View Full Version : Obama to restart Guantanamo military commissions
US President Barack Obama is lifting the two-year freeze on new military trials for detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
Mr Obama also announced a new process for continuing to hold those detainees not charged or convicted but deemed too dangerous to free.
He said the measures would "broaden our ability to bring terrorists to justice".
Mr Obama had pledged in January 2009 to close the prison within a year.
"The American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates," Mr Obama said in a statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12671777
Note:7 March 2011 Last updated at 21:52 GMT
Gargamel
03-08-11, 11:39 AM
The AP article I read today states his attempts to close the Base were blocked by various parties in Congress, so he is doing against his ultimate goals.
GoldenRivet
03-08-11, 02:56 PM
Rare moment of clarity for him.
Platapus
03-08-11, 05:30 PM
Mr Obama also announced a new process for continuing to hold those detainees not charged or convicted but deemed too dangerous to free.
Sad. He is no better then Bush. :down:
Politicians are a bit like women, "says one thing but do something else instead..:stare:
As always, pale face speak with forked tongue.
UnderseaLcpl
03-08-11, 08:11 PM
The AP article I read today states his attempts to close the Base were blocked by various parties in Congress, so he is doing against his ultimate goals.
That's probably true. I'm not a supporter of Obama or most of his policies, but he is definitely a man with a vision he believes is best for the country. You can see it in his face when he speaks, even if he needs a teleprompter in the process.:yep: I respect him for that.
Bubblehead1980
03-08-11, 09:49 PM
That's probably true. I'm not a supporter of Obama or most of his policies, but he is definitely a man with a vision he believes is best for the country. You can see it in his face when he speaks, even if he needs a teleprompter in the process.:yep: I respect him for that.
You are easily fooled.....
You are easily fooled.....
Yep, cause only the Republicans want whats best for the US..ahurrdurrr
Platapus
03-08-11, 10:24 PM
Yep, cause only the Republicans want whats best for the US..ahurrdurrr
In some people's minds, I am afraid they believe that very thing.
That's probably true. I'm not a supporter of Obama or most of his policies, but he is definitely a man with a vision he believes is best for the country. You can see it in his face when he speaks, even if he needs a teleprompter in the process.:yep: I respect him for that.
Yeah, a true visionary, like Pol Pot.
UnderseaLcpl
03-09-11, 12:48 AM
You are easily fooled.....
Hardly. Ask anyone here. I am not a fool and I am not a liberal in the sense you are implying.
All I'm saying is that I have respect for the man himself. He's trying to do what he believes is right, even in the face of considerable opposition.
Guantanamo base started for other reasons, and to shut it down now as I am sure Obama is clear on the "paper", so it is now a completely different situation, in other words, more political motives of a terrorist threat that exists
Bubblehead1980
03-09-11, 07:55 PM
Yep, cause only the Republicans want whats best for the US..ahurrdurrr
I did not say that, but obama certainly does not want what is best or he would not continue his wreckless path or piss on the US constitution with bills like obamacare.
Bubblehead1980
03-09-11, 07:56 PM
Yeah, a true visionary, like Pol Pot.
NICCCE one, I would have said Mao, Barry is a fan of Mao:arrgh!:
Sad. He is no better then Bush. :down:
Or,... Obama has access to the same classified reports which have managed to convince him that it really is a bad idea to let those people go free.
UnderseaLcpl
03-09-11, 10:39 PM
Or,... Obama has access to the same classified reports which have managed to convince him that it really is a bad idea to let those people go free.
Probably. I was personally involved in some of the operations that took some of these people as prisoners, at least in Iraq. Most of the time, the info we got on these people came from other Iraqis who were terrified about the possibility of their families being killed. For those who lack context, simply approaching coalition forces or worse, a base, is tantamount to suicide. If we don't shoot them by accident, odds are good that someone, somewhere, with a connection to the insurgency will see what they are doing and report it, which is as good as having your family dead already.
At first I questioned the reliability of the intel. After all, who's to say that Iraqi "x" isn't giving us false intel on Iraqi "y" because he want to obtain his goat herd or something? How the hell would I know? My training in Iraqi culture amounted to about 3 hours of informative briefs and "I don't even know how many hours" of other marines not taking it seriously. Can't really blame them. They're naval assault infantry, not garrison troops, not police.
Personal contact with the informants showed me otherwise. You could tell who they were, even in a group of other Iraqis, and they often were placed in groups of actual insurgents to throw any insurgent observers off. They literally reeked of fear. Unlike insurgents, who only gave you hateful looks or no looks at all, they would periodically give you this "help me" glance. It is difficult to describe, to say the least. It was the look of a person who had nothing left to lose or risk. It was the look of a person who was just utterly broken; willing to go against everything his culture was about and everything he was taught because he was more afraid of the insurgents.
For the most part, the people we have taken into custody and placed in Guantanamo are the same people who intimidated our informants so. Nothing is beneath them. They are idealists fighting for an ideology that justifies the torture and killing of anyone in their path by saying that a god considers them to be beneath human dignity. They treat women as objects and non-believers as sub-humans.
Beyond that, what most people seem to forget is that these people are non-uniformed combatants. We'd be perfectly within our rights to just hang them and forget about them, as per the Geneva convention. The only reason that any of this Guantanamo crap is even an issue is because of politics. Politics that our President is now being forced to rethink because the right actually was right.
Bubblehead1980
03-10-11, 12:43 AM
Or,... Obama has access to the same classified reports which have managed to convince him that it really is a bad idea to let those people go free.
Great point.Barry ran his mouth during the campaign about Gitmo etc then during his transition he was given a dose of reality as far as terrorism and the wars go, because he became privy to intel only POTUS and his closest people are, which showed him the reality.I think as a symbolic move he vowed to shut Gitmo down and worry about later, figuring his popularity would cover him but it has not.Reality is, these people belong there and Gitmo is a vital part of the war on terror, he knows this now, end of story.
Bubblehead1980
03-10-11, 12:44 AM
Probably. I was personally involved in some of the operations that took some of these people as prisoners, at least in Iraq. Most of the time, the info we got on these people came from other Iraqis who were terrified about the possibility of their families being killed. For those who lack context, simply approaching coalition forces or worse, a base, is tantamount to suicide. If we don't shoot them by accident, odds are good that someone, somewhere, with a connection to the insurgency will see what they are doing and report it, which is as good as having your family dead already.
At first I questioned the reliability of the intel. After all, who's to say that Iraqi "x" isn't giving us false intel on Iraqi "y" because he want to obtain his goat herd or something? How the hell would I know? My training in Iraqi culture amounted to about 3 hours of informative briefs and "I don't even know how many hours" of other marines not taking it seriously. Can't really blame them. They're naval assault infantry, not garrison troops, not police.
Personal contact with the informants showed me otherwise. You could tell who they were, even in a group of other Iraqis, and they often were placed in groups of actual insurgents to throw any insurgent observers off. They literally reeked of fear. Unlike insurgents, who only gave you hateful looks or no looks at all, they would periodically give you this "help me" glance. It is difficult to describe, to say the least. It was the look of a person who had nothing left to lose or risk. It was the look of a person who was just utterly broken; willing to go against everything his culture was about and everything he was taught because he was more afraid of the insurgents.
For the most part, the people we have taken into custody and placed in Guantanamo are the same people who intimidated our informants so. Nothing is beneath them. They are idealists fighting for an ideology that justifies the torture and killing of anyone in their path by saying that a god considers them to be beneath human dignity. They treat women as objects and non-believers as sub-humans.
Beyond that, what most people seem to forget is that these people are non-uniformed combatants. We'd be perfectly within our rights to just hang them and forget about them, as per the Geneva convention. The only reason that any of this Guantanamo crap is even an issue is because of politics. Politics that our President is now being forced to rethink because the right actually was right.
Great post:salute:
Tribesman
03-10-11, 04:09 AM
Obama has access to the same classified reports which have managed to convince him that it really is a bad idea to let those people go free.
Since it was never proposed to let them go free that is one hell of a strawman.
Great point
Donkey Oaty.
Attack that windmill:doh:
Reality is, these people belong there and Gitmo is a vital part of the war on terror, he knows this now, end of story.
The reality is that Gitmo is a stain on America which needs cleansing, it cannot be cleaned unless the prisoners can be shifted to other prisons and brought to trial. He knows this now cannot happen with idiots blocking the moves, end of story.
http://i.imgur.com/1nLx1.jpg
Platapus
03-10-11, 09:29 AM
Beyond that, what most people seem to forget is that these people are non-uniformed combatants.
What people forget is that these people are SUSPECTED of being non-uniformed combatants. We don't know how many of them were rounded up by the bounty hunters we employed at the start of the AF campaign.
I am not comfortable with the United States holding political prisoners in a concentration camp for the rest of their lives if
1. They have not been brought to trial
2. Or worse, found not-guilty in a trial but are being held.... just because.
We currently have existing procedures for trials involving classified information. This is nothing new and the proceedures work. There are even current exclusions to prevent the accused from viewing or hearing about very specific sensitive evidence. Such evidence is examined in camera. No need to create new rules, the existing rules will suffice.
Americans do not hold political prisoners in concentration camps. That's how I was brought up, That's what I fought for and spilled my blood on foreign soil for.
We'd be perfectly within our rights to just hang them and forget about them, as per the Geneva convention.
Only if you consider the Geneva Convention that the US uses. The rest of the world with the exception of the US, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq, has ratified Protocol 1 (Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.)
Under the Geneva Convention that the rest of the world uses, no we can't just hang them.
This what makes the United States spouting about the Geneva Conventions so hypocritical. We still have not ratified protocol 1 or 2, and have only recently ratified protocol 3, where the rest of the civilized world has ratified them.
So any discussion about the Geneva Convention has to clarify whether the discussion is about the Geneva Convention the US uses or the Geneva Convention the majority of the rest of the world uses.
In any case, my position is clear: I do not approve of my country holding political prisoners in concentration camps. It saddens me that the country I have served all my adult life (and continue to serve) would even consider this, no less do it.
Just an old military guy's worthless opinion.
Tchocky
03-10-11, 09:47 AM
Ugh. The mess of Guantanamo sometimes seems to be happening in a parallel dimension. I guess the choice of location has something to do with this.
The situation is as close to no-win as makes no difference. You round up guilty and innocent alike, let's say 100 guilty and 100 innocent. Tie them up, torture them, leave them in a legal black hole for who knows how long. You now have 200 radicalised fighters holding grudges. "vital part of the war on terror" indeed, we just haven't specified which side it operates for.
The ones you have evidence against, try them in proper courts.
The ones with no evidence, but only suspicion etc? Damned if I know what to do.
Keeping internment camps running indefinitely can't be the answer.
Keeping internment camps open just because "there's no law that specifically says we can't" is completely the wrong answer.
Bubblehead1980
03-10-11, 02:08 PM
These people are terrorists, enemy combatants, they are not soldiers from another nation.They deserve nothing but the firing squad or perhaps a visit to the hangman.Fellow American's who would seek to give these people rights make me sick, need to look in the mirror and think about which side you are on because they very people you advocate for, would be the first to slit your throat for not believing in the same invisible man they do.
Platapus
03-10-11, 02:16 PM
These people are terrorists, enemy combatants, they are not soldiers from another nation
Perhaps. Perhaps not. We don't know until evidence of presented and evaluated in a court of law.
If they're not soldiers, then they are criminals. We have rules for dealing with criminals.
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.
Has it been so long since America stood up against countries that hold people indefinitely, with no charges?
Bubblehead1980
03-10-11, 02:27 PM
If they're not soldiers, then they are criminals. We have rules for dealing with criminals.
Has it been so long since America stood up against countries that hold people indefinitely, with no charges?
no, they are not criminals, they are terrorists,/enemy combatants.They are not entitled to the constitutional rights a US citizen enjoys.
We should hold them indefinitely, military trial and execution if foudn guilty.Time to get tough. Those we have released, many have been recaptured on the battlefield, these people are sick much like a repeat sex offender, there is no cure.
Growler
03-10-11, 05:41 PM
no, they are not criminals, they are terrorists,/enemy combatants.They are not entitled to the constitutional rights a US citizen enjoys.
We should hold them indefinitely, military trial and execution if foudn guilty.Time to get tough. Those we have released, many have been recaptured on the battlefield, these people are sick much like a repeat sex offender, there is no cure.
What happens when the cure makes more of them? You think ol' Mohammed there doesn't have a little Mohammed at home who's gonna grow up po'ed that the Americans made his pop disappear?
Furthermore, and this is key: What are we, that as a nation, we are so afraid of these people that when we do "capture" them, we're just going to fill a camp with them, call them "bad people" and let it go at that?
Is it possible that we can't handle them as a nation? 911 was terrible; but we came together, citizens of the nation, and we rallied around our wounded and grieved our dead and started the process of healing and rebuilding together. Then we turned into scared kittens hiding under the skirts of our "protectors" and allow them to perform behaviors that, were we less scared, we would never have permitted.
History will judge us harshly, especially against the things we claim to hold dear.
Tchocky
03-10-11, 05:54 PM
Is it possible that we can't handle them as a nation? 911 was terrible; but we came together, citizens of the nation, and we rallied around our wounded and grieved our dead and started the process of healing and rebuilding together.
Not only that, but a lot of us in other countries felt wounded as well. The rally was spread across the world. Le Monde put it well.
Tribesman
03-10-11, 06:04 PM
These people are terrorists
Bubbles, at law school have you got to the bit about verdicts yet?
Fellow American's who would seek to give these people rights make me sick
its you who is sick and is a disgrace to your nation and all it is supposed to represent, in fact with your views you could well be considered a disgrace to humankind.
no, they are not criminals, they are terrorists,/enemy combatants.
Oh dear oh dear, you do have severe problems with law:doh:
Tchocky
03-10-11, 06:09 PM
Fellow American's who would seek to give these people rights make me sick
Are you familiar with the idea that rights are not "given"?
UnderseaLcpl
03-10-11, 07:23 PM
What people forget is that these people are SUSPECTED of being non-uniformed combatants. We don't know how many of them were rounded up by the bounty hunters we employed at the start of the AF campaign.
I have no firsthand knowledge of any operations where we employed bounty hunters, so I can't comment on that. However, if the bounty hunters had to turn their captives over to military intel, It is probable that the vast majority of those retained were, in fact, belligerents.
My unit worked pretty closely intel, since part of our job involved retrieving and transporting prisoners. Technically, we were not supposed to have any knowledge of the procedures used to target and evaluate detainees, but when you work closely with people for a long time, they let things slip, even the "super-secret spy club" guys.
From what I learned and observed, intel actually has a really thorough process for making sure they get the bad guys. This being the internet, I can't say much, but I can tell you that they are trying to fight a counterinsurgency campaign, but they are aware that every time they detain an innocent person, they make new enemies for us and they get into trouble for it. One of their main problems is that they have to let known or suspected bad guys go because they don't have enough evidence.
That said, I'm sure they have screwed up a few times and sent innocent people to Guantanamo, but not often.
[I am not comfortable with the United States holding political prisoners in a concentration camp for the rest of their lives if
1. They have not been brought to trial
2. Or worse, found not-guilty in a trial but are being held.... just because.
Neither am I, but I'm equally uncomfortable with the idea of releasing insurgents who favor such extreme methods because they managed to get through the US legal system, which has a poor record when it comes to both incarcerating the innocent and releasing the guilty.
We currently have existing procedures for trials involving classified information. This is nothing new and the proceedures work. There are even current exclusions to prevent the accused from viewing or hearing about very specific sensitive evidence. Such evidence is examined in camera. No need to create new rules, the existing rules will suffice.
I don't doubt that.
Americans do not hold political prisoners in concentration camps. That's how I was brought up, That's what I fought for and spilled my blood on foreign soil for.
:salute: I concur, although I fought on foreign soil to keep brutal extremists away from innocent people. The important thing is doing the right thing.
That aside, I am curious as to why you think these people are political prisoners. I don't doubt you, but I can't revise my opinion without that information.
Only if you consider the Geneva Convention that the US uses.
That's what I am considering. Going back and reading my post, though, it kind of sounds like I was suggesting we hang these people. If I gave that impression, I'm sorry. That's not what I was saying. I was just pointing out that the US is not hanging them.
This what makes the United States spouting about the Geneva Conventions so hypocritical. We still have not ratified protocol 1 or 2, and have only recently ratified protocol 3, where the rest of the civilized world has ratified them.
Agreed. The US does a lot of things that are hypocritical, though. That's partially why these guys are so pissed off at us. In this instance, though, I believe the US is trying to do something good.
In any case, my position is clear: I do not approve of my country holding political prisoners in concentration camps. It saddens me that the country I have served all my adult life (and continue to serve) would even consider this, no less do it.
And if that is in fact what they are doing, I share your view.
Just an old military guy's worthless opinion.
Just a young military guy's more worthless opinion.
mookiemookie
03-10-11, 07:43 PM
Fellow American's who would seek to give these people rights make me sick
The fact that you seemingly have no concept of natural rights (amongst other things) makes your story about being a law student very laughable.
Sailor Steve
03-10-11, 09:34 PM
Are you familiar with the idea that rights are not "given"?
The fact that you seemingly have no concept of natural rights (amongst other things) makes your story about being a law student very laughable.
Gee, it's that pesky part of our primary founding document. You know, "endowed by their Creator" etc. The point he is missing is that in a lot of cases we don't know whether a detainee is actually a terrorist or not. But that doesn't matter, we can throw out the baby with the bathwater. They're all foreigners anyway, so they aren't really human.
I've tried in the past to explain to the boy that he doesn't know for a fact that he's right, and that none of us can ever know that for certain, but he insists that he's right, and he knows it, which means that he has no possibilty of being wrong, which means that if he actually is wrong he'll never know it. Also, the man who knows everything can never learn anything new.
It's a dilemma he appears to be incapable of understanding, and as long as he sits on his high horse he'll never contribute anything but derision and foolishness.
Bubblehead1980
03-10-11, 09:49 PM
The fact that you seemingly have no concept of natural rights (amongst other things) makes your story about being a law student very laughable.
No mookie, I disagree with you so you attempt to mock, discredit me etc which proves your ignorance.
I fully understand the concept of natural rights as well as legal rights, basic stuff, very basic.However, in the real world dealing with terrorists who do play by the rules, I reject that we as a nation are obliged to respect the "natural rights" of terrorists/enemy combatants. They were captured taking up arms against the US, well they deserve nothing but the gallows honestly.These people are like sex offenders, no cure, no rehab which is why those we have released, many of them have turned up on the battlefield again.Thanks, play again.
When you reject the fact that they have rights, you open the door for them to disregard that you have any rights.
You can't claim the moral high ground and deny it to others.
mookiemookie
03-10-11, 10:34 PM
I reject that we as a nation are obliged to respect the "natural rights" of terrorists/enemy combatants.
Again further proving that you have no earthly idea what the definition of natural rights are. There's a reason why you're a joke around here. This is it.
When you reject the fact that they have rights, you open the door for them to disregard that you have any rights.
But they already do have disregard for our rights. Even our right to live. That's why they fly airplanes into buildings and gleefully video tape themselves sawing peoples heads off. They will continue to do so if given the chance. Letting them go, and civilian trials could end up doing just that, only puts them back into circulation.
I don't accept "He started it!" from my kids, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't really belong in a discussion on human rights.
If you put them outside the society of civilized humans, you don't get to complain that they're not acting like civilized humans. Only when you accept that they have the same human rights as anyone else do you get to start looking down on them for not playing nice with you.
I don't accept "He started it!" from my kids, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't really belong in a discussion on human rights.
If you put them outside the society of civilized humans, you don't get to complain that they're not acting like civilized humans. Only when you accept that they have the same human rights as anyone else do you get to start looking down on them for not playing nice with you.
Sure it belongs.
These terrorists didn't start outside civilized society, they put themselves outside by their actions. It's a key difference you fail to take into account. We didn't open the Gitmo prison before they decided to fly airplanes full of innocent civilians into buildings filled with more innocent civilians. Before they get to be treated like human beings again they have to renounce that kind of thing to the satisfaction of the thousands of victims families.
Sailor Steve
03-11-11, 01:58 AM
I reject that we as a nation are obliged to respect the "natural rights" of terrorists/enemy combatants.
This is a fair enough concept, but it assumes that every single detainee is a terrorist. You seem to adhere to the "Of course they're guilty, or else they wouldn't be detained" school of argument.
Tribesman
03-11-11, 03:07 AM
You seem to adhere to the "Of course they're guilty, or else they wouldn't be detained" school of argument.
But that is lesson 101 in law skool.
They were captured taking up arms against the US, well they deserve nothing but the gallows honestly.
Bubbles bubbles bubbles......You have not got the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Do yourself a favour and quit while you a flat on your face unable to even approach the starting line.
Platapus
03-11-11, 09:24 AM
You seem to adhere to the "Of course they're guilty, or else they wouldn't be detained" school of argument.
The United States does seem to have a history of this.
....You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect. 14 Oct 85 - Edwin Meese, United States Attorney General 1985-1988
But you touched on my point. We don't know who is or is not innocent. To claim that every one at Gitmo is guilty is the same as saying that everyone who is arrested by the police is guilty. Which simply is not true.
And for the President to say that even if they are found not-guilty in a trial, we will continue to hold them ... just because...., goes against everything that I once though America was about.
No one, not even the President, should have the power to put people in concentration camps... just because.
It. Is. Wrong.
But like most things here, people have their position and there is little chance of convincing people to change their position.
No one will be able to convince me that it is right to hold people in concentration camps without a trial or as the President stated, even if there is a trial.
And I am positive that I won't be able to change any one's mind who thinks it is OK to hold people in concentration camps.
I guess we will have to disagree to disagree. :D
Sailor Steve
03-11-11, 11:52 AM
No one will be able to convince me that it is right to hold people in concentration camps without a trial or as the President stated, even if there is a trial.
When Bill Clinton was president I started seeing bumper stickers here in uber-right-wing Utah that said "I love my country, I just don't trust the government". When his successor signed off on the Patriot Act, many of those same people here started saying things like "If you don't support the government, you're Anti-American!"
If the parties being detained are indeed guilty of the crimes in question, then they deserve the worst punishment available. But to lump them all in the same category "just because" shows a shallowness that frightens me.
Catfish
03-11-11, 04:56 PM
Cuba was the navy's #1 whorehouse of the USA before the revolution, run by mobsters and frequently visited by congressmen (of the whole world).
With only Guantanamo left, why should they shut this down also ? :O:
Platapus
03-11-11, 05:13 PM
Cuba was the navy's #1 whorehouse of the USA before the revolution, run by mobsters and frequently visited by congressmen (of the whole world).
With only Guantanamo left, why should they shut this down also ? :O:
I don't think anyone is saying that we need to shut down the entire naval base. When people say shut down Guantanamo, they are referring to the concentration camp/prison/holding area/...
Catfish
03-11-11, 05:24 PM
;)
Sorry for my bad mood ..
Debating the "rights" of terrorists is like debating the proper number of warning shots to use when a thug has stabbed your wife and is in the process of raping your daughter.
Platapus
03-11-11, 06:05 PM
Debating the "rights" of terrorists is like debating the proper number of warning shots to use when a thug has stabbed your wife and is in the process of raping your daughter.
But what about people who are not terrorists?
Growler
03-11-11, 06:46 PM
But what about people who are not terrorists?
Better shoot them, too. Just in case.
Personally, I doubt that there are many innocents amoung them. If they were really innocent, I think they would have been kicked lose by now.
In any case, national security comes first in war. How many thousands of civilians were slaughtered in WWII bombing raids? Yet is was done without flinching and even the populations in the occupied countries accepted it.
Platapus
03-11-11, 06:50 PM
Personally, I doubt that there are many innocents amoung them. If they were really innocent, I think they would have been kicked lose by now.
Kicked loose because of a trial perhaps? Or just kicked out ..... because?
I am all for punishing the guilty, I just want their guilt to be demonstrated in a court first.
Tribesman
03-11-11, 07:35 PM
Personally, I doubt that there are many innocents amoung them. If they were really innocent, I think they would have been kicked lose by now.
So the fact that the government has been stuck holding people it says can go free wouldn't dent your "reality" would it.
Yet another ballsup from the silly attempt to dodge the legal system isn't it. The wonders of putting people in limbo then trying to take them out of it.
Debating the "rights" of terrorists is like debating the proper number of warning shots to use when a thug has stabbed your wife and is in the process of raping your daughter.
What utter nonsense.
Sailor Steve
03-11-11, 07:45 PM
Debating the "rights" of terrorists is like debating the proper number of warning shots to use when a thug has stabbed your wife and is in the process of raping your daughter.
Yep, some thug stabbed your wife and raped your daughter. We don't know which one, so we're going to round up all the known thugs, all the folks other folks claim are thugs, all the folks that look like thugs to us, and everybody else who might be a thug just because they live in the thugs' neighborhood. If the thugs won't tell us which thugs are which, we'll just hold 'em all until the cows come home. No cows? No problem. We'll just kick a few of them around and maybe shoot a couple for good measure. Somebody complains? Hey, we're the good guys, so shut up or you'll get the same treatment.
To be fair these people weren't rounded up last week. There has been plenty of time to determine the detainees true degree of involvement and danger if they're released.
Now Obama promised to close Gitmo during the campaign. Something has changed his mind. What does he have to gain by breaking that promise?
To be fair these people weren't rounded up last week. There has been plenty of time to determine the detainees true degree of involvement and danger if they're released.
Now Obama promised to close Gitmo during the campaign. Something has changed his mind. What does he have to gain by breaking that promise? He has nothing to gain, quite the opposite.
Tribesman
03-12-11, 04:03 AM
Something has changed his mind.
Could it possibly be that you cannot shut a facility if you are blocked from moving its contents elsewhere?
Complicated stuff eh.
There has been plenty of time to determine the detainees true degree of involvement and danger if they're released.
If there has been plenty of time to determine their true degree of involvement then there must have been plenty of time to get convictions.
Bubblehead1980
03-14-11, 08:02 PM
Again further proving that you have no earthly idea what the definition of natural rights are. There's a reason why you're a joke around here. This is it.
lol pretty sure I took various clases covering natural rights and they are just a theory really, one that some believe in, one that other's do not.I believe my enemy, esp terrorists really have no natural or legal rights, only the right to be hanged.Okay mook if you say so.They way you reguarly get personal with me tells it all really.As far as being a joke, well can think of several people who find you to be a joke "around here", all in the eye of the beholder really.Calm down, it's just a discussion forum.
Growler
03-14-11, 08:17 PM
...they are just a theory really, one that some believe in, one that other's do not.I believe my enemy, esp terrorists really have no natural or legal rights, only the right to be hanged.
On this point is where you contradict the basic principles defined in theory by Locke and enumerated as fundamental American beliefs in the Declaration of Independence. They are not the law of the land spelled out in the Constitution, but they are nonetheless a formative part of our Nation.
I understand why some people are confused by this apparent contradiction.
Tribesman
03-15-11, 02:48 AM
I believe my enemy, esp terrorists really have no natural or legal rights, only the right to be hanged
Once again bubbles demonstrates that either he hasn't the faintest idea what he is talking about or that he is simply an unhinged loon.
mookiemookie
03-15-11, 08:31 AM
lol pretty sure I took various clases No you haven't. .I believe my enemy, esp terrorists really have no natural or legal rights, only the right to be hanged. Proving that you haven't taken any classes dealing with the issues of natural rights as they relate to our legal system.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.