• 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 .
I guess the Guantanamo prison itself is a product of avoiding the enforcement of human rights laws of the US....

In an oversea prison, the CIA could torture and detain people willingly without worrying about constitutionality...
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

The thing is, there indeed ARE folks being held there who aren't combatants at all, and simply picked up on the battlefield for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That some are held indefinitely without trial or due process is, indeed, an injustice.

But Guantanamo is merely a prison or a place where these guys are held. It's not the fact that these facilities exist that's the problem, it's how these guys are treated - not really afforded criminal rights, but not really afforded POW rights either.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
The thing is, there indeed ARE folks being held there who aren't combatants at all, and simply picked up on the battlefield for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That some are held indefinitely without trial or due process is, indeed, an injustice.

But Guantanamo is merely a prison or a place where these guys are held. It's not the fact that these facilities exist that's the problem, it's how these guys are treated - not really afforded criminal rights, but not really afforded POW rights either.
Click to expand...

If the prisoners at Guantanamo were little white girls accused of murder in Italy, more people would probably be against their wrongful imprisonment. However, since a minute percentage of Arabs like to blow themselves up from time to time and take innocents with them, it's only fair we lock up Arabs in general with or without reason.
 
Now, I don't know if this is at all reasonable of me, but my first thought upon seeing the title was: "**** international law."
 
oliveryty said:
I guess the Guantanamo prison itself is a product of avoiding the enforcement of human rights laws of the US....

In an oversea prison, the CIA could torture and detain people willingly without worrying about constitutionality...
Click to expand...

That is not what it's for, no.
 
no vote
other
IMO, we are confused in this ever changing world.
The 9-11 attack was political, as well as criminal.
Osama should never have been killed
rather a life sentence in a pig-sty (sorry pigs - life is rough, we do not get to chose our neighbors.

I do not think that the heart and soul of any man can ever be changed, if that is what our intent is..
If our intent is to assure the well-being of our people, we should try to really(respect) get along with others...
 
earthworm said:
You know as well as I do that our President is not our dictator, that Congress runs things(more or less)..
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. (Well, it's kinda' sorta' shared) The person I answered with that link apparently does not.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
You know as well as I do that our President is not our dictator, that Congress runs things(more or less)..
Click to expand...
The President is the Commander-in-Chief. All he would have to do is order the military to abandon the base and leave the doors open on their way out. The Congress could not do a danm thing about it. :doh

.
 
TOJ said:
The President is the Commander-in-Chief. All he would have to do is order the military to abandon the base and leave the doors open on their way out. The Congress could not do a danm thing about it. :doh
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone (in their right mind) is considering abandoning Gitmo as a military base. Closing the prison is a different story.
 
It completely disgusts me that our goverment is of the form that manipulates man made laws so as to try to perceive the image of fighting for justice or protect its citizens! There should be no chance that a government should allow a person's rights to be possibly violated and in this case definitely violated period. All considerations should be given to that person until they are proven guilty and still they should be treated as humanely as you would want to be treated even if you had poor judgement or just went down right nuts.

Close the base down. Get our troops home. Stop sticking our heads up everyone's butt. Stop playing games. I can just image what the bad guys are thinking....third times a charm! We have to face the truths, the reason these ppl are like they are is because we force our will down their throats. We have to change our country completely! We can't emerge from the choas and have any type of real revolution or renaissance or whatever you call it if we don't change our thinking and face the facts.

We as a human race are the most amazing creatures on this earth! If we forced compromise in a peaceful way we could change the world and make it something beyond anyone's dreams. I think if we did we might even accomplish something as crazy as Newt's moon base:) There's no doubt! Now I know, if Newt were actually elected that wouldn't happen...well he might get us a hut up there or something but he'd collapse the earth in regards to finances and civility. Not that it would be all his fault but he's basically a status quo'r nothing would change....things would continue to break down and his pooring of money into the hut would crush us most likely...if we keepthe same way of doing things.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I don't think anyone (in their right mind) is considering abandoning Gitmo as a military base. Closing the prison is a different story.
Click to expand...
The point, which you seem to have missed, is that Obama does not require the approval of Congress to close Gitmo. If he ordered the military to leave, congress could not do anything about it.

.
 
Did anyone else notice anything strange in the poll numbers? Overnight.
 
TOJ said:
The point, which you seem to have missed, is that Obama does not require the approval of Congress to close Gitmo. If he ordered the military to leave, congress could not do anything about it.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you missed my opinion that closing the base is unthinkable, OR if you missed the article I linked.

What exactly would you have the military do:
(These are examples only. Please respond with your precise recommendation.)
-Release the prisoners into the country-side
-Walk out of the prison buildings opening all doors on exiting
-Abandon the military base completely (all 45? square miles of it) including all equipment, supplies, etc., and evacuate all military personnel and their families leaving the prisoners behind (and in control of it)
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
odd, then, the high recidivism rate amongst such innocent characters...
Click to expand...

There is some question concerning those numbers. I hope we don't have to break out all that again. But tell, how do you know if it is a return, or if we simply convinced them to join after having been wrongly held for so long? I just want to know how you reach that determination.
 
cpwill said:
worse. POW's have rights. those who fight while wearing civilian garb put civilians at risk - and thus do not.
Click to expand...

How nice. Makes things simple to declare people without any basic rights. Fits with the ideals we believe so strongly in here. Our document reads all Americans in uniform are entitled to rights endowed by their creator. Not everyone. God's funny that way.

:coffeepap
 
Dittohead not! said:
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!"
Click to expand...

Exactly. And sadly, too many are OK with that.
 
Boo Radley said:
How nice. Makes things simple to declare people without any basic rights. Fits with the ideals we believe so strongly in here. Our document reads all Americans in uniform are entitled to rights endowed by their creator. Not everyone. God's funny that way.

:coffeepap
Click to expand...

Customary international law, which the Geneva Conventions codifed, normally allowed for non-uniformed combatants to be executed summarily.

Why? Uniforms make it easy to distinguish who you're supposed to be shooting at. If you can't, you have little choice but to a) shoot everyone, or b) give up.

Is that the world you prefer?


:coffeepap :coffeepap :coffeepap :coffeepap
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're sounding more and more like the "debaters" at stormfront. Use a nuke to get people's attention? Is that a good enough reason to use nukes?
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

You remind me of my crazy uncle who believed we should solve the problems of the Middle East by simply leveling it.
 
Harshaw said:
Customary international law, which the Geneva Conventions codifed, normally allowed for non-uniformed combatants to be executed summarily.

Why? Uniforms make it easy to distinguish who you're supposed to be shooting at. If you can't, you have little choice but to a) shoot everyone, or b) give up.

Is that the world you prefer?


:coffeepap :coffeepap :coffeepap :coffeepap
Click to expand...

That was absed on wars between nations, in which there were uniforms to wear. This is nothing like that. they are not soliders in any formal army, representing any nation.

That said, none of that excuses declaring anyone outside the law. Those who we were allowed to execute were people who belonged to a uniform, and broke the rule s by taking it off. And even then, there was a legal process. So, the choice you present is false because 1) we are not fighting soliders in the army of any nation and 2) not wearing a uniform, even among soliders belonging to the army of a nation doesn't remove rule of law. Here we've tried to remove all rule of law. That is not only immoral, but anti-American.
 
Boo Radley said:
That was absed on wars between nations, in which there were uniforms to wear. This is nothing like that. they are not soliders in any formal army, representing any nation.
Click to expand...

Then how do you claim the Geneva Conventions apply?

(They, in fact, say they don't in situations like that, by the way.)


That said, none of that excuses declaring anyone outside the law. Those who we were allowed to execute were people who belonged to a uniform, and broke the rule s by taking it off. And even then, there was a legal process. So, the choice you present is false because 1) we are not fighting soliders in the army of any nation and 2) not wearing a uniform, even among soliders belonging to the army of a nation doesn't remove rule of law. Here we've tried to remove all rule of law. That is not only immoral, but anti-American.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. They're not outside the law. The "law" allows for them to be summarily shot, despite the post-2001 interpretations that people have pulled out of thin air.

And those recent interpretations are nothing but a suicide pact at worst, or an instruction manual for others to conduct unlawful warfare with the firm support of western "human rights" groups at best.

Strange world you want to live in.
 
Harshaw said:
Then how do you claim the Geneva Conventions apply?

(They, in fact, say they don't in situations like that, by the way.)
Click to expand...

I'm not stuck on the GC being the end all. In fact, as this never ends, saying you'll hold them until the end of the war is silly. I'm saying follow rule of law, with rights.


You misunderstand. They're not outside the law. The "law" allows for them to be summarily shot, despite the post-2001 interpretations that people have pulled out of thin air.

And those recent interpretations are nothing but a suicide pact at worst, or an instruction manual for others to conduct unlawful warfare with the firm support of western "human rights" groups at best.

Strange world you want to live in.
Click to expand...

They are allowed to be shot because they are outside the law. There is a legal process that is followed.

I don't understand your thin air comment at all, but if you'll explain, I'll respond.


I will say, this isn't about what they do, but about what we do and value. If we value law and human rights, we behave like we value law and human rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom