• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Obama in "final stages" of closing Gitmo plan

They had even fewer rights for being unlawful enemy combatants captured abroad. And they had no right whatever to an ordinary, Article III U.S. court. I agree that they should have been tried years ago, and any who were convicted of war crimes either imprisoned abroad or executed.

These Islamist mutts are lucky they were seen as possible sources of valuable information, or they would have had a hell of a lot more to worry about than whether a soldier held a German Shepherd in front of them, or splashed urine on their Koran. They could just have been given a quick drumhead trial and shot right where they were captured, if they couldn't explain why they were running around armed and out of uniform within shooting distance of our servicemen. That is exactly what the U.S. did to a number of English-speaking Germans who had concealed themselves in American uniforms (a war crime) that were captured during the Battle of the Bulge at the end of 1944. Standing these war criminals before a firing squad was so clearly within the laws of war that the U.S. Army even filmed the executions to document them.

Which nation were we at war with? What uniform would apply? I find is amusng that you would defend the torture we all were subjected to under GW Bush....
Let me take a walk down memory lane with you....

abughraib1.jpg


abuse1.jpg


torture1.jpg
 
Which nation were we at war with? What uniform would apply? I find is amusng that you would defend the torture we all were subjected to under GW Bush....
Let me take a walk down memory lane with you....

abughraib1.jpg


abuse1.jpg


torture1.jpg

Fighting out of uniform has long been considered a violation of the laws of war and is recognized as such in the Geneva Convention. There must be a fixed insignia visible at a distance, with an exception made for partisan forces that must respond so quickly to a foreign attack that there is no time to equip them with uniforms. The lack of uniform played an important part in Ex Parte Quirin, the 1942 decision involving German saboteurs landed in the U.S. by U-boat. Landing in German uniforms and then discarding them for civilian clothes to avoid being found out was important in making them unlawful enemy combatants--i.e. war criminals.

It is a staple of anti-American propaganda that the United States has authorized torture. It never has. The notion that any painful or coercive interrogation of captured war criminals constitutes torture under applicable U.S. laws is simple-minded and false. Waterboarding, for example, as described by U.S. servicemen who have been subjected to it as part of their survival training, is very unpleasant. And yet, at least as practiced by U.S. interrogators a dozen years ago on three senior Al Qaeda war criminals, it did not even come very close to being torture under U.S. law. That was the conclusion of the lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel. I have read their legal memorandum on that subject, and it is a model of legal research.
 
Last edited:
Fighting out of uniform has long been considered a violation of the laws of war and is recognized as such in the Geneva Convention. There must be a fixed insignia visible at a distance, with an exception made for partisan forces that must respond so quickly to a foreign attack that there is no time to equip them with uniforms. The lack of uniform played an important part in Ex Parte Quirin, the 1942 decision involving German saboteurs landed in the U.S. by U-boat. Landing in German uniforms and then discarding them for civilian clothes to avoid being found out was important in making them unlawful enemy combatants--i.e. war criminals.

It is a staple of anti-American propaganda that the United States has authorized torture. It never has. The notion that any painful or coercive interrogation of captured war criminals constitutes torture under applicable U.S. laws is simple-minded and false. Waterboarding, for example, as described by U.S. servicemen who have been subjected to it as part of their survival training, is very unpleasant. And yet, at least as practiced by U.S. interrogators a dozen years ago on three senior Al Qaeda war criminals, it did not even come very close to being torture under U.S. law. That was the conclusion of the lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel. I have read their legal memorandum on that subject, and it is a model of legal research.

U.S. law? What about the Geneva Convention? Are we exempt from international law? Of course we tortured people, 100's of them. It is appalling that you would deny it. I suppose the Nazi's could have said the same thing, that what they did was not torture under their laws. That's why we have an international body that determines the rules....and they say we tortured people.
 
Last edited:
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.
No, terrorists cost American lives. As well as the lives of citizens around the world.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.
Nobody ded at either Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. Saying people became terrorists over either of these only makes Muslims appear crazy. Both were propagandized by American leftists more than anyone else.
 
U.S. law? What about the Geneva Convention? Are we exempt from international law? Of course we tortured people, 100's of them. It is appalling that you would deny it. I suppose the Nazi's could have said the same thing, that what they did was not torture under their laws. That's why we have an international body that determines the rules....and they say we tortured people.
Islamic terrorists are nt obeying the Geneva Convention or any other civilized rules. Suggested the democracies follow rules while allowing others to ignore them is folly.

Certainly there should be humanity as much as possible but not at the expense of losing anyone to terrorism. You complaint should be directed against Islam.
 
Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

How many terrorists are we still holding there, and after six years, why now - since it does seem to coincide with the decision to become "friendly" with Cuba after all these years - which should be a good thing for the Cuban people if nothing else!
I know there are a bunch of Yemen. we set a couple free in Oman,
because with Yemen exploding AQAP there is no way they'd go back :roll:
 
No, terrorists cost American lives. As well as the lives of citizens around the world.

Nobody ded at either Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. Saying people became terrorists over either of these only makes Muslims appear crazy. Both were propagandized by American leftists more than anyone else.

With your second statement, you appear to be implying that seeing images or hearing reports of your fellow countrymen or individuals with whom you have a deep connection being tortured or denied basic human rights would not rile you up, possibly to the point of being willing to join an armed conflict in retaliation.
 
Islamic terrorists are nt obeying the Geneva Convention or any other civilized rules. Suggested the democracies follow rules while allowing others to ignore them is folly.

Certainly there should be humanity as much as possible but not at the expense of losing anyone to terrorism. You complaint should be directed against Islam.

Do you desire that America be the Greatest Country on Earth? Do you desire America to act better than the terrorists?

Then you should desire a country where America follows the rule of law - regardless of the opposition.
 
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.

No idea why you posted this to me. Nor do I care. There is no concrete evidence that Gitmo is a recruiting tool, or that the population of people who want to kill Americans will go down once it's closed.
 
Islamic terrorists are nt obeying the Geneva Convention or any other civilized rules. Suggested the democracies follow rules while allowing others to ignore them is folly.

Certainly there should be humanity as much as possible but not at the expense of losing anyone to terrorism. You complaint should be directed against Islam.

Of course now the argument is "are we no better than those savages" and according to you the answer is no. If Bush was so afraid of "losing anyone to terrorism" why did he ignore the warnings he received before 9/11?
 
Only took six and a half years.
 
Terrorism preceded GITMO by many years. And there is no evidence that it was used as a "recruitment tool". Never has been. It's the opinion of people, and it may or may not be accurate, but for people to pretend it's been proven is just plain dishonest.
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001.


I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq
Tony Camerino is a former senior military interrogator and author of Kill or Capture: How a Special Operations Task Force Took Down a Notorious Al Qaeda Terrorist and the acclaimed How to Break a Terrorist (both written under the pen name Matthew Alexander). He has conducted or supervised over 1,300 interrogations and led the interrogation team in Iraq that located Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaeda leader who was subsequently killed in an airstrike.
No idea why you posted this to me. Nor do I care. There is no concrete evidence that Gitmo is a recruiting tool
This is a classic example of absolute denial, you have the first hand account from an American interrogator who had captured terrorists tell him they were motivated by US torture.

Case closed.
 
Last edited:
This is a classic example of absolute denial, you have the first hand account from an American interrogator who had captured terrorists tell him they were motivated by US torture.

Case closed.

No idea why you quoted me here except for some reason you want my attention. Okay, you have it. Obama's in the final stages of closing Gitmo after 6 years. Yahoo! Once it's closed then Americans will be safe again because the only reason terrorists want to kill us is Gitmo. Life is good. Woohoo!

Is there something else you wanted?
 
Of course now the argument is "are we no better than those savages" and according to you the answer is no. If Bush was so afraid of "losing anyone to terrorism" why did he ignore the warnings he received before 9/11?

Not that it's relevant to the topic, but what should Bush have done....close all the airports? Force the Port Authority to close the WTCs? Shutter the Pentagon?
 
No idea why you quoted me here except for some reason you want my attention. Okay, you have it. Obama's in the final stages of closing Gitmo after 6 years. Yahoo! Once it's closed then Americans will be safe again because the only reason terrorists want to kill us is Gitmo. Life is good. Woohoo!

Is there something else you wanted?

Since no single action will end all terrorism, America should take no actions regarding terrorism. I agree.
 
Not that it's relevant to the topic, but what should Bush have done....close all the airports? Force the Port Authority to close the WTCs? Shutter the Pentagon?

Ask the CIA about that. They were horrified that Bush insisted on totally ignoring the warnings and saying they were a hoax perpetrated by Saddam. He could of at least warned the airlines and given them a list terrorists known to be in the country. What is the point of intelligence if you are going to ignore it and do nothing?
 
Last edited:
No idea why you quoted me here
Because you claimed:

"There is no concrete evidence that Gitmo is a recruiting tool"

There is, in fact, plenty of evidence, it is called direct testimony, admission by the perp.

Case Closed.
 
Ask the CIA about that. They were horrified that Bush insisted on totally ignoring the warnings and saying they were a hoax perpetrated by Saddam. He could of at least warned the airlines and given them a list terrorists known to be in the country. What is the point of intelligence if you are going to ignore it and do nothing?

I can't ask the CIA what Bush should have done. I asked you what he should have done. You said he ignored the warnings. So what specific action should he have taken that would have saved all of those lives on 9/11?
 
Because you claimed:

"There is no concrete evidence that Gitmo is a recruiting tool"

There is, in fact, plenty of evidence, it is called direct testimony, admission by the perp.

Case Closed.

Okay, you live and die by the words of one man. Yeah, I can't relate to that. I prefer to look at the obvious bigger picture, and know that terrorism against Americans predates Gitmo. Have a good one.
 
I can't ask the CIA what Bush should have done. I asked you what he should have done. You said he ignored the warnings. So what specific action should he have taken that would have saved all of those lives on 9/11?

Had Bush not poo pooed all the warnings there is reason to believe the dots would have been connected and the whole attack thwarted. I fear Jeb would do the same thing too. They are like peas in a pod.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Bush officials attempted to deflect criticism that they had ignored C.I.A. warnings by saying they had not been told when and where the attack would occur. That is true, as far as it goes, but it misses the point. Throughout that summer, there were events that might have exposed the plans, had the government been on high alert. Indeed, even as the Aug. 6 brief was being prepared, Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.

Could the 9/11 attack have been stopped, had the Bush team reacted with urgency to the warnings contained in all of those daily briefs? We can’t ever know. And that may be the most agonizing reality of all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html
 
Okay, you live and die by the words of one man. Yeah, I can't relate to that. I prefer to look at the obvious bigger picture, and know that terrorism against Americans predates Gitmo. Have a good one.
The argument you made was not time dependent, your argument was:

"There is no concrete evidence that Gitmo is a recruiting tool"

I have given you "concrete" evidence, evidence that a court would find as credible and sufficient.
 
The argument you made was not time dependent, your argument was:

"There is no concrete evidence that Gitmo is a recruiting tool"

I have given you "concrete" evidence, evidence that a court would find as credible and sufficient.

Okay! Happy Friday. I'm glad you are made complete.
 
You are giving your admission of error too much importance.

Um, no, I'm talking about you being all in believing the words of one guy. It seems to have made your life complete. Me, I prefer to look at the words of lots of people, look at history, that sort of thing. I'm glad you're very trusting. And when I make an admission of error, I actually admit to an error. Unfortunately I didn't make any errors in this thread since everyone, including me, is just voicing opinions. None of us know for sure since I don't think we have any Iraqi terrorists posting here.
 
Back
Top Bottom