• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11

Tigerace117 said:
The poor AQ and Taliban guys. All they wanted was to kill civillians and the evul Americans are keeping them from being able to do so. Obviously they should be able to kill whoever they want, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

The very existence of Guantanamo Bay spits in the face of the Rule of Law. And since when does "absence of torture = killing civilians"?
 
Abbazorkzog said:
The very existence of Guantanamo Bay spits in the face of the Rule of Law. And since when does "absence of torture = killing civilians"?
Click to expand...

The Taliban and AQ want to kill civillians. That's a fact. They've done it enough times. If they weren't in Guantamano or in prison generally that's what they'd be free to do.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The Taliban and AQ want to kill civillians. That's a fact. They've done it enough times. If they weren't in Guantamano or in prison generally that's what they'd be free to do.
Click to expand...

So not being in Guantanamo Bay automatically means they'd be free to kill civilians. Right.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
So not being in Guantanamo Bay automatically means they'd be free to kill civilians. Right.
Click to expand...

I would say that that is a weird reply. As though you had no argument.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
So not being in Guantanamo Bay automatically means they'd be free to kill civilians. Right.
Click to expand...

It's much harder for them to kill civillians when they sitting in Gitmo, that's for sure.
 
JANFU said:
US Law? Yes?
The issue is what to do with them when captured.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why Guantanamo is outside the US. In theory we can hold them indefinitely. They are unlawful combatants; we owe them nothing.
 
Jack Hays said:
Exactly. That's why Guantanamo is outside the US. In theory we can hold them indefinitely. They are unlawful combatants; we owe them nothing.
Click to expand...

Funny that the killing game has an "unlawful" category.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants”[/h]https://www.icrc.org/.../irrc_84...


International Committee of the Red Cross


by K DÖRMANN - ‎Cited by 83 - ‎Related articles
While the discussion on the legal situation of unlawful combatants is not new, it has nevertheless become the subject of intensive debate in recent publications ..
Click to expand...

"We're gonna try to kill each other. But not the officers, OK?"

Its all bull****.

Especially calling any opponent who fails to gather in one place and provide targeting coordinates a terrorist or unlawful combatant.
 
Jack Hays said:
Exactly. That's why Guantanamo is outside the US. In theory we can hold them indefinitely. They are unlawful combatants; we owe them nothing.
Click to expand...

True and it has reflected poorly on the US. From the innocent ones rounded up, to those that should never be released, to how the Military could not come up with a trial system, to SCOTUS overturning some.
 
What if...? said:
"We're gonna try to kill each other. But not the officers, OK?"

Its all bull****.

Especially calling any opponent who fails to gather in one place and provide targeting coordinates a terrorist or unlawful combatant.
Click to expand...

Please read, then post.
 
JANFU said:
True and it has reflected poorly on the US. From the innocent ones rounded up, to those that should never be released, to how the Military could not come up with a trial system, to SCOTUS overturning some.
Click to expand...

It presages the wars of the coming century. I am proud of Guantanamo and I hope all our enemies take note.
 
Jack Hays said:
It presages the wars of the coming century. I am proud of Guantanamo and I hope all our enemies take note.
Click to expand...
Who determines guilt?
 
Jack Hays said:
Please read, then post.
Click to expand...

What am I missing? "Privelege", "right to", all a bunch of bull****.

I know there are rules. I just think those rules are stupid.

"We're gonna try to kill each other, but no shooting for the nuts.", or other nonsense is just proof that its a game played by the rich and powerful with the lives of the poor.
 
What if...? said:
What am I missing? "Privelege", "right to", all a bunch of bull****.

I know there are rules. I just think those rules are stupid.

"We're gonna try to kill each other, but no shooting for the nuts.", or other nonsense is just proof that its a game played by the rich and powerful with the lives of the poor.
Click to expand...

Please read, and don't post again until you've finished. The legal regime is straining to encompass fighters responsible to no recognized authority, who hide among noncombatants and who explicitly target noncombatants.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please read, and don't post again until you've finished. The legal regime is straining to encompass fighters responsible to no recognized authority, who hide among noncombatants and who explicitly target noncombatants.
Click to expand...


Waddhesay..........?
 
Jack Hays said:
Please read, and don't post again until you've finished. The legal regime is straining to encompass fighters responsible to no recognized authority, who hide among noncombatants and who explicitly target noncombatants.
Click to expand...

So overwhelming force becomes irrelevant.

The British considered the way we fought the revolution "unlawful".

I'm not an advocate for terrorism, but the term terrorism has come to mean anybody who opposes us and doesn't make it easy to exterminate them.

I don't for instance consider any act against military personnel terrorism.

What I think and what the world does don't always gibe. It is what it is.
 
What if...? said:
So overwhelming force becomes irrelevant.

The British considered the way we fought the revolution "unlawful".

I'm not an advocate for terrorism, but the term terrorism has come to mean anybody who opposes us and doesn't make it easy to exterminate them.

I don't for instance consider any act against military personnel terrorism.

What I think and what the world does don't always gibe. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

SMH. You have understood nothing. By citing those who believe in the law of such matters I was being kind. Myself, I believe that the period of international law of war, the 19th and 20th centuries, will be regarded as a quaint interlude in the future. No US adversary since WW2 has had any regard at all for the laws of war. Eventually we won't either.
 
Jack Hays said:
SMH. You have understood nothing. By citing those who believe in the law of such matters I was being kind. Myself, I believe that the period of international law of war, the 19th and 20th centuries, will be regarded as a quaint interlude in the future. No US adversary since WW2 has had any regard at all for the laws of war. Eventually we won't either.
Click to expand...

I disagree, as this is the foundation of western democracies. The rule of law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom