• 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!

Mos Def, a.k.a. Yasiin Bey, Submits to Gitmo-Style Force-Feeding

TheDemSocialist said:
No you didnt.
Click to expand...

Yep. Sure did. Not my problem you can't read.

Uhhh.. Terrorism is a crime. Terrorism by definition is always a crime. If it isnt a crime why are we criminal prosecuting several terrorists?
Click to expand...

Uh no. Terrorism is political warfare.

Where is the proof? Why if they are "terrorists" why are they cleared to be released?
Click to expand...

Are you claiming these guys were just minding their own business in a hut somewhere and have been framed? Just spit it out and stop twisting yourself in knots.

I never compared it to street crime.
Click to expand...

Uhhh.. Terrorism is a crime. Terrorism by definition is always a crime. If it isnt a crime why are we criminal prosecuting several terrorists?
Click to expand...

It's the radical left that wants to treat terrorists like common criminals which is why Holder wanted to try that high ranking Al Qaeda officer in NYC. Thankfully that got shot down. Terrorism is warfare. Not criminal activity.

No i want justice and proof.
Click to expand...

So are you claiming they are innocent and were framed? Just minding their own business watching Al Jazeera and in come the Pakistanis to take them to Gitmo?

I do blame Obama.
Click to expand...

Blame him for what? What would be the motive to keep these people there? Why would just hold some middle eastern men at Gitmo indefinitely? Just to torture them? What's the motive? Even the most radical left President in history (who promised to close Gitmo) is still detaining these men there? Why would he do such a thing? What's his motive?
 
Bronson said:
Yep. Sure did. Not my problem you can't read.
Click to expand...
:roll:No you didnt.. Please repost if you did or post the post #




Uh no. Terrorism is political warfare.
Click to expand...
No terrorism is a crime. If its not a crime then why are we persecuting terrorists in the court of law?


Are you claiming these guys were just minding their own business in a hut somewhere and have been framed? Just spit it out and stop twisting yourself in knots.
Click to expand...
No i dont know anything about their cases or lack of cases but if they are terrorists they should be persecuted by clearing them for release means they have no case against them.





It's the radical left that wants to treat terrorists like common criminals which is why Holder wanted to try that high ranking Al Qaeda officer in NYC. Thankfully that got shot down. Terrorism is warfare. Not criminal activity.
Click to expand...
"Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:
"Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"[53]
Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:
"[T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum."[54]
Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
18 USC § 2331 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Clearly is a crime.




So are you claiming they are innocent and were framed? Just minding their own business watching Al Jazeera and in come the Pakistanis to take them to Gitmo?
Click to expand...
As ive asked many times before: "So if they are terrorists why cant anyone charge them? Why are they cleared to be released?" Its 2 very simple questions.



Blame him for what? What would be the motive to keep these people there? Why would just hold some middle eastern men at Gitmo indefinitely? Just to torture them? What's the motive? Even the most radical left President in history (who promised to close Gitmo) is still detaining these men there? Why would he do such a thing? What's his motive?
Click to expand...
What's his motive? To close this down.. But he has failed to do so and has tried very lackadaisical to do so and i blame him for this.
 
Zyphlin said:
Okay...so? It's an uncomfortable and possibly painful experience.

What are peoples preferences exactly?

Shall we let those who go on hunger strike perish from lack of food? Is that preferred? If they do that, will the U.S. be called heartless and violators of human rights by letting these people starve to death?

Shall we instead let anyone who goes "I'm going on a hunger strike" go? Simply free anyone who says "hunger strike"?

Exactly what are you suggesting is done instead, because frankly this looks like nothing but a "I don't like GITMO, so I don't care what they do, I'm going to find a way to criticize them and demonize them for it".
Click to expand...

How about we just give them a fair trial in accordance with due process??
 
TheDemSocialist said:
:roll:No you didnt.. Please repost if you did or post the post #
Click to expand...

They are Enemy Combatants. What part of that do you not understand? :roll:

No terrorism is a crime. If its not a crime then why are we persecuting terrorists in the court of law?
Click to expand...

Terrorism is political warfare. It is not a crime. Only left wing naive people treat terrorists as criminals. Persecuting or prosecuting? Freudian slip? :lol:

No i dont know anything about their cases or lack of cases but if they are terrorists they should be persecuted by clearing them for release means they have no case against them.
Click to expand...

Wait they should be persecuted?

"Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:
"Definitions ... the term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;"[53]
Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedure) defines international terrorism as:
"[T]he term 'international terrorism' means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum."[54]
Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
18 USC § 2331 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Clearly is a crime.
Click to expand...

Terrorism is political warfare. A terrorist act is a political act. Obama didn't treat Osama Bin Laden like a criminal.

Terrorists: Not criminals or soldiers but a distinct species - CNN.com

The time has come for all to accept that terrorists cannot be treated as criminals. The main reason is that security requires preventing attacks rather than prosecuting the perpetrators after an attack. This is particularly evident when we concern ourselves with terrorists who may acquire weapons of mass destruction.

It also holds for terrorists who are willing to commit suicide attacks: They cannot be tried, and they pay no mind to what might be done to them after their assault. Finally, even terrorists not bent on committing suicide attacks are often "true believers" who are prepared to proceed despite whatever punishments the legal system may throw at them.
Click to expand...

As ive asked many times before: "So if they are terrorists why cant anyone charge them? Why are they cleared to be released?" Its 2 very simple questions.
Click to expand...

Ask Obama. He's the one who promised to shut Gitmo down and hasn't done so. Do you think he's keeping innocent people there against their will?


What's his motive? To close this down.. But he has failed to do so and has tried very lackadaisical to do so and i blame him for this.
Click to expand...

What's is Obama's motive to keep supposed innocent men who were minding their own business locked up in Gitmo. We can go back and forth pages and pages but frankly this conversation is boring. Just tell everyone why your hero Obama would keep innocent people locked up at Gitmo indefinitely without cause. What would be his motive to do such a thing.
 
Since I'm no longer invited to the daily WH security briefings, your guess is as good as mine. The Taliban, to the best of my limited knowledge, have exactly one US prisoner and what little info about him comes out through the RC is that he seems to be OK.

It's not really about expectations. It's about human decency and wether we believe in it or not. In another thread I postulated the concept of offering prisoners reduced sentences for sterilization and I got my head bit off for my shocking lack of regard for the noble human spirit and the sanctity of their reproductive organs. So, I suppose that if we kept the standards equal, why, torture of foreign prisoners (also supposedly human) would be totally wrong.

Remember, their soldiers aren't "cowardly". Crazy as bat**** maybe, but brave enough to require years of torture before they gave up their info. So are they not just as noble as "our guys"? So, I would think that we should have an ethical issue about this but sometimes we just believe whats convenient.

Humans:roll:


Dr. Chuckles said:
It very well could also be a by-product of low expectations: people might not be talking about POW treatment by the Taliban because no one expects them to be anything but brutal
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
It's not really about expectations. It's about human decency and wether we believe in it or not.
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing for torture, but pointing out why there might not be much talk of taliban treatment towards POWs. I mean, could you imagine the headline "taliban shockingly malnourished prisoners"?

Most people would be like "whoa, I thought they would be raping them with a rubber chicken"
 
I did not at all think you were advocating torture or defending it. You point is well made. I'm just chatting you up really.

I would be angry if the Taliban had been torturing Bergman. But America's venture into torture would weaken my case when I attacked the Taliban.




Dr. Chuckles said:
I wasn't arguing for torture, but pointing out why there might not be much talk of taliban treatment towards POWs. I mean, could you imagine the headline "taliban shockingly malnourished prisoners"?

Most people would be like "whoa, I thought they would be raping them with a rubber chicken"
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
As long as we are sure we are discussing the same thing, lets pursue this. I am negative toward the use of long term torture as opposed to on-the-spot torture.

Why? Because with as many soldiers as we send out around the world, if one is captured, I don't want them tortured. I want to be outraged a nuke the mother****ers that tortured my countryman.

But if my country uses torture, it's hard for me to be outraged.

I'm not aware of any of our soldiers being tortured in the last decade or so. Am I wrong? Bergdahl is not reputed to have been tortured. The Taliban offered an exchange and we declined.
Click to expand...

Do you remember the incident in 2006? I would hate for one of are servicemen or women to be tortured.
 
Apparently I don't. The years are eating away at my memory. Would you please furnish a link? Thank you.


Darrell said:
Do you remember the incident in 2006? I would hate for one of are servicemen or women to be tortured.
Click to expand...
 
People DO realize there is a huge difference between being intubate when you are cooperative and being intubated against your will, don't they? If these people who are being held without charges wish to die from fasting then let them. If we are going to deprive them of liberty without due process the least we can do is grant them autonomy over their own bodies. Yep, it means they will die. yep, that will make us look very bad. I guess we should have thought about that before locking people up in that place without hard evidence of wrong doing.
 
Zyphlin said:
And what about those that are there for a legitimate reason in the first place?

Should the US be force feeding them when they go on hunger strike? Or should they let them die from the hunger strike? And do you think that it's fair to condemn the US in either instance in such cases?
Click to expand...

As stated before, its damned if you do and damned if you don't. The US govt put itself in this situation by 1.) Offering rewards and accepting prisoners from Afghan/Pakistani forces and 2.) Not putting any that are clearly terrorists on trial.
 
Bronson said:
What evidence do you have that they are not?
Click to expand...

I already presented the evidence that many of them are unjustifiably detained. But we are a republic, not a dictatorship. The burden of proof should be on the ones doing the detaining.


Why would the US Government hold these people there indefinitely? What would be the motive for that.
Click to expand...

Fear.

Do you think Gitmo is a social club or something?

Tell me something. Are you Pro Choice?
Click to expand...

WTF? :lamo
 
clownboy said:
Okay, fine, let's take what you say as a given. So UNTIL that happens what do you propose we do in the event of hunger strikes? On a parallel note, isn't the hunger strike just a variation of "I'm going to hold my breath until I'm blue in the face unless you give me what I want"? Doesn't work for the countless number of children who have threatened their parents with it, why would any adult think it will work here?
Click to expand...

If thats the case then force-feedings are unnecessary :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom