• 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!

Ongoing Gitmo Hunger-Strike Spurs Prison to Impose Media Blockade

Ockham said:
Free PR for the terrorists then...
Click to expand...

They are terrorists? Why are the vast vast majority cleared to be released back home and havent been charged with anything?
 
Just let'em starve to death, solves problems.
 
How do we know people arent just starving the prisoners to death and making it look like its the prisoners own wishes?
 
iacardsfan said:
Close the place down.
Click to expand...

The first disappointment of Obama's presidency was that Gitmo's prison wasn't closed in the first three months.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
They are terrorists? Why are the vast vast majority cleared to be released back home and havent been charged with anything?
Click to expand...

How are they cleared without a trial?
 
iacardsfan said:
Close the place down.
Click to expand...

fine by me, where do we put them? How about some trials, and either release or imprison for crimes?

Perpetual war on terror=perpetual detention, I have problems with this concept.
Report shows U.S. jails could house Guantanamo detainees - CBS News

The GAO study shows that U.S. prisons already hold 373 prisoners convicted of terrorism in 98 facilities across the country.

"As far as I know, there hasn't been a single security problem reported in any of these cases," Feinstein said. "This fact outweighs not only the high cost of maintaining Guantanamo — which costs more than $114 million a year — but also provides the same degree of security without the criticism of operating a military prison in an isolated location."
Click to expand...
 
Grand Mal said:
The first disappointment of Obama's presidency was that Gitmo's prison wasn't closed in the first three months.
Click to expand...

Heck, he's had 5 years and still nothing
 
AliHajiSheik said:
My President has determined that they should be there. He is the Commander-in-Chief, you know.
Click to expand...

Hmm...I thought one of YOUR president's many broken campaign promises was that he was going to close Gitmo.
 
Last edited:
Those poor GITMO detainees! We should all feel sorry for them. They could be back home, marrying another wife, or stoning a woman for not wearing a head scarf. OHHHHhhh poor poor detainees. We should erect a monument in solidarity to their suffering. Think of all the roadside bombs and ambushes that our troops overseas will avoid by not having these guys released. They deserve DUE PROCESS!!! Especially since they themselves believe in due process. The tribal court cases... ahh yes, the smell of machine guns firing off rounds as justice is served in the provence....
 
Skyguy65 said:
Hmm...I thought one of YOUR president's many broken campaign promises was that he was going to close Gitmo.
Click to expand...

Our President is acknowledged the wisdom of his predecessor that this is a complex issue.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Our President is acknowledged the wisdom of his predecessor that this is a complex issue.
Click to expand...

Its really not. Release them all except those that are known without a doubt to be guilty back to their country of origin...whether that country wants them or not. Give each $1000 for their troubles. Before release take pictures of each, dna samples, names and then put them all on the "Do not fly" or watch list. Then release a press release to all major media and inform them that the next time someone attacks the US we will respond with nukes from those terrorists whose country of origin come from the ME. 1st nuke for first offense will be in a relatively unpopulated area. 2nd nuke for second offense in a medium populated area. 3rd nuke for third offense will be in heavily populated area. After that...whole country. To heck with the consequences of using those nukes.

Show them that we're not going to play and they won't F with us.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Its really not. Release them all except those that are known without a doubt to be guilty back to their country of origin...whether that country wants them or not. Give each $1000 for their troubles. Before release take pictures of each, dna samples, names and then put them all on the "Do not fly" or watch list. Then release a press release to all major media and inform them that the next time someone attacks the US we will respond with nukes from those terrorists whose country of origin come from the ME. 1st nuke for first offense will be in a relatively unpopulated area. 2nd nuke for second offense in a medium populated area. 3rd nuke for third offense will be in heavily populated area. After that...whole country. To heck with the consequences of using those nukes.

Show them that we're not going to play and they won't F with us.
Click to expand...

You are proposing bombing a country based on the actions of individuals? Let's say that other countries took that approach and that Kal'Stang, Jr performed some action that violated your hypothetical. Where should that country target, in the United States, the 1st three nukes? What if the country were Indonesia? Would you extend the boundaries or give them a non-ME exemption?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You are proposing bombing a country based on the actions of individuals? Let's say that other countries took that approach and that Kal'Stang, Jr performed some action that violated your hypothetical. Where should that country target, in the United States, the 1st three nukes? What if the country were Indonesia? Would you extend the boundaries or give them a non-ME exemption?
Click to expand...

My proposal is based on countries with known terrorist ties. If those countries keep allowing those terrorists to continue inside thier country then they are as much at fault as the terrorists. We shouldn't have to police thier country to try and stamp out Terrorists. They should be doing it on their own. And if they don't even attempt to do so then screw em. The only exemption I would make is if the country was actively trying their best to stamp out or keep out terrorists.

As for our country...imo any president that gives aid to known terrorists should be summarily impeached and tried as a war criminal. Same goes for any politician. And any civilian tried for treason.
 
Kal'Stang said:
My proposal is based on countries with known terrorist ties. If those countries keep allowing those terrorists to continue inside thier country then they are as much at fault as the terrorists. We shouldn't have to police thier country to try and stamp out Terrorists. They should be doing it on their own. And if they don't even attempt to do so then screw em. The only exemption I would make is if the country was actively trying their best to stamp out or keep out terrorists.

As for our country...imo any president that gives aid to known terrorists should be summarily impeached and tried as a war criminal. Same goes for any politician. And any civilian tried for treason.
Click to expand...

To whom are these countries terrorist ties known? Is there a list somewhere or is the list of known countries with terrorist ties not known?

How would a country stop the terrorist activities of an individual? How are they stopped in our country?

What are the procedures of a summary impeachment of the President? I've not heard that term used with regard to a President before.

Should a CIA agent, that engages in terrorist in another country on the US government's behalf, be tried as a war criminal in the US or anywhere else?

I'm trying to understand whether you seriously though these issues through or are just using bombast liberally.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
To whom are these countries terrorist ties known? Is there a list somewhere or is the list of known countries with terrorist ties not known?
Click to expand...

One example is the Iran and Hezbollah. Iran is known to fund Hezbollah in its attacks against Israel. So yes, there is a list of countries with known terrorist ties.

AliHajiSheik said:
How would a country stop the terrorist activities of an individual? How are they stopped in our country?
Click to expand...

I did say that they must actively try to stamp out terrorism did I not? Sick individuals will always exist and will always get through the cracks. So long as the country that terrorist came from is actively trying to stamp out terrorism then I'm quite happy to ignore the occasional sick **** getting through.

AliHajiSheik said:
What are the procedures of a summary impeachment of the President? I've not heard that term used with regard to a President before.
Click to expand...

You're quibbling semantics. Impeach the president. Duh. Whatever current process is required go through it. Currently to impeach the President he/she must commit and be convicted of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors crimes. So...make it a crime to support terrorist organizations. Oh wait...there is already such a law in place. Now it just needs to be applied to our government officials, including the President.

AliHajiSheik said:
Should a CIA agent, that engages in terrorist in another country on the US government's behalf, be tried as a war criminal in the US or anywhere else?
Click to expand...

In the country in which he/she committed the terrorist act. Then, if he/she happens to live through whatever punishment was handed down and eventually gets back to the states try them for treason as they are acting against the interests of the US. If possible find out if he/she was ordered to do what they did and if so, depending on their knowledge of US secrets either ship them to the country in question or charge them with treason and give them the death penalty, publicly.

AliHajiSheik said:
I'm trying to understand whether you seriously though these issues through or are just using bombast liberally.
Click to expand...

No, you're trying to create a situation in which I will be hypocritical in my proposal so as to denounce it as being "immoral" or some other extreme adjective. Well, 1: I'm no saint. 2: I'm not perfect and cannot think of every single little contingency. No one can. 3: I'm not a lawyer. I'm a simple man who believes in simple solutions and straight up honesty as being the best policy where ever posible. I also believe that more often than not people purposely set out to make things far more complicated than they need to. Including this situation.
 
Ockham said:
How are they cleared without a trial?
Click to expand...

Because they have been not charged of anything. Our government is just holding them without charging them.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Because they have been not charged of anything. Our government is just holding them without charging them.
Click to expand...

Then release them. If they indeed are terrorists they will go back to their ways, will be targeted and hopefully killed. If they are not terrorists - well, they'll be pissed off enough to maybe become one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom