• 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!

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames American flag [W:508,759]

Unitedwestand13 said:
Pornography is considered taboo by devout practitioners of the Islamic faith. So being subjected to it would be considered torture.
Click to expand...

That makes me believe you might have had a rather sheltered life or an interest in robbing the word torture of its meaning. We should admit that this kind of stuff cannot go on but is not torture.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
:roll: Oh please.... You mean the same devout practitioners that routinely have sex with very young boys and girls? The same oh so pure people that rape women then when they can't get three other males to corroborate their story stones the victim to death? The very same practitioners of the so called religion of peace that behead those that won't change to their belief system, or pay extortion?

Oh yeah, they sound like very docile people.
Click to expand...

I am not justifying the twisted train of thought the terrorists use to justify their madness.

My stance is a simple principle: no human being deserves to be tortured.
 
spud_meister said:
Why do so many people accept that it's ok for a man to be held for 13 years with no charges pressed, no evidence of his guilt shown, just because he's a foreigner? If he's a terrorist, charge him and execute him, if he's not, then let him go. 13 years is just ****ing ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I dont think " so many people " actually believe the guy is being held just because he's a foreigner.

Most people just wave off that kind of nonsensical hyperbole.
 
j-mac said:
Oh I don't think so sparky....Just because you put a pithy sig on your postings doesn't mean that is how you honestly feel. People in here misrepresent themselves on purpose all the time. You are correct that Feinstein is a politician, however, until she did this I actually could honestly say I respected here if not her beliefs in liberalism. But this...This is little more than hackery...Think about it, we hashed this out years ago, and we Repubs lost the debate for the most part, and a law was passed against it, and the interrogations stopped. The question that needs to be answered here is why now? Why at this moment?
Click to expand...
Because the incoming GOP majority won't let the report see the light of day?
The report's been complete for a year or two.
If not now, when?

this was a release timed for two reasons that are pretty clear. 1. DiFi was mad as hell that the CIA spyed on her report, and committee. 2. That she knew that the time that she was able to get this one sided, factually inaccurate report out was quickly disappearing.
Click to expand...
It's kind of a compliment that you read my previous posts and regurgitate them as your own.

And as a side benefit, they got to splash this out at a time when politically it was convenient to soften the testimony of Gruber in the House...Not that there aren't a scandal a minute with this bunch of libs these days.
Click to expand...
Your partisan hackery is duly noted.
Nobody gives a sh** about Gruber.
I'll bet THIS time that relentlessly non-partisan Darrell Issa will produce incontrovertible evidence of scandal.
He kicked ass on Benghazi.

But I mean seriously, what is it that libs want with this really?
Click to expand...
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
.

Are we back to the crazy 'Arrest Bush', 'Arrest Cheney' Cindy Sheehan crowd? Is that it?
Click to expand...
No.

Because that is just Bat **** crazy, and is never going to happen.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
joG said:
That makes me believe you might have had a rather sheltered life or an interest in robbing the word torture of its meaning. We should admit that this kind of stuff cannot go on but is not torture.
Click to expand...

Here is an idea: follow this definition of torture.

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Click to expand...

UN Convention Against Torture
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I am not justifying the twisted train of thought the terrorists use to justify their madness.

My stance is a simple principle: no human being deserves to be tortured.
Click to expand...

No you weren't justifying their behavior, just showing them the respect you so obviously think they deserve by calling them "devout practitioners of the Islamic faith."

I don't consider them human beings.
 
j-mac said:
Oh I don't think so sparky....Just because you put a pithy sig on your postings doesn't mean that is how you honestly feel. People in here misrepresent themselves on purpose all the time. You are correct that Feinstein is a politician, however, until she did this I actually could honestly say I respected here if not her beliefs in liberalism. But this...This is little more than hackery...Think about it, we hashed this out years ago, and we Repubs lost the debate for the most part, and a law was passed against it, and the interrogations stopped. The question that needs to be answered here is why now? Why at this moment?

It is true that there may be NO time that is good for its release, however, this was a release timed for two reasons that are pretty clear. 1. DiFi was mad as hell that the CIA spyed on her report, and committee. 2. That she knew that the time that she was able to get this one sided, factually inaccurate report out was quickly disappearing. And as a side benefit, they got to splash this out at a time when politically it was convenient to soften the testimony of Gruber in the House...Not that there aren't a scandal a minute with this bunch of libs these days. But I mean seriously, what is it that libs want with this really? Are we back to the crazy 'Arrest Bush', 'Arrest Cheney' Cindy Sheehan crowd? Is that it? Because that is just Bat **** crazy, and is never going to happen.
Click to expand...

Frankly, reason 1 there is a decent one IMO. An agency willing to risk alienating the very people tasked to oversee them by hacking their computers, accusing those same people of a crime, lying about what they did, and then doing NOTHING when the lies were found out should expect to get clipped because they ARE out of control. I can't believe that event has been brushed off. You can damn sure guarantee if that was a GOP committee, there would have been a dozen hearings by now.

And obviously those involved in a project for six years intended to release the findings and did. That should surprise exactly no one. It might be true that it was rushed a bit because of the change in control, but the committee has been fighting the WH and CIA for months at least over the details. At some point those involved just have to release it.

Finally, I think it's a good thing to know what happened, so we go into this decision the next time with our eyes wide open about what will likely happen. We can't do that if we only know half or 1/4 or 1/10th of the story. And I can't see how this release has any long term bad effects on the ME. The damage was done with Abu Ghraib, complete with pictures, and continues with GITMO, with a steady drip of former detainees from there for the last few years to tell their story. And if there is any real damage from this release, it's a bunch of people defending torture as a legitimate interrogation technique, and denying that we did anything wrong during that period.
 
j-mac said:
No you weren't justifying their behavior, just showing them the respect you so obviously think they deserve by calling them "devout practitioners of the Islamic faith."

I don't consider them human beings.
Click to expand...

That does not mean torturing them would be justifiable.
 
CanadaJohn said:
The concept, as I understand it, is that prisoners of war are detained until such time as hostilities end. The fact that the "war on terror" and the war in Afghanistan are the longest lasting wars that America has ever been involved in adds to the length of time a prisoner of war may be held. Do you believe it wise to release enemy "soldiers" while you are still at war with that enemy?
Click to expand...

US combat operations ended in Afghanistan in October. It may not be wise, but it's not right to hold a man for 13 years without charge.
 
vesper said:
Thanks for straightening me out. I thought it was the NSA. Maybe because of knowing the NSA deals with computers etc.
So I went and educated myself. It appears to be a work of a couple of folks within the CIA. It was the CIA director, Brennen who ordered a complete investigation of the hacking. I couldn't find any criminal charges brought over the hacking. Did You? And the hack was directly linked to this report being released. The report was comprised by third parties. To my understanding no direct testimony from those who were directly involved were asked to give testimony. I'm wondering if the hack didn't take place to check to see if it leaked out information that would be damning to our allies and informants and give them a heads up in advance. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
This is my problem with any surveillance overreaches.
There is always a "legitimate" reason.
It's always to protect our best interests.

So yeah you are right, that seems to have poison Feinsteins relationship with the CIA but doesn't excuse her from all the times she thought their activities in interrogation were justified and now claims to find them appauling.
Click to expand...
If Senators were given all the true and complete details of CIA activities, she is not excused.
 
Fenton said:
I dont think " so many people " actually believe the guy is being held just because he's a foreigner.

Most people just wave off that kind of nonsensical hyperbole.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he was being held because he's a foreigner. Try again.
 
radioman said:
This is my problem with any surveillance overreaches.
There is always a "legitimate" reason.
It's always to protect our best interests.


If Senators were given all the true and complete details of CIA activities, she is not excused.
Click to expand...

I can certainly appreciate your concern of overreaching when it comes to gathering information on we the people. Heck look how willing the Democrats have been to further Obama's authority over NSA spying. It was bad when Bush started it, It's on steroids under Obama.
 
vesper said:
I can certainly appreciate your concern of overreaching when it comes to gathering information on we the people. Heck look how willing the Democrats have been to further Obama's authority over NSA spying. It was bad when Bush started it, It's on steroids under Obama.
Click to expand...
Overreaching will continue, regardless of who's in the White House.
Give government a program, no matter how lofty it's goals may appear--- e.g. "keeping us safe" , and it will be abused.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
We are part of the UN.

we are supposed to enforce the rules in our country.
Click to expand...

No, we created the UN, paid and still pay for the lion share of their dues. We enforce the rules in this country that WE make. We are not beholden to the UN or their decisions unless we agree to be, and for only as long as we think it right to do so. That's world superpower 101.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Here is an idea: follow this definition of torture.



UN Convention Against Torture
Click to expand...

Yes. I know the convention and a whole lot of the background and all. And the thing is that you should understand, what the context was and they referred to. Severe was what happened in Auschwitz and not in Gitmo. To equate them is a severe insult to the people that were really tortured.
 
joG said:
Yes. I know the convention and a whole lot of the background and all. And the thing is that you should understand, what the context was and they referred to. Severe was what happened in Auschwitz and not in Gitmo. To equate them is a severe insult to the people that were really tortured.
Click to expand...

Any act of torture is condemnable. In my oppinion the scale or severity of the torture does not take away the fact that all acts of torture are dehumanizing. All acts of torture should be punished, no matter the scale.
 
spud_meister said:
US combat operations ended in Afghanistan in October. It may not be wise, but it's not right to hold a man for 13 years without charge.
Click to expand...

Technically, I may agree. However, how do we know there weren't legitimate charges that could be laid yet the Obama administration chose not to do so because Congress prohibited them from trying any Gitmo detainees in mainland US federal courts?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Technically, I may agree. However, how do we know there weren't legitimate charges that could be laid yet the Obama administration chose not to do so because Congress prohibited them from trying any Gitmo detainees in mainland US federal courts?
Click to expand...

Should we ask congress why we can't bring the terrorists to court?
 
radioman said:
Because the incoming GOP majority won't let the report see the light of day?
The report's been complete for a year or two.
If not now, when?
Click to expand...

Why not get with repubs and share and combine the two reports and come out with a unified report? Are liberals such children that they can't work with others?

It's kind of a compliment that you read my previous posts and regurgitate them as your own.
Click to expand...

Sorry radio, not what I was doing...But kind of telling that you think so...

Your partisan hackery is duly noted.
Nobody gives a sh** about Gruber.
I'll bet THIS time that relentlessly non-partisan Darrell Issa will produce incontrovertible evidence of scandal.
He kicked ass on Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Ah name calling...Ain't it great when you have nothing? Gruber is very telling look into the liberal mindset...And I wouldn't count the chickens on Benghazi until all the investigating is done...

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but please point out for us what in this report is anything new concerning how liberals feel about EIT?

No.
Click to expand...

Good to hear, because that made you libs look kind of crazy.

Agreed.
Click to expand...

That's great.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Should we ask congress why we can't bring the terrorists to court?
Click to expand...

I think the answer is twofold - one, no interest in providing terrorists with show trials and two, no interest in providing terrorists with the protections of the American judicial system.

But I don't speak for Congress, so it wouldn't hurt to ask them directly.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I think the answer is twofold - one, no interest in providing terrorists with show trials and two, no interest in providing terrorists with the protections of the American judicial system.

But I don't speak for Congress, so it wouldn't hurt to ask them directly.
Click to expand...

If they are not convicted, how can terrorists be properly punished?

Who cares about the ravings of the unrepentant, put them on trial for the sake of actual justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom