|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 3:42:56 PM
|
|
|
Jeff_from_Kentucky
Posts: 1502
Joined: 7/5/2006
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
|
I know that my attitude toward the terrorists is not the attitude that a Christian should have. And, I know I will have to stand before God someday and answer for my attitude. But, I am not thinking of myself in this situation. I'm thinking about my children and their future. The terrorists want to kill us all, including my children and your children. As a parent, I will do whatever I have to do to keep my children from harm. That is why I have the attitude that I do toward the terrorists.
Just look at what the terrorists are doing in Iraq. They have killed more than 4,000 of our troops. But, they have killed many more innocent women and chidren than that. I'm not sure but I believe the number is greater than 20,000. I don't want that to happen here, which is exactly why I am in favor of doing whatever is necessary to stop them.
If we don't stop them, it will happen here.
_____________________________
<< Frank Seamans and my son Jeffrey - September, 2007
"For me to live is Christ and to die is gain." Philippians 1:21
Dispatchers tell cops where to go!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 4:13:55 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2543
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
But that would be the point; the detainees don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
So what laws DO the US have to abide by in the international community or can we kill and torture whomever we deem necessary to protect ourselves? We can treat other countries citizens any way we wish?
It seems some people feel this way.
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 4:30:30 PM
|
|
|
fiat_lux
Posts: 275
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Ottawa
Status: offline
|
quote:
I know that my attitude toward the terrorists is not the attitude that a Christian should have. And, I know I will have to stand before God someday and answer for my attitude. But, I am not thinking of myself in this situation. I'm thinking about my children and their future. The terrorists want to kill us all, including my children and your children. As a parent, I will do whatever I have to do to keep my children from harm. That is why I have the attitude that I do toward the terrorists.
I respect that you've thought through the potential inconsistencies in views. I hope that you - and I - will be able to consider this in ways that bring our faith and our political views as close together as possible.
Personally, my attitude is probably benefiting from the fact that I have a somewhat less pessimistic view of the situation than you do. The terrorists in question certainly are willing to kill a number of people, but their goal is not simply to "kill us all," and that has never been their goal; even if it was, there are relatively few terrorists, and they could not do so anyways. So I just don't see a life-and-death struggle going on here.
Even if it was a life and death struggle, though, in my opinion my values and morals are important enough that it would not be worth living if I sacrificed them simply because of some "ends justifies the means" reasoning. Mere survival is not simply a justifiable end, to me. If we claim the moral high ground, than we have to stay on the moral high ground.
However, all of that may be a bit much for the present conversation, which is specifically related to whether we should charge, try and (hopefully) convict terrorists appropriately, according to the rulings of the SCOTUS.
quote:
Just look at what the terrorists are doing in Iraq. They have killed more than 4,000 of our troops. But, they have killed many more innocent women and chidren than that. I'm not sure but I believe the number is greater than 20,000. I don't want that to happen here, which is exactly why I am in favor of doing whatever is necessary to stop them.
If we don't stop them, it will happen here.
I know there's a great deal of rhetoric about that, but realistically, the violence in Iraq is the result of the removal of the Saddam administration and the resulting conflicts between terrorists and American-led forces. Now, maybe that was justified or maybe not, that's another debate, but the point is, what's happening in Iraq wouldn't happen over here just because it wasn't happening over there, nor would it happen over here just because - to return to the topic here - we charged and tried prisoners according to due process rather than simply jailing them indefinitely.
If you're that certain that the people in question are terrorists, then it should be a relatively simple matter for the government to bring them into court, charge them, present the evidence, and get convictions. If not, then they shouldn't be deprived of human rights through indefinite detention.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 6:13:44 PM
|
|
|
kvonnegut
Posts: 14
Joined: 8/26/2007
Status: offline
|
Concerning the fact the there has been no new attack on American soil as a sign of success...
America has had its share of terrorism for the past few years, from the time if the cole bombing, to the attack on september 11th. I believe that no matter what we do will will never "win" the war on terrorism. Its impossible. Since the beginning of time there have been people with different world views who want to do some harm to someone else for whatever reason. As long as people are born there will be different ideologies, religions, beliefs and living conditions. For that simple reason we can never win, in the sense that winning is putting a stop to terrorist actives. If the Israelis and palistians have fought for 2000+ years what makes us think we can stop terrorism? Its all over the world, from Spain UK, Africa, South America, Asia, etc... My point is the only way we can "win", if you want to say, is by taking the high road and being a moral, ethical leader throughout the world. The only way we can do this is by showing the rest of the world that we care about our citizens, our immigrants and our law. So what good is it to hold these people without trail or charge? If we hold them for 6 years and then just let them go, i doubt their view and the view of their children will change in regards to america. There may not have been an attack on american soil since 9/11 but thats short term thinking, we need to win hearts and minds or else what we do today will come back in form of terrorism 20 years from now. At which time they would probably blame the current leader of that time and not look back and learn...its a terrible cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 6:43:04 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady
That was in 93, I believe. So from 93 to 01 there were no attacks on our soil. I know that embassies are considered american soil but I'm talking about ACTUALLY in the U.S. on U. S. soil.
Again, for the sake of the truth...
1993 The WTC bombing attempt..
1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa... (Embassies are considered American soil...)
2000 USS Cole..
All the above took place during the previous administration...
quote:
The previous administartion did as much as it could get support for. Remember, everyone was waaaay more interested in a certain person's sex life at the time.
That person was waaay more interested in getting sex than dealing with terrorism...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 6:46:05 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11455
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
quote:
There may not have been an attack on american soil since 9/11 but thats short term thinking, we need to win hearts and minds or else what we do today will come back in form of terrorism 20 years from now.
Good point.
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 6:51:14 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
But that would be the point; the detainees don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
So what laws DO the US have to abide by in the international community or can we kill and torture whomever we deem necessary to protect ourselves? We can treat other countries citizens any way we wish?
It seems some people feel this way.
For the record I don't condone torture but does anyone here above the age of five years old believe this is something new? Long before 9/11 certain parts of the military conducted operations that included killing people and basically kidnapping them in order to extract information... No “due process” or courts… They were labeled “bad guys” and that was that… Who knows if any of those folks were locked up for who knows how long with no charges... The stuff going on in Cuba isn't anything knew, it's just more out in the open...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 7:05:34 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 931
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
Win hearts and minds? Well I assure you letting a few captives out of prison is certainly not going to do that. The terrorists have already told us how we can win their hearts and minds and make them happy. Convert to Islam or drop dead.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 7:59:30 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2003
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
Keeping detainees detained as part of the WOT is hardly a police state.
And I'm still waiting for somebody, ANYBODY to tell us of a single right they THEY PERSONALLY have lost.
Anyone? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?
I have lost rights. I am routinely searched before I get on a subway. In fact, the state and federal government have decided to make it nearly impossible to legally come into NYC without getting searched. I'd imagine I could parachute in or build a tunnel, but short of that, it's practically impossible to get into the city.
I have discovered that the right to freedom from search isn't one to be taken lightly. I find it infuriating to be accused of a terrorist practically every morning when I get on the subway without complaining about it (talking about terrorism is also illegal.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 8:05:06 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2003
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
Win hearts and minds? Well I assure you letting a few captives out of prison is certainly not going to do that. The terrorists have already told us how we can win their hearts and minds and make them happy. Convert to Islam or drop dead.
Well, the hilarious thing there is that, assuming Islam doesn't have any inherent advantage over Christianity (considering that I believe that Christianity is the correct view, I don't think it has any), Islamic totalitarianism certainly can't fare much better than "Christian" totalitarianism in the past.
What we need right now is to set up a system for higher criticism of the Koran. If we start having psychologists examine the text and understand who could have made it up, that will provide a serious opening for a rethinking of Islam's context in government.
You remember that the notion of freedom of speech, religion, and all these other rights aren't 2000 year-old ideas. They were given to us by enlightenment Christianity in the 17th and 18th centuries. I'm not sure that enlightenment Islam will provide these same rights, but at least it will provide an opening for questioning Islam.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 8:10:36 PM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 1216
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again, for the sake of the truth...
1993 The WTC bombing attempt..
1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa... (Embassies are considered American soil...)
2000 USS Cole..
All the above took place during the previous administration...
If you will READ what I posted....I qualified my statement so that I thought it was clear that I meant actually IN THE US, not on quasi U.S. soil like embassies and ships in foreign ports. I do not consider those even close to being the same thing as the two attacks on the WTC. But whatever, have it your way. 
quote:
That person was waaay more interested in getting sex than dealing with terrorism... Uh-huh. And the rest of the country was waaaay more interested in that whole mess than terrorism as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 8:26:48 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 931
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
Win hearts and minds? Well I assure you letting a few captives out of prison is certainly not going to do that. The terrorists have already told us how we can win their hearts and minds and make them happy. Convert to Islam or drop dead.
Well, the hilarious thing there is that, assuming Islam doesn't have any inherent advantage over Christianity (considering that I believe that Christianity is the correct view, I don't think it has any), Islamic totalitarianism certainly can't fare much better than "Christian" totalitarianism in the past.
Yes but it sure may get messy before they figure that out!
quote:
What we need right now is to set up a system for higher criticism of the Koran. If we start having psychologists examine the text and understand who could have made it up, that will provide a serious opening for a rethinking of Islam's context in government.
Oh my! You better be careful though, remember the poor cartoonist!
< Message edited by Sophie11 -- 6/14/2008 8:33:42 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/14/2008 11:04:12 PM
|
|
|
tafkam
Posts: 1951
Joined: 9/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Doesn't this ruling kinda make you wish our soliders had just shot 'em on the battlefield? Then there would have been no questions asked....
_____________________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan
Tafkam
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 1:32:51 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tafkam
Doesn't this ruling kinda make you wish our soliders had just shot 'em on the battlefield? Then there would have been no questions asked....
Actually no. The ruling makes me wish we had done the moral thing from the start.
Again I ask the question, would Christ consider what we're doing to be ok? For us, if no one else, shouldn't that be the foremost issue?
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 2:58:50 AM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5940
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: Northern Califonria
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jkdjr25
Actually no. The ruling makes me wish we had done the moral thing from the start.
What's wrong with shooting terrorists in the field of battle?
quote:
Again I ask the question, would Christ consider what we're doing to be ok? For us, if no one else, shouldn't that be the foremost issue?
I don't believe what is going in Cuba would meet the requirement of judging a righteous judgment... Though if they are charged and convicted of being a terrorist surely Christ wouldn't take issue with them being hung for their deeds...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 3:28:35 AM
|
|
|
scutus
Posts: 265
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
Win hearts and minds? Well I assure you letting a few captives out of prison is certainly not going to do that. The terrorists have already told us how we can win their hearts and minds and make them happy. Convert to Islam or drop dead. You may be right that we can't convince the terrorists out there. But we can convince people who are sympathising with them! Guantanamo Bay is just really bad PR for America at the moment, akin to Abu Ghraib. Sure, it's not true that American troops are all abusing prisoners like some did in Abu Ghraib, but the Middle East doesn't see it that way, thanks to propoganda and ill-informed media. The war on terrorism is fought equally on the battlefield and in the 'hearts and minds' of ordinary people.
_____________________________
Suo enim quisque studio maxime ducitur.
—Cicero, De Finibus, 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 7:34:58 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2543
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
But that would be the point; the detainees don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
So what laws DO the US have to abide by in the international community or can we kill and torture whomever we deem necessary to protect ourselves? We can treat other countries citizens any way we wish?
It seems some people feel this way.
For the record I don't condone torture but does anyone here above the age of five years old believe this is something new? Long before 9/11 certain parts of the military conducted operations that included killing people and basically kidnapping them in order to extract information... No “due process” or courts… They were labeled “bad guys” and that was that… Who knows if any of those folks were locked up for who knows how long with no charges... The stuff going on in Cuba isn't anything knew, it's just more out in the open...
John
So the US has no obligation to act morally. We just let the ends justify the means and have no crisis of national conscience because it's OK we're "doing it to protect democracy and freedom". That mindset would make us no different than Al Queda who's just "doing it for Islam".
So if the government won't be ethical or moral why should I? I'll just tell my kids its OK to cheat on their tests at school and copy other kids homework because an A is all we care about. I'll teach them to be unethical and do whatever it takes without any concern for their fellows to realize their goals. Why live with double standards? Conscience is for the weak anyway!
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 7:44:16 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2543
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fiat_lux
Even if it was a life and death struggle, though, in my opinion my values and morals are important enough that it would not be worth living if I sacrificed them simply because of some "ends justifies the means" reasoning. Mere survival is not simply a justifiable end, to me. If we claim the moral high ground, than we have to stay on the moral high ground.
If you're that certain that the people in question are terrorists, then it should be a relatively simple matter for the government to bring them into court, charge them, present the evidence, and get convictions. If not, then they shouldn't be deprived of human rights through indefinite detention.
I agree with you 100%. If these people are as bad as GWB says then there should be a preponderance of evidence showing this "fact". Especially since the burden of proof would be lower for a military tribunal than in a civilian court of law. If they had this "proof", they would have had them charged and tried by now. Unless today's military justice system is more inefficient than the civilian side; if that were possible.
_____________________________
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but our own fiscal irresponsibility."-David Walker, fmr comptroller general of the US
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 7:50:10 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 415
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Which is their job if something violates the Constitution. Checks n' balances.
But that would be the point; the detainees don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
Nope. Guantanamo is 'US territory', so the prisoners are entitled to the habeas privilege. Has anyone actually read the case? I am slowly working my way through it, since it deals with stuff I haven't looked at since law school.
quote:
No “due process” or courts… They were labeled “bad guys” and that was that… Who knows if any of those folks were locked up for who knows how long with no charges... The stuff going on in Cuba isn't anything knew, it's just more out in the open...
The petitioners in this case were all citizens of countries not at war with the US. Are you saying that we have a long history of apprehending people on foreign soil that are citizens of countries we aren't at war with? I am sure it has happened, but I would bet it was pretty rare.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 9:05:59 AM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 2350
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
Is anyone suprised that liberals have sided with terrorists? It isn't like it's the first time. They expose our attempts to spy on them. They want to give them our battle plans. And when we capture them, they try to get them out of prison.
Isn't it funny that Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens and David Souter who sided with the majority were Republican appointed? Republican appointed judges are like a box of chocolates you never know just what you're going to get.
The facts on these suspects I posted a link to a couple days ago. Some of them are guilty of nothing more then fighting with the Taliban. Since the Taliban was the government of Afghanistan these men should be considered protected by the Geneva Conventions. I believe that persons 000004 and 000009 did nothing that would justify being called a terrorist. They were guilty of resisting the allied coalition which isn't illegal under any laws of war. There was no mention of some kind of crime that they committed such as putting on an American uniform to gain access to our rear areas. The first few men listen on the last page were the kind of men that the government claims- embassy bombings, the USS Cole, etc.
What men who were captured in an actual conflict are doing incarcerated with actual terrorists I'll never understand. Those captured in 2001 should be seperated and treated under the Geneva Conventions until such a time that the situation has stabilized in Afghanistan and they can be repatriated. I could care less what we do with the bombers of the USS Cole.
quote:
(Embassies are considered American soil...)
Since that is the case there have been so many attacks on US soil that American diplomats have to be forcefully sent to our Baghdad embassy or face being fired.
quote:
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30, 2005 – Multinational forces caught seven insurgents believed responsible for the rocket attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, on Jan. 29. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24225
quote:
BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. Embassy has ordered its staff to wear flak jackets and helmets while outdoors or in unprotected buildings following an increase in mortar and rocket attacks against the heavily protected Green Zone. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-05-09-embassy-order_N.htm
quote:
Under this new security boost, says a U.S. Embassy official who asked not to be identified, embassy personnel have been told to remain under "hardened cover." Instructed to avoid their trailers, some embassy staffers are now sleeping in reinforced buildings within the Green Zone, according to a source who has spoken with embassy officials in Baghdad. Embassy personnel have also been cautioned to limit their trips outdoors and, when they must leave the protection of reinforced structures, to wear flak jackets, protective eyewear, and helmets.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/04/us-iraq-petraeus-embassy-under-fire.html
quote:
Sana’a: The US embassy would remain closed at least until Saturday after being targeted by terrorist attacks on Tuesday, a diplomat said on Wednesday. http://www.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/yemen/10198645.html (They missed but we were the target)
There ya go 4 to your 3 John.
< Message edited by rlj -- 6/15/2008 9:12:32 AM >
_____________________________
-Roger
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 9:22:36 AM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11455
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
quote:
You may be right that we can't convince the terrorists out there. But we can convince people who are sympathising with them! Guantanamo Bay is just really bad PR for America at the moment, akin to Abu Ghraib. Sure, it's not true that American troops are all abusing prisoners like some did in Abu Ghraib, but the Middle East doesn't see it that way, thanks to propoganda and ill-informed media. The war on terrorism is fought equally on the battlefield and in the 'hearts and minds' of ordinary people.
It's not just the terrorist sympathizers, either. Gitmo is bad PR for America in Canada (trust me), Europe, etc - people who don't side with the terrorists or even slightly lean that way have problems with Gitmo.
_____________________________
Tricia
"There's a fine line between being open-minded and empty-headed." ~Michael Coren
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 10:10:10 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 754
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
What's wrong with shooting terrorists in the field of battle?
Because terrorism isn't in "the field of battle"; rather it takes place in the streets and the marketplaces-- that's what makes it terrorism.
What you are asking is similar to, "What's wrong with shooting criminals in the streets?"
The problems are:
1. You can't automatically know that whom you are shooting at is actually a terrorist/criminal.
2. Justice does not happen within the time it takes for one person to pull a trigger. Our whole idea of justice in America is based on the premise that mobs or angry individuals cannot be judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one.
quote:
I don't believe what is going in Cuba would meet the requirement of judging a righteous judgment
That "meets the requirement" more so than any other example I can think of! They act virtually autonomously-- no one is going to make the Gitmo interrogators judge justly, or act accordingly.
quote:
Though if they are charged and convicted of being a terrorist surely Christ wouldn't take issue with them being hung for their deed
Christ judged concerning one thing, and one alone: who was for him, and who was against him.
"He that is not with me is against me" Mt.12:30
"For he that is not against us is on our part." Mk.9:40
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/15/2008 10:17:44 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 10:56:55 AM
|
|
|
jkdjr25
Posts: 771
Joined: 2/19/2008
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
But that would be the point; the detainees don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
So what laws DO the US have to abide by in the international community or can we kill and torture whomever we deem necessary to protect ourselves? We can treat other countries citizens any way we wish?
It seems some people feel this way.
For the record I don't condone torture but does anyone here above the age of five years old believe this is something new? Long before 9/11 certain parts of the military conducted operations that included killing people and basically kidnapping them in order to extract information... No “due process” or courts… They were labeled “bad guys” and that was that… Who knows if any of those folks were locked up for who knows how long with no charges... The stuff going on in Cuba isn't anything knew, it's just more out in the open...
John
Just because it may have happened in the past doesn't make it ok. Torture is wrong, period, AND against US law. We should be applying the Geneva accords because it is the right thing to do.
< Message edited by jkdjr25 -- 6/15/2008 11:05:05 AM >
_____________________________
I reject your reality and subsitute my own.- Adam Savage, Mythbusters
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right - 6/15/2008 11:03:04 AM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 931
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: scutus
quote:
Win hearts and minds? Well I assure you letting a few captives out of prison is certainly not going to do that. The terrorists have already told us how we can win their hearts and minds and make them happy. Convert to Islam or drop dead. You may be right that we can't convince the terrorists out there. But we can convince people who are sympathising with them! Guantanamo Bay is just really bad PR for America at the moment, akin to Abu Ghraib. Sure, it's not true that American troops are all abusing prisoners like some did in Abu Ghraib, but the Middle East doesn't see it that way, thanks to propoganda and ill-informed media. The war on terrorism is fought equally on the battlefield and in the 'hearts and minds' of ordinary people.
I understand what you are saying about the propaganda and the media, I just don't think we ought to coddle to these people who are trying to make the U.S. look bad by giving into what they want us to do. There are always going to be lies spread through the media. If someone wants to believe everything they see on tv then no matter what happens, they will not be happy because the media is always going to put a negative spin on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
