• 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!

Critics Bemoan Prospect of Obama Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely

Scorpion89

Scorpion89

Banned
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
2,629
Reaction score
527
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Critics Bemoan Prospect of Obama Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely - Political News - FOXNews.com

The political battle over the fate of the detainees at Gunatanamo Bay just got more contentious.

The Obama administration is considering an executive order to indefinitely imprison a small number of Guantanamo Bay detainees, a move that would be in line with Bush administration policy but already has drawn scorn from civil liberties groups.

"This is not change -- this is more of the same," Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in response to reports that surfaced Friday of the possible executive order. "If President Obama issues an executive order authorizing indefinite detention, he'll be repeating the same mistakes of George Bush, and his policies will be destined to fail as were his predecessor's."


So much for that promise by Cand. Obama I guess President Obama now is starting to understand jeeze took him long enough, oh and one other thing someone needs to go and tell the ACLU you shut the **** up and just go away their was a time they were need but now all they are is a ****ing joke.
 
It was a good idea back when Bush did it, it remains a good idea now.
 
Scorpion89 said:
"This is not change -- this is more of the same," Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in response to reports that surfaced Friday of the possible executive order. "If President Obama issues an executive order authorizing indefinite detention, he'll be repeating the same mistakes of George Bush, and his policies will be destined to fail as were his predecessor's."
Click to expand...
I am curious: exactly how did President Bush's policies "fail"?
 
Under the proposal, detainees considered too dangerous to prosecute or release would be kept in confinement in the U.S. or possibly overseas
Click to expand...

Who judges who is 'too dangerous'? Will the court decide?
Will these people have access to lawyers? Doctors? Have their rights upheld? Not be tortured?

Stupid idea.
 
Laila said:
Who judges who is 'too dangerous'? Will the court decide?
Will these people have access to lawyers? Doctors? Have their rights upheld? Not be tortured?

Stupid idea.
Click to expand...
Why? And what rights do terrorists have?

Why must every difficult thing be a matter for courts to untangle? Some questions are not questions of law.
 
celticlord said:
Why? And what rights do terrorists have?

Why must every difficult thing be a matter for courts to untangle? Some questions are not questions of law.
Click to expand...

How do i know they are terrorists? I only have US's word for it [And it's not like they haven't been wrong before]
What if the person being held for life is innocent?

So we give the state the power and ability to hold someone for life without knowing the reasons and without a court?
No. This is something for the law.
 
Laila said:
How do i know they are terrorists? I only have US's word for it [And it's not like they haven't been wrong before]
What if the person being held for life is innocent?
Click to expand...
How do you know they are not? The United States is not the only nation to have been wrong about things.

It would be unfortunate if a non-terrorist were so detained. It would be a tragedy if an actual terrorist were released to slaughter a far greater number of innocents.

Laila said:
So we give the state the power and ability to hold someone for life without knowing the reasons and without a court?
No. This is something for the law.
Click to expand...
Whose law? Terrorists lay aside all pretense of law in their actions; how then can they claim defense of law then captured?

What nation's law can possibly have the competence to speak to such things?
 
celticlord said:
How do you know they are not? The United States is not the only nation to have been wrong about things.
Click to expand...

No it is not only US who has been wrong, but it is only US that is trying to hold them for life.
 
Laila said:
No it is not only US who has been wrong, but it is only US that is trying to hold them for life.
Click to expand...
Is it wrong to detain a terrorist for life? (assume for the moment that the person is indeed a terrorist)
 
celticlord said:
Is it wrong to detain a terrorist for life? (assume for the moment that the person is indeed a terrorist)
Click to expand...

Assuming they have been charged and tried in a court and found guilty. Then yes, detain them for the rest of their pitiful life.
 
Hey Liala I've got a great idea how about we let them live in your flat and once they get done beheading you for being an outspoken Arab Women then we can just do what we should have done in the first place put a bullet in the back of there heads.
 
Laila said:
How do i know they are terrorists? I only have US's word for it [And it's not like they haven't been wrong before]
What if the person being held for life is innocent?

So we give the state the power and ability to hold someone for life without knowing the reasons and without a court?
No. This is something for the law.
Click to expand...

Do the detainees in prisons in Afghanistan have rights to courts?
 
RightinNYC said:
Do the detainees in prisons in Afghanistan have rights to courts?
Click to expand...

I hope so but i doubt it because of its current situation of war.
 
Travelsonic said:
Afghanistan != USA
Click to expand...

The reason why Guantanamo was originally used was because Guantanamo =/= USA either.

Lets not make this a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I was getting at. I'm not comparing Guantanamo procedures to any other government, but rather to the way that military detainees are treated at other US facilities. The point is that if detainees at Bagram don't have recourse, why should detainees at Guantanamo?

Laila said:
I hope so but i doubt it because of its current situation of war.
Click to expand...

They don't.
 
celticlord said:
Is the United States at war with Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

I'd say so.
But war implies equal forces fighting. More like big man kicking little man.
 
Laila said:
I'd say so.
But war implies equal forces fighting. More like big man kicking little man.
Click to expand...

So the question of what rights are available to detainees is based on your personal perception of whether we're at war and whether it's a fair fight?
 
RightinNYC said:
So the question of what rights are available to detainees is based on your personal perception of whether we're at war and whether it's a fair fight?
Click to expand...

Not really.
I think everyone have the same rights.

If US doesn't afford its prisoners some form of rights, i assume that gives acceptance to the fact Afghanistan and any other country can take American soldiers, torture and hold them indefinetley on charges that may be false and made up but we won't know because there is no trial. Rather the power to decide lies upon the state to be judge, jury and possibly executioner.
 
Laila said:
I'd say so.
Click to expand...
Even when the President of Afghanistan meets with US officials to discuss matters of joint interest?

President Karzai Meets US National Security Advisor

President Hamid Karzai met today in the palace with President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones to discuss effective ways on the implementation of America’s new strategy for Afghanistan.

The meeting also focused on other issues of mutual interest including bilateral relations, strategic partnership, situation in Afghanistan and the region, counterterrorism, and the United States continued assistance to the reconstruction process in Afghanistan.

The President stated Afghanistan is ready to cooperate in harmony with the US in beginning to implement the new strategy.
Gen. Jones said his country welcomes and appreciate Afghanistan’s cooperation for a coordinated implementation of the strategy.

President Obama’s Security Advisor will be meeting local authorities, American diplomats in Kabul, military officers before he flies to Pakistan for meetings with Pakistani officials.
Click to expand...
With whom in Afghanistan is the United States at war, if not the government in Kabul?
 
celticlord said:
With whom in Afghanistan is the United States at war, if not the government in Kabul?
Click to expand...

If we are no longer at war and the Government is recognised by Afghans as legitimate and chosen by them and not imposed on them by the West.

Why was British soldiers recentley killed? They can't have shot themselves you know. They are at war with someone in Afghanistan if our soldiers are still kept in that hell hole.
 
Laila said:
Not really.
I think everyone have the same rights.
Click to expand...

There's your problem. There's absolutely no basis for this conclusion other than your own off-the-cuff moral determination.

If US doesn't afford its prisoners some form of rights, i assume that gives acceptance to the fact Afghanistan and any other country can take American soldiers, torture and hold them indefinetley on charges that may be false and made up but we won't know because there is no trial. Rather the power to decide lies upon the state to be judge, jury and possibly executioner.
Click to expand...

Read up on the difference between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants and then take a peek at the Geneva convention.
 
Laila said:
Why was British soldiers recentley killed? They can't have shot themselves you know. They are at war with someone in Afghanistan if our soldiers are still kept in that hell hole.
Click to expand...

Indeed. So who was shooting at your nation's soldiers? We agree it was not the Afghan government. You state we are at war in Afghanistan. Whom do you see as the enemy in that war?
 
celticlord said:
Indeed. So who was shooting at your nation's soldiers? We agree it was not the Afghan government. You state we are at war in Afghanistan. Whom do you see as the enemy in that war?
Click to expand...

Afghans clearly, Taliban, extremists, pissed off people.

Just because a Government is installed doesn't mean all of its citizens approve of foreign soldiers on their land.
 
RightinNYC said:
There's your problem. There's absolutely no basis for this conclusion other than your own off-the-cuff moral determination.
Click to expand...

Perhaps i am wrong and maybe i am alone in thinking a country which bangs on about democracy and rights should practice what it preaches.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom