• 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 .
Boo Radley said:
Empirica said:
It is one thing to do something horrible in the heat of battle. it is another thing to be reomved from that heat, in a cell, and to deliberately plan to violate someone. At that point you are not in with the pig, you're the **** the pig steps on.

Again, it is about us, our values, or morals, or belief in rule of law and humanity. We cannot denounce others for doing what we do.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to "the heat of battle"__I was referring to every aspect of war in general.

The fact that you are relying on word games and semantics as the basis of your position indicates failure and as far as being "about us, our values, or morals", is absolute kumbaya absurdity.

These qualities do not apply in times of war when balanced against the lives of our people and an enemy who has no respect for these values and couldn't care less if we "denounce" them because of it.

Empirica said:
There is no evidence that it doesn't__When lives are on the line, it is better to be wrong than dead__The best way to evaluate your conviction is to personalize your conviction__Of course honesty is the key element to evaluating the conviction in question.

If your child had fallen into the hands of radical extremist who announced their intention to behead her/him, and someone who might possibly have information that could save your child's life was about to be water-boarded, would you tell them to stop or proceed?
Click to expand...
There si a lot of evidence that si unrealiable. In fact, all the evidence says it is unrealiable. there is virtually nothing in any study or writings on torture that doesn't say it is especially effective at getting confessions, even from the innocent, but that it is unrealiable for gathering information.

Unlike claims that it is effective, not only is there a ton of evidence to support it is not effective, we can point to a recent example al Libi. He was tortured and gave us false information that was used as part of the rationale for invading iraq. It is a concrete and verifiable example. Notice those who support torture not only can't present anything equal, but don't even ask for it before being convinved that it works.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
So, are you saying you would tell the interrogators to stop?__I wonder why I have a problem with your answer?!

The fact that the talking heads and their cherry picked experts have apparently convinced you that enhanced interrogation and torture are never reliable intelligence gathering tools is a testament to your gullibility.
Click to expand...
 
Empirica said:
Boo Radley said:
I wasn't referring to "the heat of battle"__I was referring to every aspect of war in general.

The fact that you are relying on word games and semantics as the basis of your position indicates failure and as far as being "about us, our values, or morals", is absolute kumbaya absurdity.

These qualities do not apply in times of war when balanced against the lives of our people and an enemy who has no respect for these values and couldn't care less if we "denounce" them because of it.
Click to expand...

Not relying on word games, just clarifying. I could declare war aginst the girl scouts and say it justified me doing terrible things. it doesn't. We have laws and rules of behavior even during war. In fact, I would argue they are more important during war, where evil can more readily get out of hand.

And it is about us, about what we value. We face no threat that justifies us throwing rule of law out the window. Your argument would hold more weight if we faced a threat that could actually defeat us. We don't.


So, are you saying you would tell the interrogators to stop?__I wonder why I have a problem with your answer?!

The fact that the talking heads and their cherry picked experts have apparently convinced you that enhanced interrogation and torture are never reliable intelligence gathering tools is a testament to your gullibility.
Click to expand...

Actually, I speak of books on the subject, something you'd have to go to the library to check out and read. As I don't watch political enteritainers of any pursasion any more, or listen to silliness on talk radio, you misread my position for a second time. I served in the military and have read much on torture. I don't kow how to link books from the library. But there are links on the internet, and I linked a few.


And I gave an example of us getting misinformation, the problem with torture. This is how debate and argment is suppose to work. Nor have I ever used the word never. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But if I get misinformation far more often than I get good information, as the litature says, and other methods are far more effective, as the litature says, then why would we use torture, that is also immoral and illegal?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Empirica said:
Boo Radley said:
Not relying on word games, just clarifying. I could declare war aginst the girl scouts and say it justified me doing terrible things. it doesn't. We have laws and rules of behavior even during war. In fact, I would argue they are more important during war, where evil can more readily get out of hand.

And it is about us, about what we value. We face no threat that justifies us throwing rule of law out the window. Your argument would hold more weight if we faced a threat that could actually defeat us. We don't.

Actually, I speak of books on the subject, something you'd have to go to the library to check out and read. As I don't watch political enteritainers of any pursasion any more, or listen to silliness on talk radio, you misread my position for a second time. I served in the military and have read much on torture. I don't kow how to link books from the library. But there are links on the internet, and I linked a few.


And I gave an example of us getting misinformation, the problem with torture. This is how debate and argment is suppose to work. Nor have I ever used the word never. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But if I get misinformation far more often than I get good information, as the litature says, and other methods are far more effective, as the litature says, then why would we use torture, that is also immoral and illegal?
Click to expand...
As I previously stated, the act of war itself is already an immoral act and the people of a nation at war demand that their government end it as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible.

These priorities take precedence over morality especially when faced with a ruthless immoral enemy such as the radical islamic terrorists and it's not about losing the war, it's about saving lives.

And regardless of what you have read, people will crack under the right torture technique with few exceptions__Why do you think cyanide capsules were issued to intelligence operatives during the 20th century?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Empirica said:
Boo Radley said:
Empirica said:
As I previously stated, the act of war itself is already an immoral act and the people of a nation at war demand that their government end it as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible.

These priorities take precedence over morality especially when faced with a ruthless immoral enemy such as the radical islamic terrorists and it's not about losing the war, it's about saving lives.

And regardless of what you have read, people will crack under the right torture technique with few exceptions__Why do you think cyanide capsules were issued to intelligence operatives during the 20th century?
Click to expand...
Too be sure, you can get information by using torture.

But you can never, as I understand it, be sure it's accurate or true, without verification from another source or two.

Because people will say anything to get it to stop. Or so I understand.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The Mark said:
Too be sure, you can get information by using torture.

But you can never, as I understand it, be sure it's accurate or true, without verification from another source or two.

Because people will say anything to get it to stop. Or so I understand.
Click to expand...
And the experts will agree with you__They've been doing this for a very long time and wouldn't waste time on ineffective methods of intelligence gathering.

Various intelligence agencies gather information from many sources all over the world and piece them together in an attempt to either validate or dismiss them.
 
Empirica said:
War by it's nature is a savage, ruthless, barbaric, immoral element of the human race that's popularity doesn't appear to be diminishing and any attempts to civilize it is an endeavor of futility unless everyone is in agreement.

Of course, such an agreement would signal the end of the practice of war all together___You can't mud wrestle with a pig without getting dirty therefore the only way to not get dirty is to not mud wrestle with a pig__Get it?!
Click to expand...

Well the innocent havent been given any choice in this matter given that they are, in fact, innocent. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Also bear in mind that this is the same logic that Bin Laden uses
 
Last edited:
Empirica said:
Boo Radley said:
Empirica said:
As I previously stated, the act of war itself is already an immoral act and the people of a nation at war demand that their government end it as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible.

These priorities take precedence over morality especially when faced with a ruthless immoral enemy such as the radical islamic terrorists and it's not about losing the war, it's about saving lives.

And regardless of what you have read, people will crack under the right torture technique with few exceptions__Why do you think cyanide capsules were issued to intelligence operatives during the 20th century?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced war is in and of itself an immoral act. While I admire people like Ghandi and King, I saw no problem stopping Nazi aggression, for example.

And as I keep stating, over and over and over, there is nothing in this threat that justifies us abandoning all our moral values. There is no evidence that being immoral saves lives. As I've linked for you, there is no real evidence torture saves lives. in fact, as other methods are more effective, torture likely in the big picture costs lives.

And no one said people won't crack. in fact that's the problem. They all will crack, even if they are innocent and have nothing to give. this too often gives us false information (al Libi again) and we waste time running it down. other methods are far more effective. The literature is clear on this.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Red_Dave said:
Well the innocent havent been given any choice in this matter given that they are, in fact, innocent. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Also bear in mind that this is the same logic that Bin Laden uses
Click to expand...
The "innocent" have always suffered and died along side combatants, in fact civilian casualties often outnumber the military's.

This is an unavoidable consequence of war and why it should always be considered only as a last resort after all else has failed.

Bin Laden targeted civilians while the US only targets combatants and any civilian casualties are considered collateral damage.

Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced war is in and of itself an immoral act. While I admire people like Ghandi and King, I saw no problem stopping Nazi aggression, for example.
Click to expand...
The fact that war is sometimes necessary in no way diminishes it's immorality.

Your attempt to make war more acceptable by sanitizing it's dynamics is within itself an immoral act.

And as I keep stating, over and over and over, there is nothing in this threat that justifies us abandoning all our moral values. There is no evidence that being immoral saves lives. As I've linked for you, there is no real evidence torture saves lives. in fact, as other methods are more effective, torture likely in the big picture costs lives.
Click to expand...
Our military's primary mission is to protect our lives and national interests__I believe most agree that this should always take priority over morality.

But, if their primary mission can be accomplished morally then by all means, do so__Liberals have a problem with priority until someone sticks a gun in their face.

And no one said people won't crack. in fact that's the problem. They all will crack, even if they are innocent and have nothing to give. this too often gives us false information (al Libi again) and we waste time running it down. other methods are far more effective. The literature is clear on this.
Click to expand...
I am 100% aware of the point you are desperately trying to make, but it seems you have thrown up a mental block to what I have repeatedly told you.

What you are suggesting is that these intelligence agencies are managed and staffed with inexperienced, incompetent, uneducated, ignorant, sadistic barbarians.

For the final time!__Information is not considered reliable until it has been compared with information gathered by many intelligence agencies from multiple sources all over the world.

All of this intelligence is pieced together and compared to determine whether any piece of the puzzle is 0% reliable, 50% reliable, 100% reliable or 98 other possibilities of reliability__Get it?!
 
Last edited:
Empirica said:
The "innocent" have always suffered and died along side combatants, in fact civilian casualties often outnumber the military's.

This is an unavoidable consequence of war and why it should always be considered only as a last resort after all else has failed.

Bin Laden targeted civilians while the US only targets combatants and any civilian casualties are considered collateral damage.

The fact that war is sometimes necessary in no way diminishes it's immorality.

Your attempt to make war more acceptable by sanitizing it's dynamics is within itself an immoral act.

Our military's primary mission is to protect our lives and national interests__I believe most agree that this should always take priority over morality.

But, if their primary mission can be accomplished morally then by all means, do so__Liberals have a problem with priority until someone sticks a gun in their face.

I am 100% aware of the point you are desperately trying to make, but it seems you have thrown up a mental block to what I have repeatedly told you.

What you are suggesting is that these intelligence agencies are managed and staffed with inexperienced, incompetent, uneducated, ignorant, sadistic barbarians.

For the final time!__Information is not considered reliable until it has been compared with information gathered by many intelligence agencies from multiple sources all over the world.

All of this intelligence is pieced together and compared to determine whether any piece of the puzzle is 0% reliable, 50% reliable, 100% reliable or 98 other possibilities of reliability__Get it?!
Click to expand...
"All of this intelligence is pieced together and compared to determine whether any piece of the puzzle is 0% reliable, 50% reliable, 100% reliable or 98 other possibilities of reliability__Get it?!"....

is this something you have actual experience with, or something you have been told?
 
Last edited:
I think Gitmo is an embarressment and disgracing for the West. We were and are so afraid that we sacrificed basic human right standards. We ought to be better than that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care about genuine terrorists being subjected to tough treatment. But in Guantanamo and similar places, the executive has unchecked power over punishment of suspects, which opens the door for abuse. And many innocent people get crushed in the wheels of that system -- they are not even allowed to legally defend themselves. How many of the extralegal prisoners were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? How many are there because of false accusations by their enemies? We will never know, because the government doesn't allow us to know.

On top of that, it plays arguments in the hands of our enemies who hate freedom: "Why do you complain about human right abuses? You do it yourself!"

No, our laws were fine even before 9/11 and it would have been better to enforce them, instead of creating a load of problematic new laws out of panick. No law will ever guarantee 100% security and safety. That's the price of freedom. And we can't fight the enemies of freedom, when we forget who we are and violate human rights in the process, just because we're scared.

So I'd say the sooner Gitmo is closed, the better.
 
Empirica said:
Your attempt to make war more acceptable by sanitizing it's dynamics is within itself an immoral act.

Our military's primary mission is to protect our lives and national interests__I believe most agree that this should always take priority over morality.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. Nothing I have said suggests the military should not protect lives. As for national interests, that's a little more vague. What is in our national interest? Is needless war, spending billions without good cause in our national interest? Well, that's another issue.

But,as torture is neither effective or moral, why should it have any support. And while war is nasty business, would you really suggest soldiers have n moral compass, no honor, no standard of behavior? Next to no one in the military believes that.


But, if their primary mission can be accomplished morally then by all means, do so__Liberals have a problem with priority until someone sticks a gun in their face.
Click to expand...

No. My problem is three fold: 1. Torture is immoral. 2. Torture is illegal. And 3. Torture is ineffective.

I am 100% aware of the point you are desperately trying to make, but it seems you have thrown up a mental block to what I have repeatedly told you.

What you are suggesting is that these intelligence agencies are managed and staffed with inexperienced, incompetent, uneducated, ignorant, sadistic barbarians.

For the final time!__Information is not considered reliable until it has been compared with information gathered by many intelligence agencies from multiple sources all over the world.

All of this intelligence is pieced together and compared to determine whether any piece of the puzzle is 0% reliable, 50% reliable, 100% reliable or 98 other possibilities of reliability__Get it?!
Click to expand...

Listen, being unreliable is the problem, and checking it out takes time. We have a clear example of us using misinformation to go to war (al Libi), so how did that torture checking out thingie work? I really don't mean to be snarky, but I understand that you think being unreliable is no big deal. My point is, you're wrong. I have an example, something your side cannot provide, that misinformation cost us.

So while they do as you suggest, torture has little to give, and has been shown to give much in terms of cost. So again;

1. Torture is immoral. Without **** going to fight for survival levels, torture cannot be justified even as an alternative.

2. Torture is illegal. If we believe in laws at all, we can't just throw them aside on a whim. Others, we really don't believe in law.

3. Not only is torture ineffective, other methods are actually effective. Read the Book The Gamble. It is recorded there that we got far more information when we stopped harsh treatment and used other tactics than we ever did with the torture.
 
Empirica said:
The "innocent" have always suffered and died along side combatants, in fact civilian casualties often outnumber the military's.

This is an unavoidable consequence of war and why it should always be considered only as a last resort after all else has failed.
Click to expand...

It is very much avoidable if you

A Don't employ local mercenaries to pick these people up in the first place and

B Give them a ****ing trial like any other kind of criminal.
 
Red_Dave said:
It is very much avoidable if you

A Don't employ local mercenaries to pick these people up in the first place and

B Give them a ****ing trial like any other kind of criminal.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Perhaps the answer is to kill them on the battlefield.
 
Misterveritis said:
Awesome. Perhaps the answer is to kill them on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

Kind of a silly question. What battlefield was that innocent taxi driver on? In a never ending war, in all nations, with no nation at war with us, exactly what are you calling a battlefield?
 
Boo Radley said:
Kind of a silly question. What battlefield was that innocent taxi driver on? In a never ending war, in all nations, with no nation at war with us, exactly what are you calling a battlefield?
Click to expand...
Not silly at all. The men and women who fight our wars are as imperfect as the rest of us. Emotions run high. And people not only make mistakes, sometimes they are brutal and do illegal things. Sometimes people are killed unintentionally and sometimes, as in the case of Dilawar (I assume that is who you refer to) they are murdered.

This battlefield was Bagram Air Force Base. Unlawful combatants fire mortar rounds and rockets at them regularly.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not convinced war is in and of itself an immoral act. While I admire people like Ghandi and King, I saw no problem stopping Nazi aggression, for example.
Click to expand...
Do you have any problem with stopping Islamofascist aggression?
 
randel said:
"All of this intelligence is pieced together and compared to determine whether any piece of the puzzle is 0% reliable, 50% reliable, 100% reliable or 98 other possibilities of reliability__Get it?!"....

is this something you have actual experience with, or something you have been told?
Click to expand...
It is something I have direct experience with. We did the best we could with the time and information available to us. I was a collection manager. I tasked intelligence collection assets to gather information needed to answer critical questions. We never had enough assets nor enough time to get everything 100% right. No one ever does in the real world. We took the data, combined it with our judgments colored by our preconceptions and prejudices, and provided our assessments to decision-makers. We hope we were right more often that we were wrong. We could be deceived by a skillful enemy. The most skillful deceptions were those we "figured out ourselves". Once we convinced ourselves that we had cleverly understood what the enemy was hiding we became unshakable in our beliefs. Even in the face of evidence contrary to our position we were inclined to develop reasons to not believe the source. Such is human nature. In our training we are given tools to counter this human trait.
 
German guy said:
I think Gitmo is an embarressment and disgracing for the West. We were and are so afraid that we sacrificed basic human right standards. We ought to be better than that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care about genuine terrorists being subjected to tough treatment. But in Guantanamo and similar places, the executive has unchecked power over punishment of suspects, which opens the door for abuse. And many innocent people get crushed in the wheels of that system -- they are not even allowed to legally defend themselves. How many of the extralegal prisoners were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? How many are there because of false accusations by their enemies? We will never know, because the government doesn't allow us to know.

On top of that, it plays arguments in the hands of our enemies who hate freedom: "Why do you complain about human right abuses? You do it yourself!"

No, our laws were fine even before 9/11 and it would have been better to enforce them, instead of creating a load of problematic new laws out of panick. No law will ever guarantee 100% security and safety. That's the price of freedom. And we can't fight the enemies of freedom, when we forget who we are and violate human rights in the process, just because we're scared.

So I'd say the sooner Gitmo is closed, the better.
Click to expand...
Will you take them?

No. I thought not.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you have any problem with stopping Islamofascist aggression?
Click to expand...

WOWWW! Such ad obvious strawman. I'm impressed at that boldness with which you throw that out.

I'm sorry, but torturing and killing innocent taxi drivers does not fight Islamofascist, or anything else for that matter. All it does is destroy our world standing, lower us closer to their level, and weaken all moral authority that we have.
 
Misterveritis said:
Not silly at all. The men and women who fight our wars are as imperfect as the rest of us. Emotions run high. And people not only make mistakes, sometimes they are brutal and do illegal things. Sometimes people are killed unintentionally and sometimes, as in the case of Dilawar (I assume that is who you refer to) they are murdered.

This battlefield was Bagram Air Force Base. Unlawful combatants fire mortar rounds and rockets at them regularly.
Click to expand...

As we are not at war with a country, how would define an unlawful combatant? If China invaded America, our army no more, would you be an unlawful combatant?

However, a taxi driver fits no definition of an unlawful combatant, not even a combatant at all.

Laws protect the innocent. It is one reason why they are important.
 
Misterveritis said:
Will you take them?

No. I thought not.
Click to expand...

I would love to see my government taking these prisoners, instead of becoming accomplice of this ongoing human right violation.

Merkel is a coward when it comes to that, a bag full of hot air: On one side, she (rightfully) complains, on the other side, she isn't willing to contribute solving the problem.
 
Last edited:
German guy said:
I would love to see my government taking these prisoners, instead of becoming accomplice of this ongoing human right violation.

Merkel is a coward when it comes to that, a bag full of hot air: On one side, she (rightfully) complains, on the other side, she isn't willing to contribute solving the problem.
Click to expand...
Awesome. Let us know how it turns out. Oh. Germany doesn't want them. They are way too dangerous. How do you pronounce kumbaya in German?
 
Boo Radley said:
WOWWW! Such ad obvious strawman. I'm impressed at that boldness with which you throw that out.

I'm sorry, but torturing and killing innocent taxi drivers does not fight Islamofascist, or anything else for that matter. All it does is destroy our world standing, lower us closer to their level, and weaken all moral authority that we have.
Click to expand...

You said you were happy to stop national socialism in WWII. Since fascism was a big part of that war I wanted to see if you were as consistent with fighting and defeating of fascist movements. Islam and its fascists are as dangerous and national socialists and Italian fascists.

Murdering Delawar, despite the allegations of people trying to cover their crime, was not and is not US policy. I know that you believe that it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom