Guantanamo

[Fremen]

Please tell me I'm spelling that right...lol

Anyways, what do you guys think will happen? Will it be shut down? Where will they move prisoners?

Also, have any of you seen last night's Colbert Report which shows a statement from a government official saying that they cannot move prisoners to the US because then they would have "undeserved legal rights"?

That was probably the funniest joke I've ever seen on the show.

[TheSovereign]

The prisoners in that building are evil terrorists, why shut it down?

[Fios1]

They can't shut down gitmo. The whole point of the U.S. having the base their is to remain the cubans that without us they would never have had the freedom to overthorw their democratic government. Plus it is a bad idea to have a terrorist detaining, hope I am spelling that right, in the U.S. . If there every was a break out their would be a shit load of anger muslims, never mind if thier actually terrorist, running aroung the country. Even if they where inoccent they may still want revenge.

[2wiceBorn]

If the U.S government can prove those in Guantnamo are terrorists, I don't give a shit what they do to them in there.

[JoS]

Quite a number of people there were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

Gitmo should be shut down. If no other reason than for the US to actually make it look like they are doing something good.

They wouldn't even have to release anybody or, god forbid, actually give a trial to the detainees there, as they could just move them to another base somewhere else where they can continue with whatever it is they are doing.

It actually makes a certain amount of sense to close it down even if you do ignore the suspected human rights abuses etc that are supposed to have gone on there.

[Fremen]

At 6/28/07 10:37 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: They wouldn't even have to release anybody or, god forbid, actually give a trial to the detainees there, as they could just move them to another base somewhere else where they can continue with whatever it is they are doing.

If it gets shut down, that is what the government will do. They don't want to give rights to those prisoners.

It actually makes a certain amount of sense to close it down even if you do ignore the suspected human rights abuses etc that are supposed to have gone on there.

Agreed.

I don't even know why they are closing, I just heard about it on TV. lol...

[Memorize]

At 6/28/07 10:37 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

It actually makes a certain amount of sense to close it down even if you do ignore the suspected human rights abuses etc that are supposed to have gone on there.

Ok.

Name 5 proven acounts of abuse.

[JakeHero]

Fuck, we're not hard enough on the assholes in Gitmo. If it were up to me we'd treat them the same way syrians treat their prisoners.

[SlithVampir]

At 6/28/07 01:23 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 10:37 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

It actually makes a certain amount of sense to close it down even if you do ignore the suspected human rights abuses etc that are supposed to have gone on there.

Ok.

Name 5 proven acounts of abuse.

Name 5 proven accounts of due process.

[JakeHero]

At 6/28/07 05:34 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Name 5 proven accounts of due process.

Due process is guaranteed to American citizens.

[Memorize]

At 6/28/07 05:34 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

Name 5 proven accounts of due process.

That only applies to American Citizens under the Constitution.

Terrorist, extremists and insurgents of foreign nations during a time of war, does not apply.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/28/07 01:23 PM, Memorize wrote: Ok.

Name 5 proven acounts of abuse.

Note I said the word SUSPECTED.

Nowhere did I actually make any claim that any abuse did occur.

I was merely pointing out that you could also take into the fact that there are alledged human rights issues surrounding the place.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 6/28/07 05:38 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 05:34 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

Name 5 proven accounts of due process.

That only applies to American Citizens under the Constitution.

Terrorist, extremists and insurgents of foreign nations during a time of war, does not apply.

Except that without due process, we cannot tell whether they are terrorists, extremists, and insurgents. You only lose these rights IF you've been proven that you've denied these rights to others (i.e. being a terrorist,extremist, or insurgent). In our Declaration of Independence it says:
"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."

Our own declaration of independence says that liberty is granted to ALL men, not just Americans. It also says that governments are created to secure that liberty, which means that the Bill of Rights was created to enforce liberty. That means that the intention of the Bill of Rights was to help secure a right that all men have. If all men have the right of liberty, then there is no reason why something that was created to secure that right should not apply to all men. Since we believe that the Bill of Rights elaborates on this right that we all have, it means that its provisions further describe this right and therefore since we all have that right and since we believe in the Bill of Rights, we agree that our definition of liberty coincides with the rights the Bill of Rights grants us.

In short, our declaration says that all men have inalienable rights, including liberty. Our Bill of Rights defines certain things about this liberty. Therefore, all men deserve the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

If you have a problem with giving due process of law to detainees, then you have a problem with the Bill of Rights. These rights are taken away because people have been proven to have done these crimes. They can't be proven to have done these crimes without due process of law; our own Bill of Rights (which details freedoms that apply to all men) says so. After all, Iraq is in our own jurisdiction now. One of the reasons you give to go to war with Iraq is that they were being denied basic human rights. It pretty much makes us hypocrites if we deny human rights to them ourselves. It's illogical to call the detainees terrorists, etc. until they have undergone due process of law. Sure, a lot of them may be terrorists, etc., but we don't deny domestic suspects due process of law that we think MIGHT be criminals because a lot of them are. Then again, that's what some conservatives like yourself try to do in the name of being "tough on crime". You can't be "tough on crime" until you've proven through due process of law that there was actually a crime committed at all.

To sum it all up:

#1. Detainees deserve due process of law. Our declaration says that all men have inalienable rights, including liberty. Our Bill of Rights defines certain things about this liberty. Therefore, all men deserve the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

#2. You cannot say- well, you can, and given your previous pattern of attack have a fair chance of doing so, but it would be wrong for you to say: that I'm supporting terrorists, etc.. This is because I support giving detainees eventual due process of law. I recognize that some people who have not committed a crime will have to be detained to be safe, but we should not deny everyone due process of law because some of them HAVE committed a crime. I'm not supporting terrorists, etc. I just want to make sure that the people we ARE locking up are actually terrorists, etc. I'm not supporting rapists if I want criminal suspects to have a trial; and I'm not supporting terrorists etc.; if I want enemy combatant suspects to have a trial.

[Memorize]

At 6/28/07 06:33 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

bunch of useless jibberish

And this children is how terrorists win. Because people like synthetictacos believes that those who hack people's heads off deserve good human treatment.

Haha, it becomes rather pathetic when the government doesn't lie nearly as much as the people do.

At 6/28/07 06:09 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Note I said the word SUSPECTED.

Well... prove it.

I was merely pointing out that you could also take into the fact that there are alledged human rights issues surrounding the place.

Weaklings.

[MERC93]

Keep it running if we move them they won't need to worry about being captured they will send suicide bombers to be captured and detonate in the US and kill us.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 6/28/07 06:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 06:33 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

bunch of useless jibberish

And this children is how terrorists win. Because people like synthetictacos believes that those who hack people's heads off deserve good human treatment.

Your replacement of my thought-out argument with "bunch of useless jibberish" reminds me a lot of a mentally retarded person who's been given long division's response "now what's all this math stuff?", except the mentally retarded person isn't trying his best to piss off the guy with a basic knowledge of math.

If you had payed any fucking attention to what I said you would know I am not DEFENDING TERRORISTS. As I thought you would, you automatically assumed anybody that disagrees with you for some reason is DEFENDING TERRORISTS. (shock!) This reminds me a lot of the Chinese Revolution.

Mid-20th century Chinese SyntheticTacos: We have no proof that all of these people are Western conspirators; they should be tried for their crimes, not imprisoned indefinitely.
Mid-20th century Memorize: SO YOU SUPPORT THE CAPITALIST PIGS, EH!?

Modern day SyntheticTacos: We have no proof that all of these people are terrorists; they should be tried for their crimes, not imprisoned indefinitely.
Modern day Memorize: SO YOU SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS, EH!?

I am not defending terrorism if the people in question have not been proven to be terrorists. Useless hyperbole will get you nowhere.

Haha, it becomes rather pathetic when the government doesn't lie nearly as much as the people do.

Translation of above remark from Memorize-ese: Haha, since I have no real defense to your argument I'll just make a snide remark to the side and hope you don't notice I don't know what I'm talking bout.

At 6/28/07 06:09 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Note I said the word SUSPECTED.

Well... prove it.

It's highly ironic how you expect him to prove that war crimes have taken place to believe that they have while you don't need anybody to prove that people are terrorists for you to believe they are.

I was merely pointing out that you could also take into the fact that there are alledged human rights issues surrounding the place.

Weaklings.

Translation of above comment from Memorize-ese: I look down upon you because you're not just calling me a dumbass like I would to do you and you are instead coming up with a real argument.

Debate the issue, don't just dismiss my arguments with hyperbole.

[SyntheticTacos]

After all Memorize, you've seen me argue against bcdemon's support of the insurgency. You know as well as I do that I do not support the terrorists, etc. fighting the U.S., the Iraqi army, and each other in Iraq.

[Memorize]

At 6/28/07 07:20 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: After all Memorize, you've seen me argue against bcdemon's support of the insurgency. You know as well as I do that I do not support the terrorists, etc. fighting the U.S., the Iraqi army, and each other in Iraq.

Yes.

But it's the fact that you're weak enough to state that those who behead people and outright lie when they are captured in order to provoke outrage from the people of the US to hate the government (ex. flushing the koran down a toilet), is what amazes me.

We never had this problem in wars or conflicts before on POWs. We didn't have it in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War. Not until now. Why? Because people's hatred towards President Bush is so huge that they will do anything that degresses this nation.

An example of that would be the ACLU fighting to give convicted felons the right to vote for the most powerful seat in the world.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 6/28/07 07:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 07:20 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: After all Memorize, you've seen me argue against bcdemon's support of the insurgency. You know as well as I do that I do not support the terrorists, etc. fighting the U.S., the Iraqi army, and each other in Iraq.

Yes.

But it's the fact that you're weak enough to state that those who behead people and outright lie when they are captured in order to provoke outrage from the people of the US to hate the government (ex. flushing the koran down a toilet), is what amazes me.

Except that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we don't know that the people imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay ARE those people yet. We don't know if they're the guy who cut off the head or some guy who was crossing the street 15 minutes before someone was kidnapped. This is a matter of making sure we have the right people in prison, not what we're doing with people we actually know are criminals.

And I don't regard it as a weakness. I regard it as being confident enough in our country that we can handle giving out the rights we promise while still defending against the people who try to take them away from us.

We never had this problem in wars or conflicts before on POWs. We didn't have it in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War. Not until now. Why? Because people's hatred towards President Bush is so huge that they will do anything that degresses this nation.

An example of that would be the ACLU fighting to give convicted felons the right to vote for the most powerful seat in the world.

I agree that the ACLU is a little extreme sometimes but it's getting pathetic what qualifies as a "felony" these days. (ex: drug related crimes)

I also agree that a lot of the controversy has to do with the public's very low opinion of President Bush but the main reason is because the advanced technology of today allows information to be circulated much faster and more efficiently than before we even had television. And there was PLENTY of POW controversy in Vietnam, and the reason we didn't see much in the Gulf War (though there was the Highway of Death controversy) is because Bush the First didn't decide to set up residence for so long.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/28/07 06:52 PM, Memorize wrote: Well... prove it.

Prove what? That human right are suspected of being abused?

Just googe it yourself, everyone knows the controversy surrounding the plzce.

And if you're asking me to proove that it does happen why the fuck would I as I never actually claimed it did?

You just put words in my mouth so you could go on one of yourliberal insult tangents, which is undoubetdly where this was headed.

Weaklings.

Yes I'm a weakling for not jumping to a conclusion based solely on speculation and media hype with a distinct lack of evidence either way to prove anything...

<eye roll>

Now pay attention.

I don't know whether or not any abuses have been going on in gitmo. Hence why I never actually made any accusations. I merely pointed out that there were suspected abuses, a fact that you can not deny.

And just so you know, we're probably actually on the same side of this arguement. Whilst Idon't entirely agree with the complete internment and lack of trials, I don't think there are any particualr human rights abuses, on a mass scale at elast, going on in Gitmo.

So then...why are you arguing with me?

[Memorize]

At 6/29/07 04:29 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Prove what? That human right are suspected of being abused?

No. That abuse is rampant all across guantanamo.

So far I could count 3. The rest were either proven false or not. Though when captured, it's the insurgents idea to make stuff up in order to lower morale.

Just googe it yourself, everyone knows the controversy surrounding the plzce.

There's only controversy because stupid people like you decided to believe in their bullshit.

Hence: weakling.

And if you're asking me to proove that it does happen why the fuck would I as I never actually claimed it did?

Then what's your problem?

You sound like the idiotic bush-bash crowd.

"Bush is a liar"

'Prove it'

"...shit, but he still sucks..."

You just put words in my mouth so you could go on one of yourliberal insult tangents, which is undoubetdly where this was headed.

No. All you said was you think it should be closed due to the suspected abuse. There wouldn't be a controversy if people would use their heads and think every now and then.

I don't know whether or not any abuses have been going on in gitmo. Hence why I never actually made any accusations. I merely pointed out that there were suspected abuses, a fact that you can not deny.

Oh goodie.

So then...why are you arguing with me?

Yep. Because I don't believe in giving POWs trials in the middle of a conflict.

At 6/28/07 07:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

And I don't regard it as a weakness. I regard it as being confident enough in our country that we can handle giving out the rights we promise while still defending against the people who try to take them away from us.

These trials usually wouldn't be underway until after the end of the conflict.

I agree that the ACLU is a little extreme sometimes but it's getting pathetic what qualifies as a "felony" these days. (ex: drug related crimes)

No, you just think pot heads should be able to vote. You don't like the idea of them being a felon, because that could possibley have you end up being a felon.

And there was PLENTY of POW controversy in Vietnam, and the reason we didn't see much in the Gulf War (though there was the Highway of Death controversy) is because Bush the First didn't decide to set up residence for so long.

No. It's just that the media and all of the other idiots didn't decide to drown your thoughts with stupidity which would've caused you to bitch like you do now.

[JakeHero]

Just to chime in: the geneva convention doesn't apply to insurgents or any other terrorists so we could shove bamboo-chutes up their fingernails and no one could do shit.

[EvilerBowser1001]

You have to either charge these 'terrorists' or let them go...
America may not give a fuck about the terrorists, but it pisses of the rest of the world when we allgedly torture 'enemy combatants'...and the world growing more anti-american is good news for the terrorists...Dosn't anyone else see how this situation is playing into the hands of the terrorists? The more nations hate America, the easier it is for these motherfuckers to attack us...The terrorists will win when we rip ourselves to shreds...

[SyntheticTacos]

At 6/29/07 12:45 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/29/07 04:29 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

You sound like the idiotic bush-bash crowd.

"Bush is a liar"

'Prove it'

Actually, we can prove it.

Bush: THERE ARE WMDS IN IARAQ SO WE MUST INVADE LOLZ

Weapon Inspectors: Nope, no WMDs here.

Bush: INVADE LOLZ!

U.S.A. Military: We looked around but we didn't find any WMDS, sir.

Bush: UM... LOL. I MEAN, WE HAD TO INVADE TO LIBERATE THE IRAQI PEOPLE! YAY! LOLZ!

Most of the U.S.: Well we knew that was bullshit.

Less than 30% of the Ameican public: K, lol, he didn't lie, he meant to say something else.

To be fair I would much more likely support a war if it was actually going to liberate the people, but giving the circumstances of Iraq (the clashing ethnic groups; international backlash, strong opposition back home) we should have known that the end result would most likely be pure chaos. Bush the First knew that and withdrew, after all.

At 6/28/07 07:36 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

And I don't regard it as a weakness. I regard it as being confident enough in our country that we can handle giving out the rights we promise while still defending against the people who try to take them away from us.

These trials usually wouldn't be underway until after the end of the conflict.

Well, it looks like the end might be coming pretty soon. If it is surely we can afford those trials.

I agree that the ACLU is a little extreme sometimes but it's getting pathetic what qualifies as a "felony" these days. (ex: drug related crimes)

No, you just think pot heads should be able to vote. You don't like the idea of them being a felon, because that could possibley have you end up being a felon.

Hooray, the classical "U JUST WNAT IT TO BE LEEGAL SO U CAN DO IT LOLZ!" argument. Just becaues I want something to be legal doesn't mean I actually advocate its usage. As I expressed in the Fairness Doctrine topic, I don't want to run a conservative radio show but I respect their right to spew their conservative thoughts without being forced to include content from the liberal side. In the same manner I respect people's decision to use marijuana without actually smoking pot myself. I don't want to put mayonaisse on my potatoes when I'm eating meatloaf but that doesn't mean I'm going to advocate it's illegality, even though I think that's rather disgusting. But it's someone's personal choice, and it's not my business. Just as it is someone's personal choice granted to them by our Bill of Rights to run their own biased radio station. So no, I'm not going to "possibley" become a felon if pot smoking is made a felony, but I still don't think it should be made one.

And there was PLENTY of POW controversy in Vietnam, and the reason we didn't see much in the Gulf War (though there was the Highway of Death controversy) is because Bush the First didn't decide to set up residence for so long.

No. It's just that the media and all of the other idiots didn't decide to drown your thoughts with stupidity which would've caused you to bitch like you do now.

? You said the media didn't cover POW abuse before, and it did. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

[Memorize]

At 6/30/07 09:18 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

Actually, we can prove it.

I really don't feel like going over what really happend again.

Because I just love how you went with ONLY the UN rather than say... Britain.

Also, the same UN report (after we invaded) also stated that Saddam was looking to rebuld his WMD program as soon as possible and was trying to obtain them.

I love how every one of you skip over that little tid bit of information. And that's exactly why there are liberals. They don't read the whole thing... of anything really.

Or you could be like Grammar. And use the UN report to justify being against the War, yet condemn the UN for their ignorace for suggesting that Saddam was seeking more WMDs.

international backlash, strong opposition back home) we should have known that the end result would most likely be pure chaos.

Yeah, who'd have predicted that in Iraq?

The fact that anyone is suprised just proves their stupidity.

Well, it looks like the end might be coming pretty soon. If it is surely we can afford those trials.

If we could afford them after WWII, we can certainly afford them now.

Hooray, the classical "U JUST WNAT IT TO BE LEEGAL SO U CAN DO IT LOLZ!" argument.

Not my fault people can't come up with any other good reasons other than "my choice".

Just becaues I want something to be legal doesn't mean I actually advocate its usage.

Sure. Keep saying that.

But it's someone's personal choice, and it's not my business.

Wrong. You don't want it to be your business. That's exactly why there was an old supreme court case where the case was thrown out because the cops placed a recorder on top of a Phone Booth, violating the man's privacy.

What was the decision based off of? "He shut the door"

Fact is, people do not want to delve into certain issues that disgusts them because they don't want to have to deal with it, not because it's right or wrong.

And that would be why prostitution is legal in some areas of some states.

? You said the media didn't cover POW abuse before, and it did.

WWII.

FDR = Any negative coverage of the war is illegal.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

Bitching about giving those at Guantanamo fair trials before the war is over, especially when there are no signs of abuse except from the mouths terrorists or insurgents that were caught.

That's not a bad plan. Play on America's weakness by claiming to be tortured after being caught to lower morale.

I guarantee the terrorists will win this war. Why? Because of people like you.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 6/28/07 06:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 06:33 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

bunch of useless jibberish

And this children is how terrorists win. Because people like synthetictacos believes that those who hack people's heads off deserve good human treatment.

If the people locked up in Guantanamo are terrorists, why not give them a public trial, then lock them up if they are convicted?

[escudo0]

At 6/28/07 12:22 AM, Fios1 wrote: If there every was a break out their would be a shit load of anger muslims, never mind if thier actually terrorist, running aroung the country. Even if they where inoccent they may still want revenge.

LMAO anger muslims at least it better than zombie muslims.

[Bolo]

At 6/28/07 06:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/28/07 06:33 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

bunch of useless jibberish

And this children is how terrorists win.

Did I just read what I think I did? SyntheticTacos quotes the Constitution, and you refute it as a "bunch of useless gibberish" now?

The Constitution for godsake. Has it, too, become a casualty of the "this is how the terrorists are going to win" scare tactic?

How, do you suppose, would the founding fathers respond to this blatant rejection of the foundationary principles of this country?

[Memorize]

At 7/1/07 11:20 PM, Bolo wrote:

Did I just read what I think I did? SyntheticTacos quotes the Constitution, and you refute it as a "bunch of useless gibberish" now?

Because the Constitution has to do with OUR basic rights.

It doesn't say And all the peoples of many nations have the right to bear arms and freedom of the press.

No. It refers to us. The United States Citizens. The prisoners at Guantanamo will have their trials. But just like any other prisoner of every other damn war the US has faught, they're going to have to wait until the end of it.

I can only imagine what the state of the US would've been during the second world war if we had this kind of hippy attitude.