• 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!

United Nations: U.S. Operation Of Gitmo Is ‘Clear Breach Of International Law’

What is GITMO about?


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
If it were me, I'd send them all back to where they came from, and next time, take no prisoners. If you're gonna fight a war, then fight the war to kill. If you're not, then get the hell out.

A bit easier said than done, considering we signed this little thing called the Geneva Convention. Taking no prisoners kinda involves killing the dude the first time you shoot him, which is no guarantee. Or shooting dudes after they've raised the white flag and put their hands up.
 
Last edited:
A bit easier said than done, considering we signed this little thing called the Geneva Convention. Taking no prisoners kinda involves killing the dude the first time you shoot him, which is no guarantee. Or shooting dudes after they've raised the white flag and put their hands up.
They would quickly learn that raising a white flag and putting their hands up are bad ideas. ;)

Obama has this all figured out. Using pilotless aircraft to bomb houses, killing everyone there, including innocent women and children, in the hope of maybe getting some terrorist leader eliminates the problem of what to do with the prisioners.

.
 
A bit easier said than done, considering we signed this little thing called the Geneva Convention. Taking no prisoners kinda involves killing the dude the first time you shoot him, which is no guarantee. Or shooting dudes after they've raised the white flag and put their hands up.

The Geneva Convention also says torture is illegal, but we do that. When our country does something as policy, it is us/we who are responsible. We voted in the perpetrators. There is a disconnect in the chain of responsibility and noone is ever prosecuted. That's part of the "change" I expected from Obama. I'm disappointed.
 
If it were me, I'd send them all back to where they came from, and next time, take no prisoners. If you're gonna fight a war, then fight the war to kill. If you're not, then get the hell out.

If we're going to do this then we might as well make it simple as hell. Use a nuke. That will get the worlds attention right away and at the same time let everyone know that if they F*** with the US then there WILL be consequences.

If you're not going to use a nuke however then taking prisoners is a natural part of any war. There were very few armies in history that did not take prisoners. And usually those that lead them did not last long.
 
If we're going to do this then we might as well make it simple as hell. Use a nuke. That will get the worlds attention right away and at the same time let everyone know that if they F*** with the US then there WILL be consequences.

If you're not going to use a nuke however then taking prisoners is a natural part of any war. There were very few armies in history that did not take prisoners. And usually those that lead them did not last long.
Other than scale, how is bombing a house and surrounding area with conventional bombs killing everyone present, guilty and innocent, any more moral than using a tactical nuke?

.
 
Other than scale, how is bombing a house and surrounding area with conventional bombs killing everyone present, guilty and innocent, any more moral than using a tactical nuke?

.

The scale is what makes the difference. One is considered collateral damage or acceptable losses, this goes off the belief that it is sometimes better that a few innocents die than thousands or millions of innocents. The other could be considered either outright genocide or attempted genocide. Genocide is not acceptable to anyone except wacko's.

Other than scale there is no difference.
 
The scale is what makes the difference. One is considered collateral damage or acceptable losses, this goes off the belief that it is sometimes better that a few innocents die than thousands or millions of innocents. The other could be considered either outright genocide or attempted genocide. Genocide is not acceptable to anyone except wacko's.
So you are saying trying to destroy a terrorist group is genocide?

Dictionary.com said:
gen·o·cide   
noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group
I don't see terrorist in that list.

Other than scale there is no difference.
That's what I said... isn't it. :roll:

.
 
I look at Gitmo as a prisoner of war camp. The fact that we give unlawful combatants the same protections as lawful ones is, in my opinion, a gift.

worse. POW's have rights. those who fight while wearing civilian garb put civilians at risk - and thus do not.
 
So you are saying trying to destroy a terrorist group is genocide?

I don't see terrorist in that list.

Reading comprehension problem or something? If you used a nuke on a city you're killing a whole hell of a lot more than just terrorists. Thats where the genocide comes in. Duh.

That's what I said... isn't it. :roll:

.

You asked a question, I answered it.
 
worse. POW's have rights. those who fight while wearing civilian garb put civilians at risk - and thus do not.

You are correct except that it is assumed that all those arrested are terrorists and that is simply not true. Many of the individuals renditioned to Guantanamo were mistakenly arrested or arrested on false information or arrested because reward money drew their names fromm often unscrupulous individuals. You know. You offer a reward for turning in terrorists and the guy collects by turning in the neighbor who is bonking his wife.
 
You are correct except that it is assumed that all those arrested are terrorists and that is simply not true. Many of the individuals renditioned to Guantanamo were mistakenly arrested or arrested on false information or arrested because reward money drew their names fromm often unscrupulous individuals. You know. You offer a reward for turning in terrorists and the guy collects by turning in the neighbor who is bonking his wife.

Which is why 77% of the detainees have been released.
 
GITMO is a gross violation of US law, let alone international. Torture is illegal, whether we do it here or in Cuba.
 
GITMO is a gross violation of US law, let alone international. Torture is illegal, whether we do it here or in Cuba.

What "torture" is happening in Cuba?
 
Quote"Which is why 77% of the detainees have been released."
What "torture" is happening in Cuba?

77% innocent and released without charges.

The torture is called waterboarding. Been in the NEWS since GWShiiteForBrains decided to torture the 77% of inmates who were mistakes and 23% that might not be mistakes. Just to be certain. You know, Club Guantanamo, the tropical resort torture center, er I mean Detention Center. It's OK in Iraq also, unless your names are England and Graner.
 
Quote"Which is why 77% of the detainees have been released."


77% innocent and released without charges.

The torture is called waterboarding. Been in the NEWS since GWShiiteForBrains decided to torture the 77% of inmates who were mistakes and 23% that might not be mistakes. Just to be certain. You know, Club Guantanamo, the tropical resort torture center, er I mean Detention Center. It's OK in Iraq also, unless your names are England and Graner.

No waterboarding happened in Cuba. And it was only done to three (3) people at all, let alone the "77%". And none has happened since 2003.

This kind of misinformed blather helps no one's cause.
 
odd, then, the high recidivism rate amongst such innocent characters...

I see then that you acknowledge the inmates without charges. How about that old saw "if they weren't terrorists when they got here, they will be when they leave." That statement a recognition of the harsh treatment of these uncharged "detainees."
By the way, waterboarding is illegal by the Geneva Conventions, signed by the USA. That'd still be torture.
 
No waterboarding happened in Cuba. And it was only done to three (3) people at all, let alone the "77%". And none has happened since 2003.

This kind of misinformed blather helps no one's cause.

I think I would like to see documentation of that. I don't believe in torture. When attempts are made to hide information about torture, you can only assume the worst case because of the suppression of information, unless you live in a Media generated dream world.
 
I think I would like to see documentation of that. I don't believe in torture. When attempts are made to hide information about torture, you can only assume the worst case because of the suppression of information, unless you live in a Media generated dream world.

The CIA has been releasing documentation on it since 2004. It's all been pretty big news, greatly discussed. If you're going to make bold assertions, you should at least be current with the information.

How about "documentation" that it's ever been done in Cuba, let alone to everyone who's ever been there, as you say?

Especially when the FBI and other investigations have found no evidence of mistreatment in Cuba, let alone "torture" or "waterboarding"?

"Only assuming the worst" is what you choose to do, for your own purposes to suit your own biases, not what any sense of reason or logic requires you to do. I don't know why you want to believe there's been "torture" in Cuba, but apparently, you do.
 
I see then that you acknowledge the inmates without charges.

Of course they were there without charges. If you understood the difference between war prisoners and criminals, this wouldn't present a problem for you.

Sadly, you're not the only who doesn't get the distinction.


By the way, waterboarding is illegal by the Geneva Conventions

Even if you could show this to be true, which you can't, it's go nothing to do with Cuba, despite your apparent need to believe it does.
 
I look at Gitmo as a prisoner of war camp. The fact that we give unlawful combatants the same protections as lawful ones is, in my opinion, a gift.

Not really possible. A prisoner of war goes home after the war. A never ending war suggests something very different.

If this is not against any law, it should be. This goes against nearly every value this country has ever professed.
 
Reading comprehension problem or something? If you used a nuke on a city you're killing a whole hell of a lot more than just terrorists. Thats where the genocide comes in. Duh.

....
Unless you are trying to systemically exterminate a group based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc, it is just a lot of collateral damage.

Do I need to repost the definition of genocide?

.
 
Not really possible. A prisoner of war goes home after the war. A never ending war suggests something very different.

If this is not against any law, it should be. This goes against nearly every value this country has ever professed.

Not only that, but a prisoner of war camp has, well, prisoners of war. Gitmo has "enemy combatants" instead. So, what's the difference? Why, the one is covered by the Geneva accords. The other is a made up phrase that means, "you ain't got no rights, so there!"
 
No matter how you view it...Gitmo is an illegal (to some) prison, born out of war fear. It has however, been created with the blessing of us all, in the mind of the world. If you do not agree with the premise, that there are times when we must compromise societal health to protect the Ideal which created it....then Gitmo is a bad thing.

If you are in enough fear (rational or not) that bad people are coming to get us (which they likely are)...then this compromise could become logical.
 
The CIA has been releasing documentation on it since 2004. It's all been pretty big news, greatly discussed. If you're going to make bold assertions, you should at least be current with the information.

How about "documentation" that it's ever been done in Cuba, let alone to everyone who's ever been there, as you say?

Especially when the FBI and other investigations have found no evidence of mistreatment in Cuba, let alone "torture" or "waterboarding"?

"Only assuming the worst" is what you choose to do, for your own purposes to suit your own biases, not what any sense of reason or logic requires you to do. I don't know why you want to believe there's been "torture" in Cuba, but apparently, you do.

When you believe info from the CIA, you are the victim and they are the perpetrators, or perps as your local gendarme might say. You better read the poll "The CIA and the Media" in the POLLS forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom