• 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]

Giving rights to enemies now? Great idea... :roll:

yes, good point. We should take all rights away from everyone. If they need rights, they must have done something wrong.
 
Great care was taken to ensure that that the detainees' health and well being were not permanently impaired. They were nonetheless unlawful enemy combatants with no right to Geneva Conventions protections. In that context, everything done to them that fell short of summary execution was an act of charity.

The problem is, how do we know they are "unlawful enemy combatants"? They weren't all picked up on some battlefield.
 
The problem is, how do we know they are "unlawful enemy combatants"? They weren't all picked up on some battlefield.
Many were indeed picked up on the battlefield. Most of the rest were captured in raids on identified combatant centers.
 
Many were indeed picked up on the battlefield. Most of the rest were captured in raids on identified combatant centers.

Some were, but there's no mechanism that would allow us to assess it. Someone just had to say "that guy's a terrorist" and poof.

That's why we need these checks and balances, we need to make sure who we throw in Gitmo are the folk we think they are.
 
Some were, but there's no mechanism that would allow us to assess it. Someone just had to say "that guy's a terrorist" and poof.

That's why we need these checks and balances, we need to make sure who we throw in Gitmo are the folk we think they are.

This was war, not law enforcement.
 
This was war, not law enforcement.

Where's the official Declaration of War? So you're saying that if we claim "war" (this is an imperial police action, though, not war), we get to do whatever we want with those we deem to be "unlawful combatants"? Seems maybe not something a Republic based on the Freedoms and Liberties of the individual would do.
 
Where's the official Declaration of War? So you're saying that if we claim "war" (this is an imperial police action, though, not war), we get to do whatever we want with those we deem to be "unlawful combatants"? Seems maybe not something a Republic based on the Freedoms and Liberties of the individual would do.

Yes, it's war, and no declaration was/is necessary.
 
Yes, it's war, and no declaration was/is necessary.

So very convenient. You get to define "war", you get to define "unlawful combatant" and based on your definitions, you get to do whatever you want to a human being without regard to right or morality.

Not how an advanced and civilized society behaves, but certainly has its roots in our Ape past. This is what it means to disgrace our flag.
 
So very convenient. You get to define "war", you get to define "unlawful combatant" and based on your definitions, you get to do whatever you want to a human being without regard to right or morality.

Not how an advanced and civilized society behaves, but certainly has its roots in our Ape past. This is what it means to disgrace our flag.

The GWB administration rejected the law enforcement model and adopted the warfare model specifically to free themselves from the constraints imposed by preparing cases for trial. "Unlawful combatant" is a recognized term in international law and our adversaries certainly qualified. You need to study this issue.
 
The problem is, how do we know they are "unlawful enemy combatants"? They weren't all picked up on some battlefield.
I doubt that you will ever know.

We have no reason to keep anyone who is not a threat. Many thousands were captured. How many ended up in secret prisons? Less than 200? How many had harsh interrogations? Less than one hundred? How many experienced near drowning? Three.
 
Where's the official Declaration of War? So you're saying that if we claim "war" (this is an imperial police action, though, not war), we get to do whatever we want with those we deem to be "unlawful combatants"? Seems maybe not something a Republic based on the Freedoms and Liberties of the individual would do.

What do you mean "Official" declaration of war? The Congress voted to approve the use of force. That is a declaration of war. The Congress also funded the war. It has their approval.

We have no obligation to treat this nation's external enemies as if they were citizens. We have plenty of enemy within the nation. We call them Democrats.

An unlawful enemy combatant is one who is fighting in civilian clothes with no badges of rank. When caught the captor owes you a length of rope or a bullet.
 
So very convenient. You get to define "war", you get to define "unlawful combatant" and based on your definitions, you get to do whatever you want to a human being without regard to right or morality.

Not how an advanced and civilized society behaves, but certainly has its roots in our Ape past. This is what it means to disgrace our flag.

LOL. That is so cute!
 
Nothing cute , only disgusting ! This whole thing, going back centuries, ..our hatred, intolerance, against minorities and foreigners ..
Shame on US ! Its high time we licked our wounds and started to act with maturity and dignity ..
 
Well, good. Two of us are on the right side of history. You are not.
Your opinion, Misterveritis, your sick opinion, Mr Conservative... And I am certain that there are a great many more on your side.... We are far from being a civilized nation ...maybe another 500 years ..
 
Since I'm not right wing your generalization fails. There were some mistakes, as always happens in war. Those do not invalidate the general proposition. The language of human rights has become has become nothing more than a political tool in our hypocritical age.

Right, independent, an embarrassed republican.

I'm really not sure what your point is in this discussion. You've pointed out many times that one can't compare our interrogation program with that of the Japanese and others, which is true. We did have medical personnel on hand most of the time, and few died, and that's not an accident. So why is that? I like to think it's because we're a fundamentally decent people, most especially including our troops.

So it's odd that you'll point out the examples that prove we ARE at some level, and certainly at the ground level, 'better' in some fundamental way than the Japanese or Nazis or jihadists, and then dismiss any discussion of what is at the core of those differences. I don't think the core is we're better because we ran a little less brutal interrogation program than they did. It should be we fundamentally reject the idea of a legitimate torture program in every way based on some notion of human rights, not that we ran one that is different in kind but not in substance - we fit ours in a legal box.
 
Right, independent, an embarrassed republican.

I'm really not sure what your point is in this discussion. You've pointed out many times that one can't compare our interrogation program with that of the Japanese and others, which is true. We did have medical personnel on hand most of the time, and few died, and that's not an accident. So why is that? I like to think it's because we're a fundamentally decent people, most especially including our troops.

So it's odd that you'll point out the examples that prove we ARE at some level, and certainly at the ground level, 'better' in some fundamental way than the Japanese or Nazis or jihadists, and then dismiss any discussion of what is at the core of those differences. I don't think the core is we're better because we ran a little less brutal interrogation program than they did. It should be we fundamentally reject the idea of a legitimate torture program in every way based on some notion of human rights, not that we ran one that is different in kind but not in substance - we fit ours in a legal box.
You may be interested in watching an interview with the man who headed the interrogation of the 9\11 terrorists. It's riveting, and please watch it to the end.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpIGr8w85Y
 
Right, independent, an embarrassed republican.

I'm really not sure what your point is in this discussion. You've pointed out many times that one can't compare our interrogation program with that of the Japanese and others, which is true. We did have medical personnel on hand most of the time, and few died, and that's not an accident. So why is that? I like to think it's because we're a fundamentally decent people, most especially including our troops.

So it's odd that you'll point out the examples that prove we ARE at some level, and certainly at the ground level, 'better' in some fundamental way than the Japanese or Nazis or jihadists, and then dismiss any discussion of what is at the core of those differences. I don't think the core is we're better because we ran a little less brutal interrogation program than they did. It should be we fundamentally reject the idea of a legitimate torture program in every way based on some notion of human rights, not that we ran one that is different in kind but not in substance - we fit ours in a legal box.

As soon as a Repub advocates open borders or a national income floor, as I do, I'll reconsider my affiliation. As for the rest, I'm a simple man. We do our best to be as kind as we can, but we would be fools to deny ourselves the tools of survival in a world that is becoming more, not less, barbaric.
 
Nothing cute , only disgusting ! This whole thing, going back centuries, ..our hatred, intolerance, against minorities and foreigners ..
Shame on US ! Its high time we licked our wounds and started to act with maturity and dignity ..
That won't be easy given the number of leftists the schools are turning out.
 
The GWB administration rejected the law enforcement model and adopted the warfare model specifically to free themselves from the constraints imposed by preparing cases for trial. "Unlawful combatant" is a recognized term in international law and our adversaries certainly qualified. You need to study this issue.

They didn't reject anything, they went in functionally as imperial police occupying force and called it "war". Unlawful combat is a term defined, but we don't know that everyone in Gitmo is because there's no oversight to check. Which is what I said. You just need to actually read instead of responding emotionally to arguments you've imagined in your head.
 
I doubt that you will ever know.

We have no reason to keep anyone who is not a threat. Many thousands were captured. How many ended up in secret prisons? Less than 200? How many had harsh interrogations? Less than one hundred? How many experienced near drowning? Three.

So it is claimed, but not verified. There's nothing in place to ensure we are picking up only combatants.
 
Back
Top Bottom