, that these are rights given by god to all men, or we don't
Click to expand...

tell it to the fifty DEMOCRAT senators who voted with JOHN MCCAIN to keep gitmo going

We're either human beings or ruthless, lawless animals
Click to expand...

either/or?

LOL!
 
SE102 said:
Deflect the heat. Go ahead. You still don't know what google is.

Ill toss some cards on the table.

Outdoor loudspeakers in small rooms at maximum volume blaring the hardest music on the market for extended periods of time to force sleep deprivation. You know, when you start hallucinating and going insane.

People banging their heads on the walls trying to kill themselves.

People writing suicide notes in blood on said walls.

Use some research skills. That's off the top of my head from actual incidents I've read in the media. Not a whacko site, actual journalists. Hopefully it doesnt boil down to an issue of face for you but I invite you to trounce around the internet and see what you find. But then again you believe newspapers are a lie, so I may be wasting my time here and you should probably go back to watching GI joe.
Click to expand...

Look into those venona documents yet?

P.T. Barnum was right.
 
The Prof said:
tell it to the fifty DEMOCRAT senators who voted with JOHN MCCAIN to keep gitmo going



either/or?

LOL!
Click to expand...

What maks you think democrats are exempt from criticism?
 
yup, when it comes to gitmo, torture, civil trials, the patriot act, rendition, detention...

the party in power has screwed it up pretty bad

not to mention libya, afghanistan, iran, china...

time for a change

good point
 
Boo Radley said:
Add torture to the innocent person, and we become crminal.
Click to expand...

The Germans, through their top notch interrogator Hanns Scharff, showed us in WWII that the friendly method is the absolute best interrogation technique ... thats why treating them humanely will eventually get useful or in some cases, a life long source of information.

A subject thats in a state of extreme fear or is experiencing great physical pain will do or say whatever is necessary to relieve the stress to a nominal point. Physical violence is one the hallmarks of an inept interrogator. It is very easy to conduct a break within a break with these types of Interrogators.

Chain of Command knows this...its nothing new (assuming that you have enough time to work with someone, "nice" will work more effectively, more of the time than not nice)

But theres always a giltch....there are those hardcore individuals who through training or committment will never respond to nice. They are a dedicated opponent. For those, you need to make a moral decision. Do you use extreme physical torture to possibly extract useful information? Or do you write them off and quietly execute them and move on?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I wonder if you would be this altruistic had one of them put a bullet in your mothers head or blew up your child's school. :roll:
Click to expand...

I would certainly let them have the right of law...
Lots of what ifs....
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Same laws that are protected under the constitution and what US Citizens have.
Click to expand...

Show where in the U.S. Constitution these guys have any right to a trial, an attorney or any other protections; and produce any international law, treaty or convention to which we are signatories that gives them rights we are violating.

If you can show me I'm wrong, I'll be the first to apologize.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Same laws that are protected under the constitution and what US Citizens have.
Click to expand...
The United States has not afforded these rights to none citizens (although it could if it so desired)in the past for examples:
spies, Mexican Banditos(Pancho Villa), 1905 Pirates(and Prior), Saboteurs, Muslim revolutionaries 1890 Mindanao and many other through out campaigns here at home and abroad. Actually some where U.S. citizens, for one the civil war brought about a lot of summary executions both civilian and military. This list goes on..
 
Juiposa said:
This prison is no better than a Soviet Gulag. It hope for a swift closing of it.
Click to expand...

I was gonna let this *one* slide but Lord! There is no comparison between the Gulag Archipelago and the quasi-legal status that the current detainees face. It is an insult to the millions of innocents who died at the hands of fascism and communism to make that comparison.

If all you disagree that we have been worse than our enemies, talk to Nick Berg, and the folks who were unfortunate enough to be riding planes out of a couple of northeastern US airports, and the unfortunate folks who were doing their thing in the Pentagon and World Trade Center
 
tessaesque said:
How many times must I clarify that I understand your statement regarding a "rule of law". I just debate the definition and what is applicable under that very large umbrella.

Also, I never said that any time was better than today. I did say that family obligation instead of government dependence is better than what we currently have. Again, that is my opinion.

Lastly, I'm not stating anything to be fact, except where indicated. I am posting my opinions regarding topics that are little more than opinion and supposition already. Perhaps that is where you're getting frustrated, or why you feel the need to continually repeat yourself.

Perhaps you're viewing your assertions as fact, when they are at best very vague opinions tucked in neatly around a generic turn of phrase that, on it's own, means absolutely nothing in context to anything.

As I said before, I am more than willing to agree to disagree. I absolutely respect your opinions. I still vehemently disagree with them. And there isn't anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...

The law does nto state who can be tortured. It says we cannot torture. It's not about the prisoner, but about the jailer. We cannot tortue no matter who the prisoner is. That's rule of law.

rule of law and the constitution does not limit itself to one side of the equation. While a prisoner may not be citizens, the jjailers are. Their behavior is subject to US law and the consititution. To suggest that any group of people, no matter how evil their actions, are outside any rules for OUR conduct is the worse kind of rationalizing. How we behave is set down by rule of law and our Consititution.

Now, certainly, at the end of they day, we will likely end up disagreeing. I don't doubt that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom