• 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

Once again you're ignoring the obvious point that non-American terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield do not have US constitutional rights.

Don't have to have. We're the ones ho have to follow the law.
 
obama's a LAW BREAKER

he uses the patriot act, detention, rendition, he leaves gitmo standing there

and he refuses to prosecute torturers

my, my...
 
Where in the constitution does it say we can torture anyone? US law says we can't torture. It does not say we cannot torture citzens. It does not say we can torture non citizens. In fact, in the past we did prosecute US soliders for waterboarding. It is the act that is illegal, and not who we do it to.

The thing it is, they are treated decently, Boo Boo.... they have shelter, are fed, and are allowed to practice their religion. The ones living in cages are the hard cases, and this type of incarceration is no different then solitary confinement in US prisons. Are they interrogated and pressed for information? Of course they are, and that's the point of contention here. Personally, I have no problems with enemy combatant being interrogated.

I think the question on your mind might be: are we sure they ARE enemy combatants? and just HOW did we make sure they are?

Is it possible for someone like me to become more flexible?
 
Then show he's telling folks to torture.

Were not arguing that Obama is going to close Gitmo buddy.
This is not a repub/dem issue we are arguing about Gitmo not how the parties plan and what they do with gitmo
 
Once again you're ignoring the obvious point that non-American terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield do not have US constitutional rights.


Yes the do sir.
 
The thing it is, they are treated decently, Boo Boo.... they have shelter, are fed, and are allowed to practice their religion. The ones living in cages are the hard cases, and this type of incarceration is no different then solitary confinement in US prisons. Are they interrogated and pressed for information? Of course they are, and that's the point of contention here. Personally, I have no problems with enemy combatant being interrogated.

I think the question on your mind might be: are we sure they ARE enemy combatants? and just HOW did we make sure they are?

Is it possible for someone like me to become more flexible?

yea, who cares if we are secretly holding folks who have done nothing wrong
America, land of the free
may you choke on those words now
 
The thing it is, they are treated decently, Boo Boo.... they have shelter, are fed, and are allowed to practice their religion. The ones living in cages are the hard cases, and this type of incarceration is no different then solitary confinement in US prisons. Are they interrogated and pressed for information? Of course they are, and that's the point of contention here. Personally, I have no problems with enemy combatant being interrogated.

I think the question on your mind might be: are we sure they ARE enemy combatants? and just HOW did we make sure they are?

Is it possible for someone like me to become more flexible?

Actually you don't know that. What we do know, as a fact, we ahve harmed innocent people. A couple are dead due to torture and we believe they were innocent. Knowing that we have errored, how can anyone be so sure that we only have the guilty? That only the guilty are mistreated? And if we can't be sure, don't we believe in protecting the innocent?

As for flexibility, I se no way to be flexible on torture. It's wrong and illegal, bottomline. Any rule of law would work for me in holding and assuring due process. Give them honest defense, due process and follow law, and I have no problem. And have oversight as to make sure no one is being unfairly or wrongly prosecuted. Rule of law, integerty, fairness so to protect those who are indeed innocent.
 
yea, who cares if we are secretly holding folks who have done nothing wrong
America, land of the free
may you choke on those words now

If you had to choose between Gitmo and a hole in the ground waiting for some cowardly ****ing asshole to cut off your head with a dull knife on the internet, you would take Gitmo.

Keep this in mind though: these guys get better food and more exercise than some of the max security AMERICAN inmates in some US prisons.
 
If you had to choose between Gitmo and a hole in the ground waiting for some cowardly ****ing asshole to cut off your head with a dull knife on the internet, you would take Gitmo.

Keep this in mind though: these guys get better food and more exercise than some of the max security AMERICAN inmates in some US prisons.


your comparison is with American prisoners who have had their guilt adjudicated in a fair trial
not a valid comparison
 
your comparison is with American prisoners who have had their guilt adjudicated in a fair trial
not a valid comparison

The Constitution does not confer rights or take them away. It limits what the government can do in the US with/to US Citizens. With regards to actions outside our borders, it gives Congress the power to declare war.

It is liberal courts, judges and press who have to extend its applicability to non-US citizens. We started down that slippery slope when a court said that illegal aliens have constitutional rights when they are in our borders. That **** should have been stopped right there.

Get this....They have no ****ing rights under our Constitution or under international law. They are treated as well as they are because we are trying to keep this from turning into a war against all islam.
 
The Constitution does not confer rights or take them away. It limits what the government can do in the US with/to US Citizens. With regards to actions outside our borders, it gives Congress the power to declare war.

It is liberal courts, judges and press who have to extend its applicability to non-US citizens. We started down that slippery slope when a court said that illegal aliens have constitutional rights when they are in our borders. That **** should have been stopped right there.

Get this....They have no ****ing rights under our Constitution or under international law. They are treated as well as they are because we are trying to keep this from turning into a war against all islam.

you keep referencing the Constitution but your posts indicate you have either not read it or you failed to grasp what it says
 
you keep referencing the Constitution but your posts indicate you have either not read it or you failed to grasp what it says

lol...The bad guys in this war are well aware of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and their battle plan is designed to exploit those as weaknesses.

There is a fundamental problem here.....

At the time the Magna Carta was written and imposed on King John, it was probably the greatest political document confirming rights and limiting the power of government to exist to date. But times changed and it was no longer good enough. Our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and finally ratified the Constitution in 1789. Even the Constitution was unable to remain unchanged by time and we amended it. Several times.

Now, the Geneva Convention was written in a time when war was conducted primarily by European powers (1860's). It set rules for warfare as it was understood at that time. The fact is, it is ****ing outdated. Times have changed and the war we face now does not fall squarely within the delineations of war v. not-war. We aren't fighting against a nation/state, though in the old days, we would have made it nation v. nation. Today, we recognize this problem as not limited to a single nation. It is an idea we're fighting, terrorism/radical Islam, not Iraq, not Iran, etc.

But people don't like fuzzy definitions. They want something as clear cut as our enemy was in past wars. And because it isn't, they bitch about the President overstepping his bounds, occupations, foreign combatants, etc. It isn't neat, therefore it is disturbing.

Warfare has changed since 1870.

The bottom line is the Geneva and Hague Conventions are past due to be amended or scrapped.

The STUPIDITY and IDIOCY is in holding us to the rules of war as they existed 140 years ago, when breechloaders were first entering service, there were no planes, no suicide bombers, etc.

Like immigration, the system is broken, a problem exists and we need to redefine how things work.
 
There is nothing stupid about following rule of law. Nothing stupid about not fearing an enemy that really beat us to start with so much that we throw all rules and laws out the window. Nothing stupid about being better than our enemey, strong, more moral, with a better argument. There is no reason we need to lower ourself anywhere near our enemies tactics and standard.
 
There is nothing stupid about following rule of law. Nothing stupid about not fearing an enemy that really beat us to start with so much that we throw all rules and laws out the window. Nothing stupid about being better than our enemey, strong, more moral, with a better argument. There is no reason we need to lower ourself anywhere near our enemies tactics and standard.

I wish I had a sad violin or cello music to play in the background. Get real, dude! We have a criminal justice INDUSTRY. It's not a system, it's a business and the root of the problem is that our *current* laws are written by lawyers for lawyers, and tend to have a social agenda that is driven by money and lobbyists rather than what is workable, effective and positive for society (although you will find wildly differing viewpoints about what's "positive for society").

Oh ****! I almost forgot, "lobbying" is just another word for "bribery" and should not be allowed. :roll::roll:
 
I wish I had a sad violin or cello music to play in the background. Get real, dude! We have a criminal justice INDUSTRY. It's not a system, it's a business and the root of the problem is that our *current* laws are written by lawyers for lawyers, and tend to have a social agenda that is driven by money and lobbyists rather than what is workable, effective and positive for society (although you will find wildly differing viewpoints about what's "positive for society").

Oh ****! I almost forgot, "lobbying" is just another word for "bribery" and should not be allowed. :roll::roll:

So, we imprison too many peope for lawyers?

None of what you said changes anything. We need to abide by rule of law. If we can dismiss rule of law, then we have no law, and we are not the glowing light of the world so many want to see us as.
 
So, we imprison too many peope for lawyers?

Not at all...but, how about we legislate a ban on lawyers becoming legislators, ...because having lawyers write laws is a conflict of interest.

Think about it...

None of what you said changes anything. We need to abide by rule of law. If we can dismiss rule of law, then we have no law, and we are not the glowing light of the world so many want to see us as.

I stopped worrying about what's illegal vs. what's legal and streamlined my thought process to only worry about what might create a situation where I run afoul of the system. In effect, I started to think like a *criminal*. ...And I'm a guy with a strong desire to achieve good things in the American system.

If the current system doesn't work for me, who is it supposed to work for?
 
Not at all...but, how about we legislate a ban on lawyers becoming legislators, ...because having lawyers write laws is a conflict of interest.

Think about it...

How? Lawyers know the law, so they would be the people to write them. A mechanic shouldn't design cars because they ahve a conflict of interest? I'm sorry, but I don't see it.

I stopped worrying about what's illegal vs. what's legal and streamlined my thought process to only worry about what might create a situation where I run afoul of the system. In effect, I started to think like a *criminal*. ...And I'm a guy with a strong desire to achieve good things in the American system.

If the current system doesn't work for me, who is it supposed to work for?

Criminal sytem? The innocent. You seem to be changing the subject, but I'm not really following you.
 
How? Lawyers know the law, so they would be the people to write them. A mechanic shouldn't design cars because they ahve a conflict of interest? I'm sorry, but I don't see it.

What I'm saying is that at some point in time the law got so complex that we needed lawyers to interpret it for us. It's not coincidental that virtually all politicians are now lawyers. Lawyers are a symptom.

This legal system in one way or another, mandates every aspect of day to day life to a point where its an irritable weight on the average citizen. Want to build a fence in your backyard? Talk to a lawyer. Want to start a business? You had better talk to a lawyer. Problem with your neighbor? Better talk to a lawyer. Have a great idea for a better neocon trap? Better talk to a lawyer. It's silly and doesn't work for, the average Joe Blow. ....It turns out, the lawyers are running the government and making all the rules and to make things worse, the same experts (lawyers) have to write the rules (laws) to try and keep other lawyers from finding loopholes.


Reason why, the American judicial system is crumbling under its own weight. By definition, the citizenry of this country can't be "law abiding" because the law is complex to the point of being unintelligible. It takes a lawyer with a PhD to understand just one small section of what the law says. And even these guyd are arguing about it all the time... Philosophically, if you cannot understand a system, how can you be held accountable for not transgressing against that system?
 
Last edited:
What I'm saying is that at some point in time the law got so complex that we needed lawyers to interpret it for us. It's not coincidental that virtually all politicians are now lawyers. Lawyers are a symptom.

This legal system in one way or another, mandates every aspect of day to day life to a point where its an irritable weight on the average citizen. Want to build a fence in your backyard? Talk to a lawyer. Want to start a business? You had better talk to a lawyer. Problem with your neighbor? Better talk to a lawyer. Have a great idea for a better neocon trap? Better talk to a lawyer. It's silly and doesn't work for, the average Joe Blow. ....It turns out, the lawyers are running the government and making all the rules and to make things worse, the same experts (lawyers) have to write the rules (laws) to try and keep other lawyers from finding loopholes.


Reason why, the American judicial system is crumbling under its own weight. By definition, the citizenry of this country can't be "law abiding" because the law is complex to the point of being unintelligible. It takes a lawyer with a PhD to understand just one small section of what the law says. And even these guyd are arguing about it all the time... Philosophically, if you cannot understand a system, how can you be held accountable for not transgressing against that system?
Ric27 this is about the best post I have read in a long time and you are so right. Laws used to be as you stated very simple and easy to understand started with the ten commandments on up to the Constitution. Now you need a lawyer just to havethem interpret gaming rules for a contest.
 
Like immigration, the system is broken, a problem exists and we need to redefine how things work.

I,ld pretty much agree here. I think pretty much everyone would agree that if we are detaining the innocent and releasing the guilty then we have a problem that needs fixing. The question is how should things work?
 
Ric27 this is about the best post I have read in a long time and you are so right. Laws used to be as you stated very simple and easy to understand started with the ten commandments on up to the Constitution. Now you need a lawyer just to havethem interpret gaming rules for a contest.


I,ld pretty much agree here. I think pretty much everyone would agree that if we are detaining the innocent and releasing the guilty then we have a problem that needs fixing. The question is how should things work?

First thing is we (as in We the people)... is term limits for all elected public officials. Two terms each at the local, state, and federal level should do the trick. You take the professional politicians and lawyers out of the legislative system, and government becomes fundamentally less complex.
 
Were not arguing that Obama is going to close Gitmo buddy.
This is not a repub/dem issue we are arguing about Gitmo not how the parties plan and what they do with gitmo

Not a "repub/dem" issue? Since when has that been the case?

I'll answer that for you. Since 0bama adopted Bush's Gitmo policies.

Not long ago dems were trashing Bush about a policy they quietly agreed with.
 
Continuing to ignore these questions speaks for itself DS.

BTW, shouldn't you be arguing that 0bama be arrested and prosecuted for violating HI law because he publically released his original BC?
 
Not a "repub/dem" issue? Since when has that been the case?

I'll answer that for you. Since 0bama adopted Bush's Gitmo policies.

Not long ago dems were trashing Bush about a policy they quietly agreed with.

Right now this is not a Repub/dem issue.... This is about human rights and the issue of justice, and law. Clearly not a repub/dem issues because each side does not represent yes we should keep it open and no we should close it. A small majority of dems want to close it the rest wish it to remain open...
A good majority of dems/liberals/leftist are condemning Obama's decision to keep GITMO open...
 
Back
Top Bottom