Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Obama to issue close of Guant'anamo


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#16    Aztec Warrior

Aztec Warrior

    Ancient Order of Hibernians Grand Master

  • Member
  • 3,339 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico City

  • A neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality," one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies.Iriving Kristol

Posted 14 January 2009 - 04:46 PM

Fluffybunny on Jan 13 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

No, and you really shouldnt make such sweeping statements. Prisoner of War is not what these guys are; and that is what the point is. I dont think anyone here would complain about the German POW camps. That was a pretty straightforward situation, to say what you did isnt fair.

Look at the controversy; there is a reason that people are in an uproar. They are not POW's. They arent prisoners either, they end up in this never neverland without any idea who they are or what they did. If they did something bad, then screw them who cares...problem is that there are people that have come out of there after years that have done nothing. Not cool. Not how we normally operate.

It isnt like WW2 where we are dealing with uniformed soldiers; where a german was easy to tell from an italian and you knew what the rules are. Right now people are not soldiers in the typical sense, so people are getting pulled up into this that have nothing to do with it.

You probably dont care, I dont know...when I enlisted I promised an oath to the Constitution. I like the Constitution, and think it is a good rule of thumb to go by; and what happened here was some trickery to get around the constitution, which I didnt care for.

If they are POW's great, call them pow's. they are not though. If they are prisoners; try them and prosecute them accordingly if they are guilty.

This middle ground is not a good thing. Sets a bad precedent.

While not officially POW's, these guys were not baking cookies in London. How can anyone sane person say, "they were doing nothing?" No, they were captured as participants on the battlefield and many of those already released have returned to their terrorist activities.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody.  Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight" and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.  Morrell said the latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants. Link

POW's are returned at the end of a war. Sometimes there are prisoners swaps before that. Regardless, these guys should go before a military tribunal at the end of the hostilities and then either hanged or released. To do anything before that is foolish.

Neognosis on Jan 13 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

People like me? You don't know me at all.

ONe of the foundations of our society is that we don't hold people in prison indefinitely without charges or trial. We have violated that at gitmo, and it's time to end this. I am ashamed of how we have flouted the ideals that make us unique.



Well, it is a disgrace that we would keep ANYONE in prison without charges. This is not a POW camp. However, disbanding the military is extreme. Are you only capable of thinking and understanding people if you paint them in dark shades of black or white?


Yes, it is a POW camp. And yes, they should be held until the end. There are not kept in prison without charges...they have been charged. They just haven't been convicted or hanged yet.

Edited by Aztec Warrior, 14 January 2009 - 04:48 PM.

Posted ImageBlurring and Stirring the truth and the lies

So I don't know what's real and what's not
Always confusing the thoughts in my head
So I can't trust myself anymore
I'm dying again

#17    Repoman

Repoman

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2007

Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:16 PM

Neognosis on Jan 14 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

First off, a question can't be fallacious.
Sure it can - if the premise of the question is false.

Neognosis on Jan 14 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

In your case, the example is that I would like for those put in prison to be charged and tried, and you make the fallacious extension implying that I think they should be released.
I don't know what the formal logical term is for nit-picking a tiny detail that, while serving to deflect the literality at hand, does nothing to change the eventual outcome. In this case, we know that placing the Gitmo detainees on trial would produce verdicts of not-guilty because, first, you would have to charge them with a crime. Then you have to produce evidence. If a weapon was involved, the lawyers will demand the chain of evidence showing that the terrorist ever had a weapon. The lawyers will say that there was never a gunshot residue test conducted on the terrorist, etc. etc. etc. Because the outcome of a not-guilty verdict is to set the defendant free, you can connect the dots to see that your action would result in letting them go. Like I said, I hope they end up in your neighborhood.

Neognosis on Jan 14 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

Hopefully smart people understand this and disregard your arguments.
I wouldn't bet on it. There are people here that voted for Obama - and his BS was a lot more egregious than anything I have ever written.

Maybe the reason you fail to equate my "straw-man" that you so earnestly highlighted with the simple chain of events:
1. Hold a trial
2. Innocent verdict
3. Set him free

is that you know that is what will happen and you find it abhorrent.  

Since wanting to put them on trial will result in not-guilty verdicts and not-guilt verdicts will result in their release, my contention that you want them released is not a straw man.



#18    acidhead

acidhead

    GOV Debt Slave

  • Member
  • 11,051 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:16 PM

Aztec Warrior on Jan 14 2009, 08:46 AM, said:

Yes, it is a POW camp. And yes, they should be held until the end. There are not kept in prison without charges...they have been charged. They just haven't been convicted or hanged yet.



The Obama transition office declined to comment officially on the future of the Guantanamo Bay prison. But reports that he plans to order the facility closed come just one day after Obama told ABC News that closing the prison is "complicated," and that he couldn't promise to shutter the facility within his first 100 days in office.

The order, which one adviser told The Associated Press could be issued as early as Jan. 20, would start the process of deciding what to do with the estimated 250 Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects and potential witnesses who are being held there. Most have not been charged with a crime. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/12...mo-week-office/

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#19    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:51 PM

Repoman on Jan 13 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

FREE THEM ALL!!!!

DISBAND THE US MILITARY NOW!!!!

Why are you making such outlandish statements? when you do things like that, it absolutely shuts down the discussion. You know that wasnt my point, but then you had to go there to try and offend me...

I was simply trying to make a levelheaded statement, and explain a point of view, but then you had to get sarcastic and outlandish.

Nevermind. As you were.

Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#20    Repoman

Repoman

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2007

Posted 14 January 2009 - 06:13 PM

Fluffybunny on Jan 14 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

Why are you making such outlandish statements? when you do things like that, it absolutely shuts down the discussion. You know that wasnt my point, but then you had to go there to try and offend me...
I got tired of searching for the sarcasm smiley. If you like, I will not use all caps in the future. I do agree that those angular letters with their big, old upper-case descenders hanging in the breeze do look pretty outlandish.

Fluffybunny on Jan 14 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

I was simply trying to make a levelheaded statement, and explain a point of view
Don't beat yourself up! You succeeded 100% in making a levelheaded statement and in explaining a point of view! My silly, sarcastic outlandishness did nothing to take that away from you.

I apologize.



#21    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 14 January 2009 - 06:32 PM

Quote

If they are cold blooded killers shouldn't they be charged and tried?


I think so, yes.


Quote

In this case, we know that placing the Gitmo detainees on trial would produce verdicts of not-guilty because, first, you would have to charge them with a crime. Then you have to produce evidence. If a weapon was involved, the lawyers will demand the chain of evidence showing that the terrorist ever had a weapon. The lawyers will say that there was never a gunshot residue test conducted on the terrorist, etc. etc. etc. Because the outcome of a not-guilty verdict is to set the defendant free, you can connect the dots to see that your action would result in letting them go. Like I said, I hope they end up in your neighborhood.


That's mighty Russian of you. I'm relatively certain that the military courts don't have the same rules of evidence and reasonable doubt that civilian courts have.

Quote

Maybe the reason you fail to equate my "straw-man" that you so earnestly highlighted with the simple chain of events:
1. Hold a trial
2. Innocent verdict
3. Set him free


But regardless, so I understand, is your postition that we should keep people in jail without trial because they might be found not guilty? (Also, there is no such thing as an "innocent verdict."


#22    Repoman

Repoman

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2007

Posted 14 January 2009 - 06:54 PM

Neognosis on Jan 14 2009, 01:32 PM, said:

But regardless, so I understand, is your postition that we should keep people in jail without trial because they might be found not guilty? (Also, there is no such thing as an "innocent verdict."
You can't use the generic term "people" in this context. I think we should keep enemy combatents locked up until the end of hostilities.




#23    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 14 January 2009 - 07:17 PM

But isn't the "mission accomplished?"

We hold Iraq, they have the US designed gov't in place, it's time to try them for terrorism of let them go home if they are conventional POWs.


#24    Repoman

Repoman

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2007

Posted 14 January 2009 - 08:50 PM

Neognosis on Jan 14 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

But isn't the "mission accomplished?"
No. That banner was referring to the aircraft carrier's mission. It was assigned to patrol the Persian Gulf for a time and was then replaced by another aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier that hung the "Mission Accomplished" banner was talking about its own mission - which was accomplished.

Neognosis on Jan 14 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

We hold Iraq, they have the US designed gov't in place, it's time to try them for terrorism of let them go home if they are conventional POWs.
Iraq was only one battle in the international war on terrorism. The war isn't over yet.



#25    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,342 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 14 January 2009 - 09:07 PM

Just look what Canada did during WWII  we took 22 thousand Japanese and locked them up for no reason and to this day Canada has to carry the shame. It's a little embarasing really but at least we learned a lesson.

http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/c...nternment1.html

Edited by The Silver Thong, 14 January 2009 - 09:08 PM.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#26    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 14 January 2009 - 10:00 PM

Quote

Iraq was only one battle in the international war on terrorism. The war isn't over yet.


That's the problem. There is no declared war on specific nations. So saying the "war on terror" is not much more than a euphemism, a semantic buzz phrase. The "war on terror," which has no legal declaration, can not be used as justification for denying trial. There is actually no such thing as a war on terror. That's like saying that we can keep drug dealers in jail without trial indefinitely because there's a "war on drugs" going on.

This is the problem. We are losing sight of the values and ideals that make the united states great. We are losing them because we are too scared of "terror." If we give up our freedom for security, we deserve neither.


#27    Pseudo Intellectual

Pseudo Intellectual

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Banned
  • 5,607 posts
  • Joined:31 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2009 - 11:49 AM

Neognosis on Jan 14 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

But isn't the "mission accomplished?"

We hold Iraq, they have the US designed gov't in place, it's time to try them for terrorism of let them go home if they are conventional POWs.


The war in Iraq isn't over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_...E2%80######3current

Start: March 2003
Finish: Ongoing
Location(s): Iraq
Fatalities: 103,359+ to 1,136,920+


#28    Repoman

Repoman

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2007

Posted 15 January 2009 - 06:32 PM

Neognosis on Jan 14 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

We are losing them because we are too scared of "terror."
I don't think the US is actually scared of terrorists. We know they pose no danger to the security of the USA (unless we allow Iran to get a nuke). But they are a convenient way for us to correct a few oversights our founding fathers made.

If Bush were smart, he would have pushed for a constitutional amendment to completely legitimize everything going on today. Then it would remove that argument from the folks that disagree with our tough stance on terrorists.




#29    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 15 January 2009 - 07:35 PM

Quote

I don't think the US is actually scared of terrorists. We know they pose no danger to the security of the USA


I think you are mistaken.

Quote

But they are a convenient way for us to correct a few oversights our founding fathers made.


That's extremely unfortunate you feel that way and thank god there are people like me willing to fight for our rights instead of give them up one by one.

Quote

If Bush were smart, he would have pushed for a constitutional amendment to completely legitimize everything going on today. Then it would remove that argument from the folks that disagree with our tough stance on terrorists.


There we go with the not-too-subtle word games. One can be "tough on terror" without infringing on the rights we enjoy. Besides, Jefferson said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots. What he meant, in addition to wars that would have to be fought, was that to enjoy liberty a society takes certain risks, and the blood of even innocents is worth the liberties we all enjoy. In short, not having your phone tapped and not having your main intercepted and read without due process or a warrant is worth the death of innocents every now and then. That's how important freedom from oppressive gov't is.


#30    Bez

Bez

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined:01 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lockport NY

  • Terrorists have feelings too!

Posted 15 January 2009 - 08:33 PM

Neognosis I dont know about you but I dont want to be flown into a building or blown up somehow by someone.  Yes I understand the chances of that are very low.  But it still happened and is happening.  Also, all this "founding father" talk is erroneous.  As time goes on, the need for certain laws change.  Possibly we are approaching a period in time where we need this.  Just because laws as they stand now aren't fitting the actions of the country doesn't mean it isn't what the country should be doing.

Think of it this way:  You and your child are in the park having a fun afternoon.  A strange man comes up and kicks your child.  Would you be angry?  Or just... let it go?  What if he did it again?  And again?  And again?  Personally, I know that the man would be beaten within an inch of his life for doing that to my child.  Although it's illegal, I would still assault the man.  Maybe you (and lots of people) would let him stomp your child to death.  Some people wish to fight back and take a stand against people like that.  And just because you don't agree with what this government does, doesn't make it wrong.

Hugs for Terrorists




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users