• 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!

United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

What is GITMO about?

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
MarineTpartier said:
To be fair, our gov't didn't anticipate having to fight an enemy that wasn't a formally part of an established nation state. It was relatively unprecedented. If there was a precedent for it, please inform me of it and I will admit my ignorance of it.
Click to expand...

We've bragged and pride ourselves on "the rule of law" and when push came to shove, we ignored our base principles. The war began with lies, fed on lies, and what survives is lies. OBL is dead. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? How could we have sunk so low as to ally with Pakistan, the financiers behind Mohammmed Atta? I'm afraid I view the war on terrorists as a big corporate money grab for connected (politically) contractors. The enemy should have been the Pakistani ISI from step one.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Unfortunately, this is what happens when one or both sides resorts to guerrilla warfare. Guerrillas are typically supported by the local population and are inter-mixed with them, in affect using the population as camouflage to hide their movements and supply lines. There is an intrinsic downside to this kind of warfare, which you've just pointed out. Sometimes "innocent" people are mistaken as hostiles, though one must also ask, "Who is innocent in such a war?" When the population at large allows the guerrillas to operate in their neighborhoods, does this not make them culpable as well?


Mind you, I did not support the war in Iraq so don't bother slamming me with the anti-Iraq arguments. It was flawed from the get-go and we've known it since Bush Sr decided Baghdad wasn't worth the price of a decade-long war. He listened to his generals, I wish his son had done the same.

Vietnam
Click to expand...

OK lets assume for the sake of argument that its inevitable that innocent people get caught up, why not give them a trial to determine those who are innocent from those who are not? I can't for the life of me understand what is so objectionable about such a common sense procedure.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Vietnam
Click to expand...

Well, Vietnam is a nation state, and we were fighting at least half of it at one time. Other than that, the war against Iraq is very similar: We are trying to win hearts and minds and establish democracy through war, which is much like trying to prevent forest fires with gasoline, we were fighting a guerrilla war in which it was difficult to tell who was an enemy and who wasn't, and it was a war that we should never have started in the first place.

The war on drugs is a war on something that isn't a nation state. That one is going badly as well.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Well, Vietnam is a nation state, and we were fighting at least half of it at one time. Other than that, the war against Iraq is very similar: We are trying to win hearts and minds and establish democracy through war, which is much like trying to prevent forest fires with gasoline, we were fighting a guerrilla war in which it was difficult to tell who was an enemy and who wasn't, and it was a war that we should never have started in the first place.

The war on drugs is a war on something that isn't a nation state. That one is going badly as well.
Click to expand...

And yet you still manage to put people on trial............
 
nothing good has come of it....
 
German guy said:
What exactly is your point? Because, you know, I don't see any.
Click to expand...
My point? There are kooks in every country. Your country has its kook. The political leaders recognize what you do not. Pretty simple point really. I am sorry that you missed it. I shall try to be more clear next time.
 
Boo Radley said:
But you see, you miss the point. He was not the only one we've msitakenly took. That's why laws are important. Just saying you can do anything because everyone is evil opens the door to do evil.
Click to expand...
Well, who else would you like to discuss?
 
Boo Radley said:
I have no trouble with war, when neccessary. Iraq was not necessary and was not to stop anything really. Instead, it helped our enemies.

But, what we are debating is torture.
Click to expand...
I cannot say if the war in Iraq was necessary or not. I believe it was just. I cannot tell yet if the cost to the US will result in a net benefit or not. Sometimes that judgment does not accurately come for many years.

Delawar's killing was a murder. Bad things happen. If justice occurs the guilty are discovered and punished.
 
Boo Radley said:
Avoidance tactic #63.

No, Iraq was meaningless. Almost as meaningless as you incessent inability to know the definitions of words. You really should learn what a Marxist really is.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...
Nice dodge yourself. I am very clear on what Marxism is and how invested in Marx's key tenets the one term president Barack Hussein Obama is. Have you ever considered that the one termer may be doing his best, in his first term, to conceal the sort of monster he actually is? No?
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
A no fly zone whose legality itself was being questioned. But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains he was Iraq was a UN effort and not soley a US effort. Only the UN could sanction action. Also, Iraq did not met the level of threat that justified the expendature. Iraq cost us far more, on all fronts, than we gained.
Click to expand...
I am impressed by just how much credit you give yourself.

We used to be a sovereign nation. We can choose to act without the UN or with it. It just depends on whether we gain an advantage. I am content to wait for history's judgment on Iraq. At this moment I cannot tell.
 
Empirica said:
If he was indeed innocent__IF?__Then he is what the military calls collateral damage.

It is WAR and unfortunately that's the nature of the beast, so man up and deal with it.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you. He was murdered. Collateral damage is an explanation for what happens when a legitimate military target is struck by military weapons. Sometimes those who have no part in the war are injured or killed. We regret it.

Delawar was murdered. Murders are not collateral damage. Now had he died of a heart attack during questioning I would agree with collateral damage. But he was beaten, essentially to death. And that is murder. Even in war.
 
Red_Dave said:
Why would giving them a trial be so difficult/objectionable that you would prefer to kill innocent people?
Click to expand...
Perhaps we are discussing two different things. Unlawful combatants, are unprotected. They are not prisoners of war. They are not criminal defendants.

People picked up for questioning who are deceptive or lie can be detained. People who commit crimes can be tried by the country they committed the crime in.
 
DaveFagan said:
We've bragged and pride ourselves on "the rule of law" and when push came to shove, we ignored our base principles. The war began with lies, fed on lies, and what survives is lies. OBL is dead. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? How could we have sunk so low as to ally with Pakistan, the financiers behind Mohammmed Atta? I'm afraid I view the war on terrorists as a big corporate money grab for connected (politically) contractors. The enemy should have been the Pakistani ISI from step one.
Click to expand...

The war began on lies? I can't wait to hear this. Concur with you about Pakistan though. Contractors actually save the gov't money. If they had to train military members to do the job contractors do, give them the benefits we rate, house them, etc, it would not be cost effective. However, I also agree with you that some contractors are unnecessary. Holy crap, I just agreed with you twice lol.
 
kenvin said:
Either we are part of the U.N. and care what it thinks or not. I am certainly tired of politician saying we need to enforce U.N. resolutions as a reason to justify wars we want to fight while saying the U.N. is threatening our government and we should ignore it when it points out what we do wrong.
Click to expand...
I think this is naive. The UN is a tool. It is nothing more. When it is useful we use it. When it is not we do what must be done. It is mostly a collection of tyrants and thugs.
 
Red_Dave said:
I will ask you also. Why would giving them a trial be so difficult/objectionable that you would prefer to kill innocent people? Organised crime in the U.S has killed far more people, and yet even during the 1930s they where still even trials before being killed. Christ even Eichmann got a fair trial, why don't these people deserve one?
Click to expand...
Eichmann was not an unlawful combatant. He was a war criminal.

You have said this twice now. Do you believe that murdering people is government policy?
 
Dittohead not! said:
They may be de facto prisoners of war, but they aren't called that. The government made up a new name, "enemy combatants", meaning that they aren't covered by the Geneva Accords.
Click to expand...
If you changed that to unlawful combatant or unlawful enemy combatant I could agree with you. They are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Too bad.
 
Misterveritis said:
Eichmann was not an unlawful combatant. He was a war criminal.

You have said this twice now. Do you believe that murdering people is government policy?
Click to expand...

I corrected myself. I meant imprisoned. And those who are innocent are not combatants, 'lawful' nor not, given that they are, in fact innocent. Its a pretty ****ed up perspective that gives a mass murderer more rights then a non-combatant civilian.
 
Red_Dave said:
Though the point that everyone seems to be missing is that alot of them are neither, because they are in fact completely innocent

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

Your story may have some truths in it but it might not. For example there is this tidbit, "More than two years after President Obama ordered the closure of the prison, 172 are still held there."

If the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama had ordered the facility closed it would, in fact, be closed. Your story may be a propaganda piece.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Vietnam
Click to expand...
That is partly true. We were fighting against North Viet-nam, a nation state. What is the equivalent in this war, Iran? If so you have a nice parallel. Let's get some regime change in Iran right after regime change here.
 
Misterveritis said:
Your story may have some truths in it but it might not. For example there is this tidbit, "More than two years after President Obama ordered the closure of the prison, 172 are still held there."

If the one term Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama had ordered the facility closed it would, in fact, be closed. Your story may be a propaganda piece.
Click to expand...

Reprieve is a very well respected organisation, I don't believe they have ever been called into question as far as facts are concerned. The man being interviewed has worked for many of the detainiess and their families. And we know that many of these people (for examples those that have been released after years of torture) where/are innocent because the U.S government has admitted this was the case.
 
Red_Dave said:
I corrected myself. I meant imprisoned. And those who are innocent are not combatants, 'lawful' nor not, given that they are, in fact innocent. Its a pretty ****ed up perspective that gives a mass murderer more rights then a non-combatant civilian.
Click to expand...
What ever happened to Adolph Eichmann? Didn't guys like you protest?

We detained tens of thousands. There are a few hundred that remain in custody. That is tough for the ones still in custody. Having been in the business they are being kept for a reason. If there is no reason we let them go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom