Guantanamo Bay

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Devin, you are in no position to be telling anyone what to do, lol.

 

Guantanamo Bay is unethical. The fact that other countries have been unethical with greater frequency does not permit the U.S. to be unethical in a smaller fashion. America should be ethical in all that it does. Period.

 

When we live in an ethical world this would be an ideal statement. Since we dont we do the best we can with what we have. Humans are flawed and not just soldiers. Look around every single one of us is guilty of something unethical. It is the human race and is going to happen, frankly I am surprised it has not been worse.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

 

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 

I realize that these people aren't citizens but these are some of the most basic human rights that this country was supposedly founded on. If we don't defend them and uphold them then we have already lost. Remember, these "terrorists" are in many cases responding to UNITED STATES aggression. We stick our noses in peoples business and tell them how to live and tell them what rules they need to follow when we don't even follow our own.

 

So you are more upset with the POTUS and Congress than the military in regards to that sentiment correct ?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The fact that people are brought there, held there indefinitely without trial, and tortured.

 

Again how do you know they were not brought to trial. Secret trials by military tribunal happen all the time.

[seanbrock 1,684]

So you are more upset with the POTUS and Congress than the military in regards to that sentiment correct ?

Yeah definitely.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Yeah definitely.

 

Ok then yep, agree wholeheartedly.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Again how do you know they were not brought to trial. Secret trials by military tribunal happen all the time.

Then send them to a prison where they won't be tortured.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Good.

 

lol @ constantly using Wikipedia as a legitimate source.

 

Wiki is fine as a source.

 

And if you don't care about them doing that to a human being, (look at the list they've done to other detainees, btw), what about that shit does to the person who is "interrogating" them.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Then send them to a prison where they won't be tortured.

 

Should the rooms have tea cozies and cable television ?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Should the rooms have tea cozies and cable television ?

 

Why make such a quick, far-fetched jump from "not tortured" to "tea cozies and cable TV"?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Why make such a quick, far-fetched jump from "not tortured" to "tea cozies and cable TV"?

 

It is the same far fetched jump that EVERYBODY is tortured.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

It is the same far fetched jump that EVERYBODY is tortured.

 

Who said that?

[OSUViking 505]

There's a massive difference between giving them the lifestyle of some upper-middle-class families and guaranteeing that they, at the bare minimum, won't be tortured and treated as subhuman.

[blotsfan 2,112]

It is the same far fetched jump that EVERYBODY is tortured.

So you admit that people are tortured there.

You also support keeping Guantanamo Bay open.

Therefore, you're fine with the government torturing people.

 

You (and anyone else who feels the same) are wrong. There is no grey area. If the United States wants to claim that it is a country where people have rights. We can not torture anyone. No matter what they've done. If we do not treat them like people, we have no right to complain or be surprised when they do the same to us.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I was kinda ambiguous on this topic when it opened, but after doing a bit of research, I have to agree with blots on this one.

 

To the point that I just did a presentation in our ethics class on why we need to close Guantanomo Bay.

 

To me, torture isn't even the real issue here. It just amplifies it.

 

We cannot hold people against their will for an indefinite period of time simply because we suspect them of being criminals. It is true that 1 out of 4 people who we release from Gitmo are suspected of returning to terrorist activities. 1 out of 6 are confirmed to have returned to terrorist activities. While that number is higher than it needs to be, that's still 3 out of 4 people that we release that do not engage in terrorist activities, suspected or otherwise. Is it okay to hold 166 people on no charges for an extended length of time without charging them with a thing, simply because we consider them to be prisoners in a vague "war on terror"? This isn't a war against a country, there isn't an end-goal in sight. There isn't something like "Here are the three things we must do to end this war." We can't just hold these people forever merely on suspicion. If they cannot be tried in a civilian court because classified information would have to brought to light in order to convict them, that's fine, but they still need a trial. If it has to be by military tribunal, so be it.

 

The other thing we have to consider if it we're making even more terrorists. I don't know about you, but if I was held by a foreign nation against my will for ten years without them charging me with anything and I was, in fact, innocent, I wouldn't exactly harbor good feelings towards that particular country. And given the inmates mostly Muslim backgrounds, that religion has already proven itself to be hostile to the US, so it might not take as much as it would for an American, for a previously innocent man to turn into a terrorist because of experiences he underwent at Gitmo.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Maverick 791]

It's alright Ngata, usually you don't want to be in the majority. Especially in the politically correct forum known as TGP lol.

I'd love to hear some of your ideas though for a high-security prison. I can picture some of you making it more pleasant than low-income households.

[Thanatos 2,847]

It's alright Ngata, usually you don't want to be in the majority. Especially in the politically correct forum known as TGP lol.

I'd love to hear some of your ideas though for a high-security prison. I can picture some of you making it more pleasant than low-income households.

 

Mav you have a terrible tendency to put up strawmen in every single argument. No one is saying that a high security prison should be comfy, we are saying you shouldn't be torturing people because they are *suspected* of being enemies. Heck, I would go so far as to say, (gasp), that torturing people period is wrong. You're okay with making them shit on themselves, degrading them sexually, humiliating them publicly by making them bark like a dog, etc? You're really, honestly, deep down okay with that?

 

How about the case of Specialist Sean Baker, who went down under orders from the sergeant to pretend to be an inmate so they could practice the drill of how to get him out, and then because his comrades weren't told he was actually a soldier, they beat his head into the concrete with enough force to cause a brain injury serious enough that he now suffers periodic seizures that are severe enough that the Army had to discharge him from duty?

 

You're okay with an institution holding people merely because they are suspected of being enemies for a long period of time without charging them? NINE of the 166 prisoners have been charged with a crime. Nine people out of 166.

 

This is not a direct relation, but it's pretty damn close: Are you also okay with what the US did to the Japanese living in America during WW2? Rounding them up and putting them in internment camps merely because of the suspicion they would betray us to the enemy? It's obviously more severe in this case, as it was simply their race that made them suspicious, but the relation is still there. You cannot hold people indefinitely on mere suspicion. Prove it in a court of law or a military tribunal, and if you can't do so, then release them.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Thanatos19

[blotsfan 2,112]

It's alright Ngata, usually you don't want to be in the majority. Especially in the politically correct forum known as TGP lol.

I'd love to hear some of your ideas though for a high-security prison. I can picture some of you making it more pleasant than low-income households.

I'm pretty sure the US already has maximum security prisons.

[Turry 755]

To what was said already. A country that prides itself on equality and freedom but yet takes people from their own country on 'suspicion' of terrorism and holds them in captivity and make them do humiliating things like getting the prisoners to jerk off in front of them not to mention the physical abuse does not seem very 'patriotic' to me and makes the whole point of freedom moot.

[CARDINAL 205]

Devin, you are in no position to be telling anyone what to do, lol.

 

Guantanamo Bay is unethical. The fact that other countries have been unethical with greater frequency does not permit the U.S. to be unethical in a smaller fashion. America should be ethical in all that it does. Period.

 

Zack, I never said it was ethical whatsoever. My earlier post on the first page of this thread, I stated that it should be closed down, partly based on your reasoning.

 

I was making that post towards Terrence because he was making a comment in his earlier post that had nothing to do with the topic of this thread whatsoever.

 

I made a comment about the role of the American military involving that base, since it is a relevant point because it is a military installation and military prison where the inmates are currently being held!

[CARDINAL 205]

I'm pretty sure the US already has maximum security prisons.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence

 

ADX Florence in Florence, Colorado is where other high profile terrorist and other dangerous serial killers, rapists, gang leaders, Mafia Dons,etc are sent. It is the most secure prison in the world, so the surviving Boston Bombings suspect would go there if he is convicted (presumed innocent until proven guilty). So realistically, the federal government could try the remaining inmates at Guantanamo Bay, and if they are convicted of any federal crime of terrorism or another offense, they could just be sent there for the rest of their lifes, or until they receive the death penalty, if that was the final sentence after conviction.

 

I have read that roughly half of the inamtes at Guantanamo Bay Prison have actually been cleared of any crime, they were basically in the wrong place at the wrong time, but there is legitimate fear that they would be tortured if they were sent back to their home country. So for 5those particular inmates, there needs to be a final solution in each case where the inamte that has been cleared of any crime should be able to leave to either there home country, or a third country that is willing to take them in and respect their God-given rights!

[Thanatos 2,847]

lolDevin negging everyone in the thread.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

So you admit that people are tortured there.

You also support keeping Guantanamo Bay open.

Therefore, you're fine with the government torturing people.

 

You (and anyone else who feels the same) are wrong. There is no grey area. If the United States wants to claim that it is a country where people have rights. We can not torture anyone. No matter what they've done. If we do not treat them like people, we have no right to complain or be surprised when they do the same to us.

 

Haha yes put wordsin my mouth that I did not say. I did not admit to anyone being tortured there, I have not seen it therefore I cant say one way or the other. Neither have you come to think of it unless it was on a school field trip.

 

Secont if you are going to play the,"Well if we do it to them they will do it to us rhetoric," just remember who started this shit. They chop Americans heads off, video tape it, and then put it on global TV so their families can see their family members begging them for their lives. Again you wont find sympathy from me about their plight. Do you operate under the assumption we live in a perfect world ? If not, what is a suggestion on how we capture all the guilty people and none of the innocent people? I am sure that is such a novel concept that nobody had ever thought about it. The rub is that it is impossible so how do you differentiate them all ? On the one hand you got people (me) who think a better safe than sorry approach is the best bet, and then the camp (you) that says just let them all go if you dont know which of the 4 did it, doesnt matter that one is responsible for killing people as an act of terror. Those other 3 are not worth my countrymens lives imo not a one of them.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I was kinda ambiguous on this topic when it opened, but after doing a bit of research, I have to agree with blots on this one.

 

To the point that I just did a presentation in our ethics class on why we need to close Guantanomo Bay.

 

To me, torture isn't even the real issue here. It just amplifies it.

 

We cannot hold people against their will for an indefinite period of time simply because we suspect them of being criminals. It is true that 1 out of 4 people who we release from Gitmo are suspected of returning to terrorist activities. 1 out of 6 are confirmed to have returned to terrorist activities. While that number is higher than it needs to be, that's still 3 out of 4 people that we release that do not engage in terrorist activities, suspected or otherwise. Is it okay to hold 166 people on no charges for an extended length of time without charging them with a thing, simply because we consider them to be prisoners in a vague "war on terror"? This isn't a war against a country, there isn't an end-goal in sight. There isn't something like "Here are the three things we must do to end this war." We can't just hold these people forever merely on suspicion. If they cannot be tried in a civilian court because classified information would have to brought to light in order to convict them, that's fine, but they still need a trial. If it has to be by military tribunal, so be it.

 

The other thing we have to consider if it we're making even more terrorists. I don't know about you, but if I was held by a foreign nation against my will for ten years without them charging me with anything and I was, in fact, innocent, I wouldn't exactly harbor good feelings towards that particular country. And given the inmates mostly Muslim backgrounds, that religion has already proven itself to be hostile to the US, so it might not take as much as it would for an American, for a previously innocent man to turn into a terrorist because of experiences he underwent at Gitmo.

 

To the first paragraph with the 1 of 6 CONFIRMED. How do you know which 5 are innocent until you let them go ? Thereis no way of telling who the guilty one is and who the innocent people are.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It's alright Ngata, usually you don't want to be in the majority. Especially in the politically correct forum known as TGP lol.

I'd love to hear some of your ideas though for a high-security prison. I can picture some of you making it more pleasant than low-income households.

 

I will say this, for what some of the evil bastards have done in Iraq, the things I would do to those people would make peoples skin crawl. I remember times where you would see some shit or hear about it and then just spend days thinking of what you would do to that son of a bitch had you ever got him. It would be long, painful, and tenacious.

 

Max security prisons should be just that. You dont get let out. you get fed 3 times a day by a guy who is blind and deaf. That is it, no yard time, no recreation no crafts. You get a cot and a toilet, enjoy.

[Thanatos 2,847]

To the first paragraph with the 1 of 6 CONFIRMED. How do you know which 5 are innocent until you let them go ? Thereis no way of telling who the guilty one is and who the innocent people are.

 

So... we just keep all 6 in prison? It's just fine holding 5 innocent people indefinitely against their will to keep that one guilty guy off the streets?