• 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!

What should we do with the Guantanamo prisoners?

What should we do with the Guantanamo prisoners?

  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .
Boo Radley said:
Oi answered it by telling you it isn't the same thing. It's not immoral.
Click to expand...

You did not limit your proposed ban to "immoral". You said Immoral and Illegal. Look, I'll quote you saying it:

Boo Radley said:
Post 186
Immoral and illegal means are never justified no matter the ends.
Click to expand...

If you now wish to strike "illegal" and simply say that immoral means do not justify the ends :shrug: that's fine. In that case my reply to you would be the same as my point to DA60 - that the morality of means is often determined by the end being pursued, and cannot be considered independently of them.


Or if you wish to argue that you were speaking only to means that were both immoral and illegal :shrug: then that would be fine, too. That would leave you defending means that were strictly immoral (but not illegal) as justified by an end, but it's your call.

I'm sure you enjoy quoting your last sentence, but it's meaningless. Common phrases come with a well know societal context.
Click to expand...

The ends do not justify the means is a common phrase. The argument that no end justifies any means is not.
 
calamity said:
IMO, by 2007 the war was lost. We had our chance in 2003 & 4. Once that failed, especially by 2007, abandoning Iraq actually made sense.
Click to expand...

:shrug: well you were free to your opinion, and I for one and glad that you turned out to be incorrect. 2007/2008 were wildly successful years for OIF.

I think you are conflating "domestic political support" for "winning a war".
 
calamity said:
I'm sure you don't. Selective memory is not a very attractive trait of the Right.

Here's a reminder---John McCain back in 2007 saying Iraq was mismanaged by Rummy.


McCain: Iraq War Mismanaged For Years - CBS News
Click to expand...

That was when McCain was running for president and needed someone to throw under the bus in regard to what had become an unpopular war. :lol:
McCain has a reputation of throwing a lot of people in his own party under the bus. Sometimes it's hard to tell if he is a Progressive or a Republican. Or maybe both!
 
calamity said:
I'm sure you don't. Selective memory is not a very attractive trait of the Right.

Here's a reminder---John McCain back in 2007 saying Iraq was mismanaged by Rummy.

McCain: Iraq War Mismanaged For Years - CBS News
Click to expand...

Rumsfelds' "Light Footprint" strategy (what today we call "Drones and Special Forces", and is suddenly popular with many on both sides who want to limit our presence overseas) was indeed incredibly ill-suited to counterinsurgency in the context of a collapsed nation-state. His refusal to accept discordant analysis on items such as necessary force allocations from senior military leadership, including JCS Shinseki is rightfully a classic case of low-complexity, confirmation-seeking decision-making. However it wasn't his decision to send home the Iraqi Army - that was a casualty of the lack of unity of command and division between Bremer and Franks. Nor was it the Bush Administrations' fault that we lacked armored vehicles and the kinds of body armor we ended up wearing - those were produced by the Clinton Administrations' reductions in R&D and Procurement in the 90s. Rumsfeld was derided for the "you go to war with the army you have" comment, but he was also correct; just as he was with the "Known Unknowns" schtick.

Just saying, the man deserves credit for what he got right, and blame for what he got wrong, rather than to have anything that happened that was bad or good thrown randomly on him.
 
It's all so "hush hush" Carney wouldn't confirm if Obama was still breathing :roll: but this is a big part of the answer:

The White House on Thursday wouldn't confirm a report that the administration was in talks with Yemen to set up a detention facility outside its capital city of Sanaa to house suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay and in Afghanistan

Carney's sidestepping came on the heels of a Los Angeles Times report that said U.S. and Yemeni officials were negotiating how the facility would be funded and whether it would function as a prison or type of halfway house to allow detainees to reenter society.
Click to expand...
White House mum on Yemeni detention facility | TheHill

we should be glad to pay for it (detention center/prison), and ship them off to Yemen, where they can get their fair share of abuse.
Around half of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are from Yemen, and 55 have already been designated to return
Click to expand...
 
annata said:
It's all so "hush hush" Carney wouldn't confirm if Obama was still breathing :roll: but this is a big part of the answer:


White House mum on Yemeni detention facility | TheHill

we should be glad to pay for it (detention center/prison), and ship them off to Yemen, where they can get their fair share of abuse.
Click to expand...

This would be..... a very bad idea. Unless it's some kind of deliberate catch and release program as I have described this would.... be unwise.


:doh so we will probably do it. And then try to spin our way out of not being surprised when they exhibit high rates of recidivism.
 
cpwill said:
This would be..... a very bad idea. Unless it's some kind of deliberate catch and release program as I have described this would.... be unwise.


:doh so we will probably do it. And then try to spin our way out of not being surprised when they exhibit high rates of recidivism.
Click to expand...
they are supposed to "rehabilitate" those whom can be so, and just hold those whom can't.

Being the fact Yemen is taking a big part of AQ attacks inside it's borders; one would think to trust their judgements/proceedures.
Yemen isn't going to release anyone they see as a 'threat' -i'd trust their judgement on this,
the ME isn't exactly a place that worried too much about due process.

Get them out of GITMO, and let another Arab state hold them
 
annata said:
they are supposed to "rehabilitate" those whom can be so, and just hold those whom can't.

Being the fact Yemen is taking a big part of AQ attacks inside it's borders; one would think to trust their judgements/proceedures.
Yemen isn't going to release anyone they see as a 'threat' -i'd trust their judgement on this,
the ME isn't exactly a place that worried too much about due process.

Get them out of GITMO, and let another Arab state hold them
Click to expand...

Well if you trust the Yemeni government to be stable, unitary, and effective enough to hold these guys, good on you I suppose. I do not share that opinion, and I do not know anyone who has spent time studying Yemen (and I know a couple of those) who does.
 
annata said:
they are supposed to "rehabilitate" those whom can be so, and just hold those whom can't.

Being the fact Yemen is taking a big part of AQ attacks inside it's borders; one would think to trust their judgements/proceedures.
Yemen isn't going to release anyone they see as a 'threat' -i'd trust their judgement on this,
the ME isn't exactly a place that worried too much about due process.

Get them out of GITMO, and let another Arab state hold them
Click to expand...

I think that's part of the problem, the states they came from don't want them back. Yes, they should be tried by military tribunal, which is the currently the on going process, then either released or incarcerated, probably at Gitmo. Trouble is that last I recall, the large majority of those released have rejoined terrorist groups and have attacked people, often innocent people, using the typical terrorist tools such as car bombs.
 
cpwill said:
Rumsfelds' "Light Footprint" strategy (what today we call "Drones and Special Forces", and is suddenly popular with many on both sides who want to limit our presence overseas) was indeed incredibly ill-suited to counterinsurgency in the context of a collapsed nation-state. His refusal to accept discordant analysis on items such as necessary force allocations from senior military leadership, including JCS Shinseki is rightfully a classic case of low-complexity, confirmation-seeking decision-making. However it wasn't his decision to send home the Iraqi Army - that was a casualty of the lack of unity of command and division between Bremer and Franks. Nor was it the Bush Administrations' fault that we lacked armored vehicles and the kinds of body armor we ended up wearing - those were produced by the Clinton Administrations' reductions in R&D and Procurement in the 90s. Rumsfeld was derided for the "you go to war with the army you have" comment, but he was also correct; just as he was with the "Known Unknowns" schtick.

Just saying, the man deserves credit for what he got right, and blame for what he got wrong, rather than to have anything that happened that was bad or good thrown randomly on him.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of information we are privy to and a lot we are not. It is real easy to be an armchair quarterback.
 
cpwill said:
You did not limit your proposed ban to "immoral". You said Immoral and Illegal. Look, I'll quote you saying it:



If you now wish to strike "illegal" and simply say that immoral means do not justify the ends :shrug: that's fine. In that case my reply to you would be the same as my point to DA60 - that the morality of means is often determined by the end being pursued, and cannot be considered independently of them.


Or if you wish to argue that you were speaking only to means that were both immoral and illegal :shrug: then that would be fine, too. That would leave you defending means that were strictly immoral (but not illegal) as justified by an end, but it's your call.



The ends do not justify the means is a common phrase. The argument that no end justifies any means is not.
Click to expand...

You're not following. The illegal was dealt with by the expectation that they would go to jail. I have eliminated neither.

And no, that is not the argument. You continue to be wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're not following. The illegal was dealt with by the expectation that they would go to jail.
Click to expand...

Which, if you are arguing that illegal means are not justified by the ends, is irrelevant. Their means (Civil Disobedience) would remain unjustified.

I have eliminated neither.

And no, that is not the argument. You continue to be wrong.
Click to expand...

:doh

Okay. We'll do this slowly.

Are means unjustified when they are:

A: Immoral
B: Illegal
C: Both Immoral and Illegal

?
 
vesper said:
There's a lot of information we are privy to and a lot we are not. It is real easy to be an armchair quarterback.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But the decision-making procedures in higher DOD were atrocious, and Rumsfeld does indeed deserve blame for that. He already had his answer, and he was not interested in troublesome information or analysis.
 
radcen said:
What should we do with the Guantanamo prisoners?
Click to expand...
Release them? Try them? Leave them there indefinitely... forever?

Do we lose any alleged moral high ground by detaining then indefinitely? Should we care?
Click to expand...




Those that we can't put on trial and convict should be released.

That mess should have been cleaned up a long time ago.
 
cpwill said:
Well if you trust the Yemeni government to be stable, unitary, and effective enough to hold these guys, good on you I suppose. I do not share that opinion, and I do not know anyone who has spent time studying Yemen (and I know a couple of those) who does.
Click to expand...
I trust Yemen to do what is Yemen's self interest. The gov't works closely with the US to drone AQ.
I doubt they'll release them unless they are fairly certain.
Their gov't is drone happy, even to the point of dubious targeting.

Either that or put them on trial here, and incarcerate /release them .
It's an abomination to declare a perpetual war, and hold these guys longer then we did in any other war without charging them.
 
eohrnberger said:
I think that's part of the problem, the states they came from don't want them back. Yes, they should be tried by military tribunal, which is the currently the on going process, then either released or incarcerated, probably at Gitmo. Trouble is that last I recall, the large majority of those released have rejoined terrorist groups and have attacked people, often innocent people, using the typical terrorist tools such as car bombs.
Click to expand...

yes, a lot did go back to jihad. I agree with your ideas here.
 
humbolt said:
Okay. Trial first. Then shoot them. If given a chance, these people would kill you with glee for no particular reason other than you aren't them
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




"Timmy did it too", or would do it is a poor excuse for doing anything.

Check with you mama on this.
 
annata said:
I trust Yemen to do what is Yemen's self interest. The gov't works closely with the US to drone AQ.
Click to expand...

Yemen is not a unitary actor and does not exercise consistent control within its' own borders. The government is about as trustworthy as Pakistan's.

I doubt they'll release them unless they are fairly certain.
Click to expand...

:lol: unless the person making the decision is fairly certain that he will profit by doing so, yes. :)

Their gov't is drone happy, even to the point of dubious targeting.
Click to expand...

Naturally. It allows them to keep potential alternate power sources off-balance while deflecting blame to the Mean Ole United States.

Either that or put them on trial here, and incarcerate /release them
Click to expand...

Why incarcerate? Military tribunals are fully capable of assigning the death penalty, and by ths point we have all the intel we would want from them.

It's an abomination to declare a perpetual war, and hold these guys longer then we did in any other war without charging them.
Click to expand...

No, stewing a lamb in it's mothers milk is an abomination. Putting captured jihadists in what amounts to a freaking tropical resort for them is called "treating your enemy better than he treats you".
 
Seeing as the constitution applies not only to citizens but all people within its borders, these terrorists have the right to a trial.
 
cpwill said:
Yemen is not a unitary actor and does not exercise consistent control within its' own borders. The government is about as trustworthy as Pakistan's.



:lol: unless the person making the decision is fairly certain that he will profit by doing so, yes. :)



Naturally. It allows them to keep potential alternate power sources off-balance while deflecting blame to the Mean Ole United States.



Why incarcerate? Military tribunals are fully capable of assigning the death penalty, and by ths point we have all the intel we would want from them.



No, stewing a lamb in it's mothers milk is an abomination. Putting captured jihadists in what amounts to a freaking tropical resort for them is called "treating your enemy better than he treats you".
Click to expand...

So why are there reports of prisoners that have committed suicide by hanging themselves in their cells
 
cpwill said:
Which, if you are arguing that illegal means are not justified by the ends, is irrelevant. Their means (Civil Disobedience) would remain unjustified.



:doh

Okay. We'll do this slowly.

Are means unjustified when they are:

A: Immoral
B: Illegal
C: Both Immoral and Illegal

?
Click to expand...

Perfectly relevant. Keep in context.

When you do something illegal and / or immoral, you can't say it was proper because of the ends. When you do something illegal, go to jail, you are not claiming it legal and proper, even if it fits the moral standard. That's why you willingly go to jail. When you do something illegal and or immoral and say you can because if the ends, that is when when use the common phrase "the ends don't justify the means."

Now I know you're just playing a game here, to avoid a proper judgement in the issue at hand, but try to stay within the framework of the discussion.
 
cpwill said:
Yemen is not a unitary actor and does not exercise consistent control within its' own borders. The government is about as trustworthy as Pakistan's
Click to expand...
ya. I know it's fractured, and tribal, still the regime controls the areas of this prison, near Sanaa i believe.
Again look at their self interest. Most of the regions outside their control are in the north.

:lol: unless the person making the decision is fairly certain that he will profit by doing so, yes. :)
Click to expand...
corruiption is endemic, and AQ does have a good record in prisonbreaks (Bengazi/Paki/ Yemen itself..few more i can't recall)
. So then use US prisons. Either.Or.


Naturally. It allows them to keep potential alternate power sources off-balance while deflecting blame to the Mean Ole United States
Click to expand...
agreed, and there is a lot of that, since the INTEL for targeting can come from Yemeni Intel, which can be used for dubious means.
Look at the wedding party droning - this isn't the first.

Why incarcerate? Military tribunals are fully capable of assigning the death penalty, and by ths point we have all the intel we would want from them
Click to expand...
If it meet the criteria, mete out the punishment - but that requires CHARGES first, something we haven't done.

No, stewing a lamb in it's mothers milk is an abomination. Putting captured jihadists in what amounts to a freaking tropical resort for them is called "treating your enemy better than he treats you
Click to expand...
you wanna free ticket to this resort? (rhetorical). Just because it is in Cuba, it is still a maximum security prison.
The song remains the same. Chgare them, mete out punishment, and incarcertate here or overseas. or where called for, death.
Congress won't budge on this - no US trials. Fine, then use a military trial, but something has to give.
Click to expand...
 
iacardsfan said:
Seeing as the constitution applies not only to citizens but all people within its borders, these terrorists have the right to a trial.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Since these people are not within the USA's borders i don't believe that the U.S. constitution applies to them.

But we should still either try and convict them or turn them loose.
 
shrubnose said:
"Timmy did it too", or would do it is a poor excuse for doing anything.

Check with you mama on this.
Click to expand...
Read back, Shrubby. I've already addressed this. Poorly maybe, but addressed none the less. I'd give you the posts, but I'm just too damn lazy right now. And I'm heading for my shop for a few hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom