I'm not sure we know why any of them were taken, let alone all of them. There was that cab driver who we killed in Afghanistan. He was fighting. He was driving a cab. A bad guy, the actual enemy, told us he was bad. We tortured him and he died. Not sure what category we put him under, but he wasn't a solider firing weapons at us. He was a cab driver.
Of which we are not engaged. We are at war with no country. True, we invaded countries, countries that did not attack us or declare war on us, but we are not fighting countries. The point I make is that we have signed and agree to human rights across the board, always, regardless. We did sign and agree to thiese things, so there is no out of thin air.
Well, while I think I do understand the law, and what we've agree to, the point you respond to is about our risk. Our enemy has no chance of beating us, period. So, as we don't face that extreme threat, there is no rational reason to argue that we forsake all our core values.
What's winning? The country was defeated fairly quickly. Occupation is harder. But, define winning.
No one said a thing about coddling. That's merely hyperbolic nonsense when you don't want to address rule of law. Let me ask you, if we behave like our enemy, are we any different?
This is just going around in a circle. All of this is answered in my posts above, even multiple times.
You're attempting to apply the wrong "law." You're using "torture" in a hyperbolic way, which is ironic when you call my measured and accurate responses "hyperbolic." And you still seem to think it's all a "law enforcement" operation.
Please, I know how much we all think we're smart and give great responses, but the fact is no one used the word or the idea of coddling. merely rule of law. Saying you can do anything is not following any rule of law. And when you have signed human rights agreements on how you will treat all humans, you can't say there is any reasonable of legal way you abuse anyone.
:roll: Given that this characterizes nothing I said, and indeed is directly contradictory to some of it, I can only conclude that you either didn't read any of my responses, you simply didn't understand them, or you don't care to be honest. But, I've come to be used to that.
What's the problem with "water boarding"?
It was reported to have saved american lives.
By all means feel free to explain what you think I missed. I frankly feel you've missed much of what I've said, and have tried to explain myself. If you believe in any way that we can treat any group as if no law applies, then I have not misrepresented you. If you believe the constitution doesn't instruct how we behave to all, but only to who gets rights, then I haven't misunderstood you. If you think we've only in prisoned soliders, than I haven't misunderstood you. And if you believe anyone has spoken of coddling, as you suggest, you're frankly wrong.
The thing is, there indeed ARE folks being held there who aren't combatants at all, and simply picked up on the battlefield for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That some are held indefinitely without trial or due process is, indeed, an injustice.
But Guantanamo is merely a prison or a place where these guys are held. It's not the fact that these facilities exist that's the problem, it's how these guys are treated - not really afforded criminal rights, but not really afforded POW rights either.
Once the war is over the prisoners can go home. No hard feelings.Not really possible. A prisoner of war goes home after the war. A never ending war suggests something very different.
If this is not against any law, it should be. This goes against nearly every value this country has ever professed.
More likely unlawful enemy combatants.Not only that, but a prisoner of war camp has, well, prisoners of war. Gitmo has "enemy combatants" instead. So, what's the difference? Why, the one is covered by the Geneva accords. The other is a made up phrase that means, "you ain't got no rights, so there!"
The very great difficulty with biases is that we are blind to them.No matter how you view it...Gitmo is an illegal (to some) prison, born out of war fear. It has however, been created with the blessing of us all, in the mind of the world. If you do not agree with the premise, that there are times when we must compromise societal health to protect the Ideal which created it....then Gitmo is a bad thing.
If you are in enough fear (rational or not) that bad people are coming to get us (which they likely are)...then this compromise could become logical.
The very great difficulty with biases is that we are blind to them.
Would you prefer we kill them? Or would you prefer that we release them in your neighborhood?
Turn our enemies over to our enemies? What could possibly go wrong?Let's turn them loose in Cuba as a kind of payback for the Marielitos.
Read my posts throughout the thread, ducky. Everything you say in this post indicates exactly what I said before -- you either haven't, you didn't understand them, or you don't care to be honest, because this doesn't describe anything I've said.
Frankly, I don't care which of those it is; this behavior is a persistent characteristic of yours.
Once the war is over the prisoners can go home. No hard feelings.
Until the war is over there is no reason to release the islamofascists back into the wild where they can harm us again.
More likely unlawful enemy combatants.
You already know. Nice try though.Explain. As we fought no country, no army, which combatants are lawful? Which unlawful? And how did you determine that?
What war? Iraq is over. Not sure we're at war with Afghanistan. So what war is it we're waiting to be over?
More likely unlawful enemy combatants.
We lock up people who are suspected of a crime all the time. How is this different?"Guilty until proven innocent." Hot dam' y'all, ah swar, ain't that a novel concept. Eastern European no doubt.
What planet are you from?"Guilty until proven innocent." Hot dam' y'all, ah swar, ain't that a novel concept. Eastern European no doubt.
I guess you have to say this. If it helps, good for you. But, you are nto addressing what was said or explaining anything. :coffeepap
"Guilty until proven innocent." Hot dam' y'all, ah swar, ain't that a novel concept. Eastern European no doubt.
We lock up people who are suspected of a crime all the time. How is this different?
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?