1
   

Harping On Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is Highly Misguided

 
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:17 am
Source
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:27 am
Sure, terrorists are sawing heads off and everything -- whatever! But we should really be talking about the "flag protection amendment."
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:34 am
woiyo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Woiyo, the detainees in Gitmo are not POW's. They are illegal combatants. POW's are eligible for the full protection of the Geneva conventions. The camps in Iraq full of Iraqi soldiers are POW camps.

Please do not confuse the two as they have very different rights and protections.


I understand the distinction. The point I am trying to show here is the contradictory nature of the left wing. On one hand, they want Gitmo prisioners treated under the terms of the GC. Then they say they deserve rights granted under civil law. Apparently they do not know what they want.


Woiyo:

don't you understand that if they are not deemed either terrorists or POW's we cannot assign any legal status to them. This is exactly what the regime that has decided they are neither POW's nor terrorists wants.

It is not as if some 'left' wing flip floppers exist. I am saying - because I can't speak for some fictitious group called oddly 'the left' - that a legal status needs to be assigned. Terrorist - or POW. Cheney's conception of 'Bad Man' aint cutting it.

Read the opinions of Rasul v. Bush and you will see that the president's concept of enemy combatant does not supercede the detainee's right to appear in court.

Micheal Jackson might have been a bad man - but if you don't have the goods to convict - he is a free 'bad man'.

I think you have the cart before the horse here.

TF
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:39 am
Bagram.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:43 am
sozobe wrote:
Bagram.


Let me help Sozobe:

Click

TF
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 08:50 am
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 09:12 am
You who say that these are no common criminals may remember that terrorists have been put on trial in the US before.

That being the case, it is safe to say that while we are fighting the war on terror, the end of hositilities will be never. There will always be a 'looming threat,' someone who wants to kill innocent Americans.

So we are going to be holding these gentlemen in Gitmo (or elsewhere) in perpetuity, for the rest of their lives, until we execute them or they die from natural causes.

With no trial.

And you think this is right? This isn't right! Hell, the convicted f*cking nazis after WW2 got a trial and they were worse than any terrorists!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 09:17 am
The concept of enemy combatant is not wrong and the label did not lead to any abuse.

Did you read the article I posted showing that some of the "innocent victims" released from Guantanamo Bay have either been re-captured or killed fighting our forces in Iraq? That's what happens when you release animals back into the wild. Who knows how many people have died as a result of their being freed?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 09:26 am
Oh man, here I go again, agreeing (somewhat) with Cy. This will mean another trip to my analyst. Oh well.

The trap the admin has fallen into is simply not knowing what to call these people. If they are indeed terrorists, then I whole-heartedly agree that charges need to be brought and they need be given their day in court to answer to them. If they are POW's, then that would point to a future release date once hostilities have ceased. The tricky part is determining when hostilitis cease. I think we all can agree that has not happened yet. Even if you go the route of calling them illegal combatants, the inference is that they were combating our armed forces, thus while they may not be covered by the Geneva Convention, they still would have to be looked at as prisoners to be released at the end of hostilities.

So, if the government is going to call them POW's or Illegal Combatants, then I have no problem with holding them in Gitmo until hostilities cease, just like any other POW. If hostilities don't cease in their lifetimes, they can blame their compadres for that one, not us. (IMO) But if the government is going to treat them as terrorists, then charge them, try them and go from there.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 09:37 am
thethinkfactory wrote:
Brandon:

That is not what he said. Breathe and re-read.

Terrorism as a word means to employ tactics that bring about fear and trembling to it's intended targets.

Our administration has done a really good job of it. You want other to question thier assumptions in this case because you think they are off base. What you do not question is:

1) We are better off now - "protected" from the terrorists.

Sometimes you need to oppose an evil, dangerous force in the world, like Hitler or the Soviets. You will ultimately be better off than if you let them do what they like. The simplistic assumption that if you are not immediately better off, you're doing the wrong thing, is inane. Sometimes when you first engage a dangerous foe, you are initially worse off, but that doesn't mean it isn't your only possible route to survival.


thethinkfactory wrote:
2) What we have done by 'hunting them down and smoking them out' has garnered us more safety than before.
3) That the methods we have employed have not contributed to the general sense of fear and terror.

We are in a worldwide war with a worldwide foe, and your idea that one should expect instant, monotonic improvement is foolish. We are fighting two very dangerous forces: (1) Islamic extremists who want to destroy our culture, (2) the increasing accessibility of WMD, even to nutjob dictators. Should we make a standard policy of not pressing the point with a country like Iraq that may well have a hidden weapons program, sooner or later one of our cities will go up in smoke.

thethinkfactory wrote:
The proof for this is our track record and Al-Queda themselves. We funded, trained, and essentially put them in power because they temporarly helped us oust the Russians from Afghanistan.

It was the right thing to do at the time. Afghanistan had been annexed by Russia. We helped the indigenous rebels. Their ultimate mutation into terrorists would not have been easy to predict.

If you want to play with me, you're going to have to do better than this.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 09:40 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Sure, terrorists are sawing heads off and everything -- whatever! But we should really be talking about the "flag protection amendment."

Might I respectfully ask you to stay on topic? Thanks for your cooperation.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 09:50 am
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 10:17 am
Intrepid wrote:
Rolling Eyes


*sigh*

Why the eyeroll Intrepid? Because Brandon asked Joe to stay on subject?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1399877#1399877
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 11:01 am
No, McG. The previous post he made. Are you Brandon's protector now? Laughing
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 11:08 am
Intrepid wrote:
No, McG. The previous post he made. Are you Brandon's protector now? Laughing
Rolling Eyes


No, he does just fine all by himself. I was just wondering if you were purposefully being insolent, or maybe you were not aware that Brandon was asked, rather rudely, to stay on subject on a different thread.

That's all.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 11:19 am
McGentrix wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
No, McG. The previous post he made. Are you Brandon's protector now? Laughing
Rolling Eyes


No, he does just fine all by himself. I was just wondering if you were purposefully being insolent, or maybe you were not aware that Brandon was asked, rather rudely, to stay on subject on a different thread.

That's all.


There you go making assumptions. I am complimented, indeed, that you took the time to inquire whether I was being purposefully insolent. Even though I was not, it is reassuring to know that you are there to champion the cause.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 11:28 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Might I respectfully ask you to stay on topic? Thanks for your cooperation.


Since you started a thread about al Qaeda and 9/11 and heads getting sawed off, it was on topic to point out how perverse it is to harp on about stuff that's going on thousands of miles away when the American flag is in danger of being burned right here in the US! Your assertion that I'm off topic is both absurd and completely consistent with the conservative propensity for avoiding facing an opponent's argument head on.

/so there
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 11:32 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Might I respectfully ask you to stay on topic? Thanks for your cooperation.


Since you started a thread about al Qaeda and 9/11 and heads getting sawed off, it was on topic to point out how perverse it is to harp on about stuff that's going on thousands of miles away when the American flag is in danger of being burned right here in the US! Your assertion that I'm off topic is both absurd and completely consistent with the conservative propensity for avoiding facing an opponent's argument head on.

/so there


Laughing
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 11:34 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

Count on you to attack the man, but run away from the argument.


Brandon9000 wrote:

If you want to play with me, you're going to have to do better than this.


I am not attacking you nor am I 'playing with you'.

I have asked you some questions - and furthermore gave a good argument as to why enemy cobatant status is not legal, constitutional, or moral.

You have sidestepped the question by giving arguments impossible to measure - how we may be better off - how Afghanistan was 'necessary' and the like.

The issue is this, and you brought it up, focusing on Gitmo is wrong.

I have argued it is right for all the reasons I have given above.

Why should we ignore it? Please show me why not giving any rights of due process and then ignorig this is the right / legal / constitutional thing to do.

As far as your post above - I think Ben said it better than me.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Ben Franklin
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 11:49 am
Ben Franklin did not have to contend with biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/27/2021 at 05:13:55