Obama: Day 1.

[BanginJimmy]

1. I was referring to the retaliation that we apply to middle eastern soldiers. I know that excessive force has been used out of anger.

What middle eastern soldiers? Every uniformed soldier that surrendered was humanely treated and let go.

2. I was implying that us torturing war criminals is not justifiable to the extremes they have used.

What torture? Waterboarding is NOT torture by any defination except bleeding heart liberals. Neither the Geneva Accords or the UN classify waterboarding as torture.

3. I was make a generalization in that statement. I was trying to say that we could've done everything in our power to get our POW's back.

I would hope that we would. The problem with the current conflict is that they dont take POWs. They cut their heads off with a dull knife and put it online.

4. Im not very familiar with specifics to the geneva accords, but im sure sodomy, beating, and etc. isn't listed in them as interrogation tactics. Before you even say that it hasn't happened, it has.

I'm sure most of those have happened, though I'm not convinced on sodomy. If that is the case though, then those responsible are being tried for their crimes. This isnt a policy issue, it is a personell issue so it cannot be attached to the Bush administration.

[LS2ner]

What middle eastern soldiers? Every uniformed soldier that surrendered was humanely treated and let go.




What torture? Waterboarding is NOT torture by any defination except bleeding heart liberals. Neither the Geneva Accords or the UN classify waterboarding as torture.



I would hope that we would. The problem with the current conflict is that they dont take POWs. They cut their heads off with a dull knife and put it online.



I'm sure most of those have happened, though I'm not convinced on sodomy. If that is the case though, then those responsible are being tried for their crimes. This isnt a policy issue, it is a personell issue so it cannot be attached to the Bush administration.

1. That may be the case for the majority of the people, but does it always happen.

2. I never said waterboarding.

3. Yes it is true. Im not trying to argue that point.

I guess your misunderstanding what i was trying to say. Im not saying that we should just let them go free or anything. But housing them and feeding them when they aren't being tried for anything, or aren't being useful is just stupid and a waste of our money. I mean fuck, execute them for all I care, but atleast do something than let them have a free home.

[RedEj8]

You know what else is a waste of money? Pretty much everything the government does. We need a smaller government not a larger one.

[BanginJimmy]

1. That may be the case for the majority of the people, but does it always happen.

What soldiers were not treated humanely then released? I know we ignored their religion fairly often by feeding them pork, but that was the extent of the 'abuse' they suffered. I will agree that that isnt right, especially for a country that holds freedom of religion so highly, but it is still an exceedingly minor issue.

2. I never said waterboarding.

I havent heard of any other forms of torture being used with the belessing of the administration. I do know there was an issue in Asscrackistan where Asscrackistani interrogators were using much more forceful methods, but those instances were not under US control.

I guess your misunderstanding what i was trying to say. Im not saying that we should just let them go free or anything. But housing them and feeding them when they aren't being tried for anything, or aren't being useful is just stupid and a waste of our money. I mean fuck, execute them for all I care, but atleast do something than let them have a free home.

Some of them I do believe are innocent of anything more than knowing someone. Others, like the guy being reported on today are released then head out to Yemen and join back up with Al-Qaeda again. Each of them needs to be pumped for any info they have then tried by a military tribunal. If they are found guilty then need to be imprisoned there at Gitmo for their sentence or executed, also at Gitmo. None of them should ever touch US soil or be eligable for the protections of american criminal law.

[SuperChicken]

Some of them I do believe are innocent of anything more than knowing someone. Others, like the guy being reported on today are released then head out to Yemen and join back up with Al-Qaeda again. Each of them needs to be pumped for any info they have then tried by a military tribunal. If they are found guilty then need to be imprisoned there at Gitmo for their sentence or executed, also at Gitmo. None of them should ever touch US soil or be eligable for the protections of american criminal law.

Here is where I have some issues...How can we hold ourselves up to the world as the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong; of fairness and equanimity--as defined by our Constitution--and allow these people to be held outside of the protections that that very document specifies? If we truly believe in the rights and protections of our Constitution, shouldn't we apply them equally to ALL humans? Yeah, the Geneva conventions allow it, as they are not uniformed soldiers; but, from an idealists standpoint, shouldn't the Constitution supersede the Geneva accords? Wouldn't that stance reinforce to the rest of the world that we stand behind that document at ALL times, rather than when it is 'convenient' for us to do so? Just asking to see what others think...this has gnawed at me as long as Gitmo has been operating, and I'm not sure where I really stand about it.

edit: On further thought, is it not true that the Geneva accords don't really apply here, as they do not really address the concept of war against an ideology--that of terrorism and jihad--as opposed to war against a country, with a flag, an organized army, etc.? Again, just putting it out there.

[BanginJimmy]

Here is where I have some issues...How can we hold ourselves up to the world as the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong; of fairness and equanimity--as defined by our Constitution--and allow these people to be held outside of the protections that that very document specifies? If we truly believe in the rights and protections of our Constitution, shouldn't we apply them equally to ALL humans? Yeah, the Geneva conventions allow it, as they are not uniformed soldiers; but, from an idealists standpoint, shouldn't the Constitution supersede the Geneva accords? Wouldn't that stance reinforce to the rest of the world that we stand behind that document at ALL times, rather than when it is 'convenient' for us to do so? Just asking to see what others think...this has gnawed at me as long as Gitmo has been operating, and I'm not sure where I really stand about it.

I had this issue for a while also, but it really comes down to the fact that our criminal court system has become so liberal and so slanted towards the defense that the inability to have evidence in the typical sense would lead to pretty much every one of those that are in Gitmo to being released. I dont agree with them sitting there for years at a time with no trial or anything, but that doesnt mean bring them to the US and put them under the same protections as someone arrested for a crime on US soil. In fact, there isnt a single state or federal court that could claim to have juristiction in the case.

edit: On further thought, is it not true that the Geneva accords don't really apply here, as they do not really address the concept of war against an ideology--that of terrorism and jihad--as opposed to war against a country, with a flag, an organized army, etc.? Again, just putting it out there.

You are right. There is no formal documentation to cover a situation like this. That is why I believe most people are reverting to the Geneva Accords for their rules of engagement. I dont know if it will ever be addressed either. We all know the UN is completely ineffectual on all fronts, and without the US its rubber stamp wont even hold the ink for anything.

[redrumracer]

Here is where I have some issues...How can we hold ourselves up to the world as the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong; of fairness and equanimity--as defined by our Constitution--and allow these people to be held outside of the protections that that very document specifies? If we truly believe in the rights and protections of our Constitution, shouldn't we apply them equally to ALL humans?

simple, they arent American's, so therefore they arent subject to the same rights we have.