1
   

Harping On Abu Ghraib and Gitmo is Highly Misguided

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 11:53 am
McGentrix wrote:
Ben Franklin did not have to contend with biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/The_More_You_Know/images/logo.jpg
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 11:56 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
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 12:31 pm
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


Holy cow, folks, he's right! - Not.

McG, just as you point out, it's an inside joke related to a thread of Joe's.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 12:32 pm
kickycan wrote:
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

I see you have retained your usual powers of trenchant logical argument.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 12:34 pm
thethinkfactory wrote:
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

1. One would always hope that justice is done, but this is military justice, not civil. These are prisoners captured on the battlefield and need to be treated according to that tradition.
2. When one is in a fight to the death with a very dangerous enemy, harping exclusively on the comparatively minor sins of your own side is perverse and counterproductive.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 12:41 pm
Quote:
When one is in a fight to the death with a very dangerous enemy, harping exclusively on the comparatively minor sins of your own side is perverse and counterproductive.


Wrong again. Do you know what the major difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are?

The Good Guys are constantly checking their own behaviour to see if it meets a moral standard. The Bad Guys do whatever the f*ck they want.

Would you have us become Bad Guys? Of course not. So self-examining our own behaviour is neccessary for our maintaining of a Good Guy status. Which is critical to win the WoT as you know.

Your problem isn't that we are self-examining, it is that during the self-examination we found a bunch of stuff that isn't right and that Good Guys shouldn't be doing. It is our duty and resposnsibility to self-correct, but you just want everyone to shut up and focus on other things.

Well, let me give you a message: No f*cking way are we going to shut up about this. No way. I will never condone torture and abuse, ever. I will never believe that so many incidents are all completely isolated. I will always believe that the buck ends at the top.

You can tell me all day long what I am doing is counter-productive, and I'm going to keep right on doing it. Why? Because you don't know what is right and wrong anymore, Brandon. You are so focused on 'winning the war on terror' versus our 'very dangerous enemy' that you can't even see how dangerous we have become.

Therefore, your advice is worth nothing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 12:59 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
kickycan wrote:
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

I see you have retained your usual powers of trenchant logical argument.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 12:59 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
When one is in a fight to the death with a very dangerous enemy, harping exclusively on the comparatively minor sins of your own side is perverse and counterproductive.


Wrong again. Do you know what the major difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are?

The Good Guys are constantly checking their own behaviour to see if it meets a moral standard. The Bad Guys do whatever the f*ck they want.

Would you have us become Bad Guys? Of course not. So self-examining our own behaviour is neccessary for our maintaining of a Good Guy status. Which is critical to win the WoT as you know.

Your problem isn't that we are self-examining, it is that during the self-examination we found a bunch of stuff that isn't right and that Good Guys shouldn't be doing. It is our duty and resposnsibility to self-correct, but you just want everyone to shut up and focus on other things.

Well, let me give you a message: No f*cking way are we going to shut up about this. No way. I will never condone torture and abuse, ever. I will never believe that so many incidents are all completely isolated. I will always believe that the buck ends at the top.

You can tell me all day long what I am doing is counter-productive, and I'm going to keep right on doing it. Why? Because you don't know what is right and wrong anymore, Brandon. You are so focused on 'winning the war on terror' versus our 'very dangerous enemy' that you can't even see how dangerous we have become.

Therefore, your advice is worth nothing.

Cycloptichorn

You're attacking a position I never took. I agree that we have to prevent wrongs from being committed on our side, and I have consistently said so. That is, indeed, part of what makes us the good guys.

What I assert in my post, however, is that to be in the middle of a fight to the death with a lethal enemy and harp exclusively on the comparatively minor sins of your own side is perverse.

To use an analogy I made recently, if an American colonist in 1776 were to seem to have no interest in the Revolutionary War other than to condemn every real and imagined mistreatment of British prisoners, that would be perverse. That is not at all to say that the British prisoners shouldn't have received fair treatment, but to see only that and never show an interest in the other issue of winning independence from Britain would have been bizarre and unpatriotic.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 01:58 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:

1. One would always hope that justice is done, but this is military justice, not civil. These are prisoners captured on the battlefield and need to be treated according to that tradition.

2. When one is in a fight to the death with a very dangerous enemy, harping exclusively on the comparatively minor sins of your own side is perverse and counterproductive.


I think I see your point more clearly now. I think I partially agree while disagreeing.

In reference to your point #1:

There is no military court attempting to be conviened in this case - these detainees to gain a military court or tribunal would need to be afforded POW status. The 'enemy combatant' status is being translated based on the definition of a war on terror. When you have war on a verb (terror) there is, in effect, no end. Thus, there has been no attempt in the three years to extend this military trail you are speaking of.

We have, again, two choices. Crimes against the nation - national court. Crimes of war - military or international court.

No court is what we have chosen thus far.

In reference to your point #2:

I agree that there is a LOT of axe grinding on this. I think, Brandon, you hate the hay making of the politicians more than you support the idea of never giving rights to a person. Any human, even if they are cought red handed beheading Ghandi / Jesus / Mohammad, must be tried in a court of law.

I partially agree that we do seem to fixate on one portion, get a bit in our mouth, and then run like nothing else exists. I am sick of that as well.

But to ignore liberty in the name of liberty is not inane - but insane.

You an I can quibble about 'are we better off now' and ultimitaly time will tell - but I cannot, and have not seen, your argument for the treatment of the detainees in Gitmo only your argument that we shouldn't harp on it so much.

I think you may be confusing your disdain for the latter with your acceptence of the former.

(Although I do not pretend to speak for you.)

So, do you have anything, besides hope, as to why we should not be extending the human rights we so dearly love and are attempting to protect in Iraq to the detainees of gitmo?

TF
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 02:32 pm
thethinkfactory wrote:

...So, do you have anything, besides hope, as to why we should not be extending the human rights we so dearly love and are attempting to protect in Iraq to the detainees of gitmo?

TF

I think probably we should establish who is absolutely there by mistake and not even an enemy solider, and release them. We have done some of this. The others fall into two categories - ordinary, but possibly dedicated soldiers, and terrorists or Al Qaeda members. In both cases, we do not want them to return to the battlefield. It would absolutely be a mistake to release someone so they could begin trying to destroy us again. At the same time, indefinite confinement with no resolution is not fair. Certainly, most of them should be allowed to send and receive mail. Three years is not a terribly long time to keep a prisoner in a war. I would recommend questioning them in a manner consistent with the ordinary international rules of war, and then trying each by trubunal. Some of the worst of the terrorists among them should certainly be sentenced to death. Of those not released or executed, a decision would have to be made as to the danger to us of releasing them. We are indeed in a war with terror, and this may be a unique circumstance. While we are trying, as we must, to be fair to an enemy who is not fair to our soldiers who they capture, we must also preserve our ability to make war successfully. I certainly don't think these people should be treated any better than we treated captured soldiers in WW2.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 04:24 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
thethinkfactory wrote:

...So, do you have anything, besides hope, as to why we should not be extending the human rights we so dearly love and are attempting to protect in Iraq to the detainees of gitmo?

TF

I think probably we should establish who is absolutely there by mistake and not even an enemy solider, and release them. We have done some of this. The others fall into two categories - ordinary, but possibly dedicated soldiers, and terrorists or Al Qaeda members. In both cases, we do not want them to return to the battlefield. It would absolutely be a mistake to release someone so they could begin trying to destroy us again. At the same time, indefinite confinement with no resolution is not fair. Certainly, most of them should be allowed to send and receive mail. Three years is not a terribly long time to keep a prisoner in a war. I would recommend questioning them in a manner consistent with the ordinary international rules of war, and then trying each by trubunal. Some of the worst of the terrorists among them should certainly be sentenced to death. Of those not released or executed, a decision would have to be made as to the danger to us of releasing them. We are indeed in a war with terror, and this may be a unique circumstance. While we are trying, as we must, to be fair to an enemy who is not fair to our soldiers who they capture, we must also preserve our ability to make war successfully. I certainly don't think these people should be treated any better than we treated captured soldiers in WW2.


You and I are agreeing now. It is amazing I think. Wink

I think what you have asked for is POW status in this case. I have no problem with it. Decide who really are the enemy combatants and then release those who are not. We have been doing some of this but with no real direction. There is an article I read recently that dealt with this. I will try to find it.

We have to extend more grace to our enemies if we are going to be a credible beacons of freedom and liberty that we claim to be.

Thanks for your measured reply. I find it so often is the case - that when you seperate the politicking from the morality or the real issue - there is quite often a LOT of consensus.


TTF
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 04:27 pm
thethinkfactory wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
thethinkfactory wrote:

...So, do you have anything, besides hope, as to why we should not be extending the human rights we so dearly love and are attempting to protect in Iraq to the detainees of gitmo?

TF

I think probably we should establish who is absolutely there by mistake...I certainly don't think these people should be treated any better than we treated captured soldiers in WW2.


You and I are agreeing now. It is amazing I think. Wink

I think what you have asked for is POW status in this case. I have no problem with it. Decide who really are the enemy combatants and then release those who are not. We have been doing some of this but with no real direction. There is an article I read recently that dealt with this. I will try to find it.

We have to extend more grace to our enemies if we are going to be a credible beacons of freedom and liberty that we claim to be.

Thanks for your measured reply. I find it so often is the case - that when you seperate the politicking from the morality or the real issue - there is quite often a LOT of consensus.


TTF

Who are you? Are you sure you're in the right place?
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 04:35 pm
Should I be telling you to F - off you conservative scum? Wink

TF
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 04:50 pm
thethinkfactory wrote:
Should I be telling you to F - off you conservative scum? Wink

TF

Well, it would make me feel some degree of comfort and familiarity in the conversation. Shocked
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 06:32 pm
Nah. Were cool.

Good topic - thanks for the discussion.

TF
0 Replies
 
pinchehoto
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 11:48 am
I'm not sure that giving Gitmo detainees POW status is within the capabilities of our current policies. Many of them are/were in the US legally. Some are US citizens. Most of them have not actually taken up arms against the US. Nor can we try them as criminals since the majority of the detainees are only guilty of having the wrong friends and ideas.
But since some people with those same friends and ideas seem to enjoy killing themselves along with as many Americans they can, it might make at least a little sense to prevent them from doing so.

I can understand why this outrages/confuses people. Until 9/11, the official stance that the US took on terrorism is that it was a *criminal* act. But that goes out the window when the perpetrators of the crime take to executing themselves in the process. We can no longer afford to treat suicide bombings as a criminal act. On 9/11, the war got very real, very quick.

Don't forget that we detained Japanese and German American citizens during WWII. People spoke out against it then, but it is a sometimes-necessary evil to detain **potential** enemies in times of war. And that, by its nature, can never be done fairly.

Trying to think of Gitmo as a function of our justice system is silly. As ugly as it is, the Gitmo detainees are there out of concern for our protection- not justice. Regardless what it says on the police cars, our justice system can do very little to **protect** us. Try calling the cops because you think someone is out to get you. They cannot do a thing for you until after you get hit. After you are a victim, they can pursue justice fairly and efficiently. But you still got hit. No, Gitmo is run by Marines, not police officers. Marines are in the protection business, not the justice business. Do the detainees deserve freedom? I'm sure some do. Maybe even most. But most Americans want protection from terrorism far more than they want justice.

On the subject of Gitmo "atrocities".
Are we really shocked that Marines are being mean? Isn't that what we pay them to be? I don't think it is reasonable to expect the Marines at Gitmo to be civil to the detainees since:

1. Marines subject themselves to a culture (that has often been compared to brainwashing) that encourages a warrior spirit and loyalty to the corps. The effect is so strong that even a short time in the Marines can dramatically alter a person's psychology for the rest of their life.
2. Marines are regularly dying by the hands of Muslim extremists and have been since the 80's.
3. There are relatively little rules governing the conduct of the mission of keeping these detainees.

As we have learned from "A Few Good Men", there is no field manual for a code red and some people "can't handle the truth" that the job of the Marine Corps isn't always pretty, but does ensure a strong defense of our nation's interests.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 12:38 pm
pinchehoto wrote:
I'm not sure that giving Gitmo detainees POW status...

Welcome to A2K.
0 Replies
 
pinchehoto
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 12:47 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
pinchehoto wrote:
I'm not sure that giving Gitmo detainees POW status...

Welcome to Mega.


Not quite sure what that means.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 12:52 pm
pinchehoto wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
pinchehoto wrote:
I'm not sure that giving Gitmo detainees POW status...

Welcome to Mega.


Not quite sure what that means.

It means that my mind is going.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2005 01:17 pm
Welcome to "mega" A2K!

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/85565.gif
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 02:48:31