disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
So for you, it would be more of a PR/symbolic move, more than a substantive move because the Gitmo name has already been so poisoned? I don't agree but I can see where you're coming from.
Of course you have... it's called spin. The question is simple... you see Libs hated Bush's policies to protect this nation and Obama claimed he'd reverse course on many of them. Instead... they're still there.
It really isn't a tough question, unless you want it to be... spinner.
.
Why is everyone against Guantanamo Bay and the detainment of terrorists there? These "people" are barely human at all, they don't deserve a fair trial, it's best that they get locked away in a little box far away from the human population.
Anyone else find it weird how only 7 people voted in the poll, but this discussion went on for 6+ pages?
Let's face it though, Iraq and Afghanistan are better places now that the US went in there and overthrew genocidal dictators (see Saddam's chemical weapon usage on the Kurdish people).
It would, only because this is the reasoning given for closing it and because I know that symbolism is very important to Arab Muslims. You don't agree that it would be a symbolic move? Or that it wouldn't have any effect on the Muslim mind?
Why is everyone against Guantanamo Bay and the detainment of terrorists there? These "people" are barely human at all, they don't deserve a fair trial, it's best that they get locked away in a little box far away from the human population.
Yes or no?
Except for enhanced interrogation techniques, all is in place, and it was advanced interrogation techniques that set the stage for blowing the top off Osama von Fishfood.
.
Have you personally met most of the detainees in Guantanamo? How do you even know if each and every one of them is a terrorist? For some of the detainees there, the only thing they were guilty of was being in the wrong place and the wrong time. All the detainees there deserve the right to a fair trial to determine if they ARE actually combatants in the first place. And even prisoners of war should be afforded certain rights. It's about human decency and standing up for our values, which include respect for basic human rights.
I agree that it's a valid reason, I'm not sure if it's a good enough reason to actually shut down the operation and try to move it elsewhere. And given the politics of the situation, at this point it simply can't be done.
Well, it'd make the Cubans happy, along with ending the unnecessary embargo.
Castro 2.0 may even be so appreciative that he'll send up some qualified medical personnel. If Cuba can make two things, it's great cigars and greater doctors.
As far as trials in America, sure...give it to some. I wouldn't say everyone though, such as if they are clearly a threat.
Obama's policy on Afghanistan is quite different than Bush's.
I continue to disagree with the Patriot act and its abuses and Obama keep Gitmo open.
Sounds like a loss-loss to me. I don't feel a need to be a "thorn", and I sure the hell don't feel the need to pay to be a thorn. Couple that with the fact that they spit out a profession we desperately need like a factory line, and getting rid of it is pretty much a no-brainer.
.....and apparently more deadly..........
60% Of Soldiers Killed In Afghanistan 10 Year War, Occurred On Obama’s 2 Year Clock Since 2009! « Political Vel Craft
.....did you also notice Obama has made no attempt to change the Patriot Act?
.
.
.
.
StillBallin said:eh, I don't really care about Gitmo. I don't understand why the embargo is still in place though.
Torture has never been an American value. We condemned the Japanese for waterboarding in WWII and called it torture. Reagan has a great quote about people who conduct torture being our truest enemy (I can't find the quote, so any help would be appreciated). Up until Jon Yoo and David Addington decided to play legal games with our policy on interrogation, we were steadfast in our opposition to torture, no matter what political party controlled the White House. Abu Ghraib was an embarrassment because we all know, without referring to the Army Field Handbook or the Geneva conventions, that what happended was unacceptable.
The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.
Here is the Reagan quote-
From President Ronald Reagan’s signing statement ratifying the UN Convention on Torture from 1984:
And I am not saying that torture is an American value, I am simply saying that the US has employed necessary measures in the past to win wars. Now, as to the Japanese waterboarding, of course we complained they were doing it to our soldiers. Ultimately I do not think torture works in getting totally credible info, most agree that it does not. But if employing any of these "border-line" torture techniques saves an American life, then I am all for it.
I'd argue that there are just as effective ways to get the same information to save lives, without having to resort to physical torture or compromising our values.
More intense fighting = deadlier.
Your statistics don't prove anything.
Yes I am disappointed that Barack has been mum on the Patriot Act.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?