since this thread seems to be dying lately let me try to pump some life back into it pertaining to the original topic...

what the **** is up with obomber wanting to close gitmo? i mean it was one of his election promises and what good is it gonna do? you want those terrorist bastards jailed in the mainland!? seriously what good is this bullshit gonna do? i recently watched an on-site documentary on nat geo and the hell those guards have to go through... all the inmates just yelling how the guards are pieces of **** and that allah will smite them. i really dont want those terrorist bitches in america. keep them in cuba where they belong as far as im concerned. there is no good whatsoever that will come from the closer of gitmo. and if there is some good in your eyes, be my guest. lay it on the line.

 

Hmmm...

Well, it's not about what good will come of it - it's a matter of what's right. Detaining people for no legitimate reason goes against everything that being a "free" individual stands for - isn't that the American way?

No where in the documents we hold so dear does it say that the freedoms we enjoy are only for Americans. We go about talking about how great a democratic society is and then act like tyrants off our shores.

How would you feel if it were you that was held after being captured - no charges brought against you - no "due process of law" or writ of habeas corpus? It would be a completely different matter... why?

The system of law we hold so dear and freedoms we fight to the death for should not only aply to us - but as Jefferson so eloquent said in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Our govern was guilty of just what he wrote about, mate. Just because we may feel we fight the good fight - doesn't mean these men at Gitmo are beneath us. If they are guilty - try them and be done with it - if not allow them to go.

 

im way too hammered to reply... wait a while pleease...

 

I would like to know some of the details of those who have been held at gitmo. I strongly doubt that they are being held for no legitimate reason. Also, many of them are prisoners of war. They are not subject to the same rules as civil criminals. And some are not even considered prisoners of war since they fight in civilian clothing and are not apart of an organized army. This complicates the issue and has probably led to some of the delays. Obama is a taking the view that many of these jihadists should be tried in civil courts which I believe is a mistake. It is also a mistake for him to allow for the prosecution of those involved in authorizing torture.

 

You know, I would to!

Thanks for making my point wtf is going on there? Some are war criminals (but to be such they need to recognized as being such and fall under Geneva rules) some are not -thus fall under civilian US law...

But who the hell knows?

Even under the Geneva Convention rules we are failing to follow them correctly. Why we haven't been cited by Red Cross is curious as well.

 

What? You mean to tell me that if someone authorizes torture - even if he's an American - that he's above the law, both domestic and internationally?

When all I've heard concerning justification of taking out Saddam was the killing and torture he inflicted?

Perhaps what he did was extreme and he paid for it - when tried - with a rope necktie.

For those that authorized torture here, should be tried equally, though I'm certain their penalties will be considerably less harsh.

The rules of war are clear. Torture of prisoners is wrong and illegal - regardless of the degree. We can't point fingers at others if we're not able to point them at ourselves.

 

I think the confusion stems from the fact that there are not clear rules for prosecuting terrorists. If they are not in uniform they cannot be considered soldiers, yet they are not civilians either. The rush to push these cases into the civilain courts may have unintended consequences and could make for a much tougher prosecution.

The other issue here is the definition of torture and the degree to which it is acceptable. For instance, Obama authorizes the use of assasination of terrorist leaders with unmanned drones. The UAVs shoot a missle at the terrorists house and kill the terrorist along with his family and other collaterals. This is something that Obama has authorized and must feel is justified. Is waterboarding a worse fate? Also, waterboarding and other interrogation techniques are administered to our own soldiers as part of anti-interrogation training. It seems that if we are willing to subject our own to such treatment, it should be an acceptable method of interogating terrorist leaders.

It is appropriate to investigate the interogation methods that were used by the Bush administration and to debate the moral implications. However, it is not productive to prosecute people who were acting in a way to protect the country in a time of hightened danger and uncertainty. The comparison to Saddam is apples and oranges.

 

Agreed, there is no clear cut rules concerning terrorists - but allow a court (international or military) define them - just don't hold people for years.

Actually there is precident here. Going after a combatant and detaining one is comparing apples and oranges. They fall under completely different rules, this is well documented. Collateral damage is acceptable - to some degree and the court of public opinion dictates that unfortunately. But once the combatant is in custody - you can't mistreat him - period.

Have you ever been waterboarded? I had some survival training once at Ft. Hood and they did that to a guy and it was interesting to watch. Here was a big old burly sergeant freaking the hell out with just a wet rag over his face. They showed us some techniques that were pretty scary and some not so - yet all were effective at ******* with your mind - which again is considered torture under international and domestic law.

Unfortunately, I guess so. Obama originally didn't want to but it was brought up that international law require that we do - as in the case with what happened in Bosnia - all war attrocities (and torture falls under that catagory) must be tried.

Of course, what we did is lame compared to what has occurred in history - but we can't sweep it under the rug and appear to be able to enforce international law, but be above it as well.

Those that are guilty of this should be tried.

My honest fear is that the Democrats might use this as some modern day witch hunt reminiscent of the McCarthy Commie debacle of the 50's.

What gets me is Cheney's response recently asking that the information obtained during those "interrogations" proved useful in saving lives should be released as well. This after saying all that was "State Secrets".

This is going to be a mess either way you view it.

 

Agreed.

Cases of genocide should not be compared to cases of interogation so I dont find merit in the Saddam or Bosnia analogy.

I dont know much about international laws regarding this matter so I wont pretend to debate you on the legal issues. I do have a feeling that most of the laws predate the war on terror. But I will speak plainly about the conduct of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques. I assume that waterboarding is internationally outlawed? In any case, Pali has witnessed waterboarding conducted by the US army on a US soldier. So the situation is that you have captured a terrorist leader. He has valuable information that could save lives but will not cooperate with interagators. It seems very reasonable to me to throw a wet rag on the guys face and scare him into spilling his secrets. He wont die but he will be scared out of his mind. It actually seems safer than tasering someone because there is no real threat of physical harm. An attorney working for the US government agrees with this reasoning and decides to authorize the technique. We gain information and save American lives. Information becomes public and now the country is embarassed. Obama is open to prosecuting the lawyers who supported water boarding.

Seems to me that he thinks that it is more important to save our reputation than to save lives. I dont blame him for diagreeing with waterboarding but he shouldnt prosecute those who disagree with him and authorized its use. If he was so worried about applying the laws equally to all, then Tim Giethner would never have been confirmed as Treasury Secretary. So lets not pretend that this is about fairness. People tend not to like countires that "torture" people. And Obama has shown a deep desire to be liked by the international community. I feel that life is a complicated place and sometimes you have to do things that others disagree with and that you yourself may disagree with for the sake of practicality. Its certainly not something to be proud of, but exceptions to principles are a consequence of reality.

What I am hearing from the other side is that it is ok to assasinate someone and their family but not acceptable to capture someone and scare them.

 

Perhaps you misunderstood - I never compared them in merit - I compared them as in the most recent war crimes tried. And like I said, what our forces did is so far down the scale of "attrocities" it's laughable. But we still broke the rules of war.

Okay, so what you're saying that torturing a man's mind - in one case according to memo documents - we did this six times a day to one guy - is okay, as long as you don't scratch him. lol...

You've been watching too many movies, mate. No one uses hot pokers or wire their nuts to generators - they are much more effective and subtle than that. In the course I attended they showed how effective a phonebook was in interrogating. It distributes the force so evenly across the surface that you feel like you've been hit by a bat without leaving bruises. Keep you from sleeping indefinately until you passout - revive you and start all over again. Strap you at a 30 degree angle downward (so you're upsidedown) to allow blood to rush to your head for hours - then suddenly make you stand up by pivoting the table straight up.

Torture is torture is torture. I'd truly like to see how you could withstand waterboarding six times a day - hell even twice.

Senator McCain came out against waterboarding and he should know what torture is all about.

Actually I agree with you on Geithner - but he still got approved with GOP consent.

Perhaps you don't understand - it's not about being liked - it's about doing the right thing. It's called diplomacy.

Funny, you once accused me of using selective definitions... lol

If the target is a known combatant - the term "assasinate" does not apply. In the rules of war (and there are such things - in writing) all is acceptable when going for an enemy - to a point - wiping out a whole town to get one guy is not let's say. Raping and pilaging is also a no-no.

But once they are in our custody - as well as when we are in theirs - it's a whole different set of rules.

That is what you fail to understand. It's a matter of decency. Just because they videotape beheading their captives - doesn't mean we get to bend the rules any ourselves. We can't degrade and mind **** those just because others don't have that same sense of decency and respect for human life.

We broke those rules - no matter how you justify it - no matter what good may have come of it - if we don't abide by them - then what the hell do we have to say when our soldiers are mistreated when captured? But even if they, terrorist, don't abide by the rules - we must still...

That is until those rules are changed to include terrorist acts and terrorists conduct.