• 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!

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison

tessaesque said:
I'd say by the age of 5 I knew it was wrong to hurt other people. Brain washed or not, a 12 year old isn't stupid. They have the ability to make a differentiation between whether it's okay to kill or not, regardless of the justification. He's just as guilty as those who brainwashed him.
Click to expand...

Are you freaking kidding me? Funny thing is most kids by that age don't know yet what is right or wrong actually learn some psychology their brains are still developing so in a sense they really don't understand the ramifications of their action. At age twelve, I didn't understand most things around the world and I bet that twelve year old never understood thing at that age either. Hell my sister at age twelve didn't understand stuff like that because she was just a kid.
 
Last edited:
RyrineaHaruno said:
Or you freaking kidding me? Funny thing is most kids by that age don't know yet what is right or wrong actually learn some psychology their brains are still developing so in ascen t they really don't understand the ramifications of their action. At age twelve I didn't understand most things around the world.
Click to expand...

I've studied early childhood development quite thoroughly in preparation for a career teaching children under the age of 7. Having satisfied all but the last year of my degree requirement, which is all student teaching, I can tell you that equates to over 40 credit hours of classwork revolving around child development.

The ability to empathize develops between ages 3 and 4. This is the ability that leads into our ability to understand right and wrong. It allows the child to understand that if it hurts when Jimmy pinches them, it must hurt Jimmy to be pinched as well. That naturally developed sense of empathy, if fostered by environmental exposure and social conditioning, will lead to a very basic concept of right and wrong (i.e., if pinching is wrong because it hurts, then hitting and poking and killing are wrong because they hurt).

It isn't a perfect understanding, but in more than 90% of normally developing children, it exists by age 4-5. So yeah, at 5 I knew it was wrong to hurt somebody. As do most children.
 
tessaesque said:
I've studied early childhood development quite thoroughly in preparation for a career teaching children under the age of 7. Having satisfied all but the last year of my degree requirement, which is all student teaching, I can tell you that equates to over 40 credit hours of classwork revolving around child development.

The ability to empathize develops between ages 3 and 4. This is the ability that leads into our ability to understand right and wrong. It allows the child to understand that if it hurts when Jimmy pinches them, it must hurt Jimmy to be pinched as well. That naturally developed sense of empathy, if fostered by environmental exposure and social conditioning, will lead to a very basic concept of right and wrong (i.e., if pinching is wrong because it hurts, then hitting and poking and killing are wrong because they hurt).

It isn't a perfect understanding, but in more than 90% of normally developing children, it exists by age 4-5. So yeah, at 5 I knew it was wrong to hurt somebody. As do most children.
Click to expand...

in this you are absolutely correct.
 
tessaesque said:
So what methods are acceptable then? Throw out torture, throw out a polite little chat, and where are we? We call them in for questioning, they say nothing, we release them. We capture and interrogate people every day in this country. They aren't plastering every person they talk to on every news website known to man, but it happens. If we don't get answers then what? Do we stand around with our hands in our pockets and hope? Do we "wait and see" and watch 7 different attacks against US civilians take place over the course of 8 years before we do anything to try and be preemptive?

It's funny...people say Bush had the intelligence to act prior to 9/11, but that he didn't do anything. Now people are saying that there aren't instances were thousands or millions of Americans are at risk, and finding the right person w/the right info as fast as possible is absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...

you're still making the same either / or fallacious comparison. And yes, we do interrogate people everyday here, and we do so without torture, and actually get information. We also don't lock people up without sufficient evidence, or without adhereing to rule of law. We do it properly and manage.

As for the Bush strawman, we knew about the terrorist in this country and their plans, but what stopped action was not Bush, but the fact that the CIA and the FBI didn't talk to each other. All we needed to do to prevent 9/11 or such an attack was to let them talk to each other. During the 9/11 hearings all sides admitted that there was no one we could have killed before hand, or any country we could have invaded that would have prevented 9/11. All we needed was open communication.

This means everything else was largely an overreaction, excessive, and in the case of invadinag, reckless and costly. However, this is about rule of law and what our values are.
 
no way the bounty hunters turned in innocent individuals using bogus claims in order to realize personal enrichment
[/sarcasm]

no way to discern who are truly terrorists from the innocents wrongly made pawns, due to the absence of transparency
[/NO sarcasm]

and we see that the slippery slope we have constructed has become quite slippery, indeed. now the UN representative is unable to observe bradley manning, an American prisoner ... potentially being subjected to inhumane conditions

i can understand the lemmings having no problem doing and believing as they are told; they are without the ability to think for themselves. what is of huge concern is that so many otherwise thoughtful American citizens are so cavalier about the unjust way the USA is behaving
our nation has traded away truth for secrecy
 
liblady said:
in this you are absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

One reason why torturing someone often hurts the person doing the torturing is that they know right from wrong, and cannot always rationalize away the harm they do to another human being.
 
Boo Radley said:
you're still making the same either / or fallacious comparison. And yes, we do interrogate people everyday here, and we do so without torture, and actually get information. We also don't lock people up without sufficient evidence, or without adhereing to rule of law. We do it properly and manage.

As for the Bush strawman, we knew about the terrorist in this country and their plans, but what stopped action was not Bush, but the fact that the CIA and the FBI didn't talk to each other. All we needed to do to prevent 9/11 or such an attack was to let them talk to each other. During the 9/11 hearings all sides admitted that there was no one we could have killed before hand, or any country we could have invaded that would have prevented 9/11. All we needed was open communication.

This means everything else was largely an overreaction, excessive, and in the case of invadinag, reckless and costly. However, this is about rule of law and what our values are.
Click to expand...

You keep calling up "rule of law" but you're missing one HUGE point. Our consitution and thus the basis for all laws in this country does not extend to enemy combatants, non-citizens, terroristis, prisoners of war, etc. They are not bound by our federal laws and therefore are not bound to be tried in federal courts. Military tribunals are the only LEGAL (i.e. "rule of law" qualified) course of action for these people. That said, military prisons are the appropriate holding pen for these people. All of THAT said, sometimes innocents get caught up. It's sad, it sucks, but it happens. If 1 bad guy is stopped for ever 4 innocents who are detained temporarily then at least we got rid of 1 bad guy. ....because these aren't normal "bad guys". These are "i will kill myself if it means killing you" kind of bad guys.
 
tessaesque said:
You keep calling up "rule of law" but you're missing one HUGE point. Our consitution and thus the basis for all laws in this country does not extend to enemy combatants, non-citizens, terroristis, prisoners of war, etc. They are not bound by our federal laws and therefore are not bound to be tried in federal courts. Military tribunals are the only LEGAL (i.e. "rule of law" qualified) course of action for these people. That said, military prisons are the appropriate holding pen for these people. All of THAT said, sometimes innocents get caught up. It's sad, it sucks, but it happens. If 1 bad guy is stopped for ever 4 innocents who are detained temporarily then at least we got rid of 1 bad guy. ....because these aren't normal "bad guys". These are "i will kill myself if it means killing you" kind of bad guys.
Click to expand...

It doesn't ahve to. It extends to us and how we behave. We fall under rule of law. It isn't just a ruloe for tose captured, but a rule on how we behave. Our behavior isn't just thrown out the window. We fall under laws. We broke all kinds of laws when we tortured, when we held people without any due process for years, when we tried to get away with having no process.

And it must be stated, everyone we have held, tortured and hold are not the bad guys. Because we ignored rule of law, we did bad things to nnocent people. And this is who rule of law is intended to protect, the innocent.
 
tessaesque said:
You keep calling up "rule of law" but you're missing one HUGE point. Our consitution and thus the basis for all laws in this country does not extend to enemy combatants, non-citizens, terroristis, prisoners of war, etc. They are not bound by our federal laws and therefore are not bound to be tried in federal courts. Military tribunals are the only LEGAL (i.e. "rule of law" qualified) course of action for these people. That said, military prisons are the appropriate holding pen for these people. All of THAT said, sometimes innocents get caught up. It's sad, it sucks, but it happens. If 1 bad guy is stopped for ever 4 innocents who are detained temporarily then at least we got rid of 1 bad guy. ....because these aren't normal "bad guys". These are "i will kill myself if it means killing you" kind of bad guys.
Click to expand...

You really have no idea what the constitution is about do you? It's principles that apply to all men under the jurisdiction of the US. Read some Locke before you go off mouthing about what the Constitution is about.
 
tessaesque said:
You keep calling up "rule of law" but you're missing one HUGE point. Our consitution and thus the basis for all laws in this country does not extend to enemy combatants, non-citizens, terroristis, prisoners of war, etc. They are not bound by our federal laws and therefore are not bound to be tried in federal courts. Military tribunals are the only LEGAL (i.e. "rule of law" qualified) course of action for these people. That said, military prisons are the appropriate holding pen for these people. All of THAT said, sometimes innocents get caught up. It's sad, it sucks, but it happens. If 1 bad guy is stopped for ever 4 innocents who are detained temporarily then at least we got rid of 1 bad guy. ....because these aren't normal "bad guys". These are "i will kill myself if it means killing you" kind of bad guys.
Click to expand...

my understanding is that all who are within the USA or its territories are subject to the Constitution and the federal law which followed it, excepting only those diplomats who are here in a capacity to represent their own nations, such as embassy personnel and those foreign members/staff of the UN

would you please point the provision of the Constitution/federal law which stipulates that the laws of our nation do not flow to non-citizens
 
justabubba said:
my understanding is that all who are within the USA or its territories are subject to the Constitution and the federal law which followed it, excepting only those diplomats who are here in a capacity to represent their own nations, such as embassy personnel and those foreign members/staff of the UN

would you please point the provision of the Constitution/federal law which stipulates that the laws of our nation do not flow to non-citizens
Click to expand...

They apply, until they get kicked out of the country. Then, who knows? Citizens cannot be kicked out thereby losing constitutional protection. They also don't get to vote.


.02
 
ecofarm said:
They apply, until they get kicked out of the country. Then, who knows? Citizens cannot be kicked out thereby losing constitutional protection. They also don't get to vote.


.02
Click to expand...

'The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God' JFK
 
Red_Dave said:
'The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God' JFK
Click to expand...

And if we believe that, if that is truely a value of ours, we should not even be having this conversation.
 
ric27 said:
Whats the H stand fer??
Click to expand...
Harry son, Harry that's whatta I ama sayin see, so stop a bumpin them there gums and say Harry for Christ sakes.
 
Boo Radley said:
It doesn't ahve to. It extends to us and how we behave. We fall under rule of law. It isn't just a ruloe for tose captured, but a rule on how we behave. Our behavior isn't just thrown out the window. We fall under laws. We broke all kinds of laws when we tortured, when we held people without any due process for years, when we tried to get away with having no process.

And it must be stated, everyone we have held, tortured and hold are not the bad guys. Because we ignored rule of law, we did bad things to nnocent people. And this is who rule of law is intended to protect, the innocent.
Click to expand...

I blame Bush for whats happening in Gitmo (cross my finger)...Tough on some issues and ****ing wimp on others

Heres the real deal...

Terrorism is not a ****ing crime. It is a tactic used in war by insurgents who are already at war, even though the target may not know it.

By their very nature, terrorist cannot be defeated by waiting for the events to occur or arresting suspected terrorists for conspiracy or some such. Once the event occurs, the terrorist insurgent has already one - punishment is irrelevant.

Putting hard core terrorists in jail accomplishes nothing aka jackdhit There is no deterrent factor and they win by being allowed to speak at trial.

For the true believer there is only one solution - shoot him in the face while he's putting the battery in the cell phone - or before.

Arresting and detaining these people accomplishes NOTHING. Period
 
ric27 said:
I blame Bush for whats happening in Gitmo (cross my finger)...Tough on some issues and ****ing wimp on others

Heres the real deal...

Terrorism is not a ****ing crime. It is a tactic used in war by insurgents who are already at war, even though the target may not know it.

By their very nature, terrorist cannot be defeated by waiting for the events to occur or arresting suspected terrorists for conspiracy or some such. Once the event occurs, the terrorist insurgent has already one - punishment is irrelevant.

Putting hard core terrorists in jail accomplishes nothing aka jackdhit There is no deterrent factor and they win by being allowed to speak at trial.

For the true believer there is only one solution - shoot him in the face while he's putting the battery in the cell phone - or before.

Arresting and detaining these people accomplishes NOTHING. Period
Click to expand...

There is likely no deterrent. But that is besides the point. This is about our behavior.

Also, terrorism is a crime against all people. Yes, it is a tactic, a criminal tactic. And I have no problem treating them as prisoners of war. But follow that law if that is how you see it. Also remember, this is a war that has no real end. So, until a conventional war, you can't say you will hold people until the end of the war. There is no end. It is one thing to mistakenly hold an innocent person for a few years in a humane way, and another to hold an innocent person for life. Add torture to the innocent person, and we become crminal.
 
ric27 said:
I blame Bush for whats happening in Gitmo (cross my finger)...Tough on some issues and ****ing wimp on others

Heres the real deal...

Terrorism is not a ****ing crime. It is a tactic used in war by insurgents who are already at war, even though the target may not know it.

By their very nature, terrorist cannot be defeated by waiting for the events to occur or arresting suspected terrorists for conspiracy or some such. Once the event occurs, the terrorist insurgent has already one - punishment is irrelevant.

Putting hard core terrorists in jail accomplishes nothing aka jackdhit There is no deterrent factor and they win by being allowed to speak at trial.

For the true believer there is only one solution - shoot him in the face while he's putting the battery in the cell phone - or before.

Arresting and detaining these people accomplishes NOTHING. Period
Click to expand...



For the true believer there is only one solution - shoot him in the face while he's putting the battery in the cell phone - or before.

Arresting and detaining these people accomplishes NOTHING. Period
Click to expand...
This just about the only solution.
 
justabubba said:
my understanding is that all who are within the USA or its territories are subject to the Constitution and the federal law which followed it, excepting only those diplomats who are here in a capacity to represent their own nations, such as embassy personnel and those foreign members/staff of the UN

would you please point the provision of the Constitution/federal law which stipulates that the laws of our nation do not flow to non-citizens
Click to expand...

That argument was made by Gitmo plaintiffs released in 2004. They sought relief under the 5th and 8th amendments, as well as the Alien Tort Statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Geneva Convention. Elena Kagan's brief for respondents has this:

b. On the constitutional claims, the district court held that respondents are entitled to qualified immunity. Pet. App. 154a-166a. The court declined to determine whether petitioners' allegations stated claims of constitutional violations, holding that respondents are entitled to qualified immunity because any constitutional rights possessed by Guantanamo Bay detainees were not clearly established at the time of the conduct. Id. at 156a-166a.

And then argued:

At the time of petitioners' detention (between 2002 and March 2004), it was not clearly established that the Fifth and Eighth Amendments protected aliens detained abroad by the military. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), for instance, this Court rejected the contention that alien combatants held by the military outside the sovereign territory of the United States, at a military base in Germany, had a constitutional right to seek habeas corpus and rights under the Fifth Amendment. See also Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 269 (holding that Fourth Amendment did not apply to search of non-resident alien's property abroad, and discussing and quoting Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at 784); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) ("t is well established that certain constitutional protections available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders") (citing Eisentrager, 339 U.S. at 784); see also Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1146 (2005); 32 County Sovereignty Comm. v. Department of State, 292 F.3d 797, 799 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

b. Review is also unwarranted in light of the court of appeals' additional holding (Pet. App. 10a-13a) that respondents are in any event entitled to qualified immunity on petitioners' Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims. That holding is likewise correct and represents a straightforward application of settled principles governing qualified immunity.

There were even cases that had specifically rejected a claim of constitutional rights for aliens at Guantanamo Bay. The Eleventh Circuit had held that alien refugees there had "no First Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights." Cuban Am. Bar Ass'n v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412, 1428 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1142, and 516 U.S. 913 (1995). And the D.C. Circuit concluded-during the period of petitioners' own detention-that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to aliens held at Guantanamo Bay. Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134, 1140-1144 (2003), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004). Even after this Court reversed Al Odah on statutory grounds and held that detainees at Guantanamo Bay could seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241, see Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 476 (2004), district courts reached opposing conclusions about whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay had Fifth Amendment rights. See Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2241 (describing district court opinions).

No. 09-227: Rasul v. Myers - Opposition
 
Last edited:
Constitutional rights extended (or not extended) to POWs, enemy combatants, or terrorists held at Gitmo: here
 
tessaesque said:
Constitutional rights extended (or not extended) to POWs, enemy combatants, or terrorists held at Gitmo: here
Click to expand...

Opinions aside:

June 13, 2008For the third time in four years, the Supreme Court has rebuked the Bush administration for denying due process of law to inmates at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

Habeas Corpus Guantanamo - Due process at Gitmo - Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Supreme Court Allows Guantanamo Prisoners to Challenge Detention in U.S. Courts - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
 
Boo Radley said:
Opinions aside:

June 13, 2008For the third time in four years, the Supreme Court has rebuked the Bush administration for denying due process of law to inmates at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

Habeas Corpus Guantanamo - Due process at Gitmo - Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The justices, in a 5-4 ruling, handed the Bush administration its third setback at the high court since 2004 over its treatment of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Supreme Court Allows Guantanamo Prisoners to Challenge Detention in U.S. Courts - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...


Right, but they did not rule that HC is to be granted on a constitutional leve, as was stated in my link.
 
tessaesque said:
Constitutional rights extended (or not extended) to POWs, enemy combatants, or terrorists held at Gitmo: here
Click to expand...

actually, they were:
... Although the Court struck down the military commissions as created by the Executive Branch, they did not provide the detainees with direct access to the federal courts, but only with access to a fair and impartial hearing to a tribunal constitutionally authorized by Congress and proceeding with certain due process guarantees (such as one operated under terms similar to those provided by Article I courts under the UCMJ or according to the terms of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949).
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom