Guantanamo bay and Obama
-
thrash;255866 wrote:
You might want to look up Jose Padilla in Wikipedia.American citizen, captured on US soil, put in Gitmo and held without charges for years.
Right to a fair trial is a pretty big fucking deal.
I'd take 10 more 9/11s before I'd be ok with me or you or some other innocent guy getting thrown in a hole for 5 years and never being charged with anything. Are we the fucking soviet union?
In my America we don't detain people without due process. It doesn't matter where they came from or what we think they might be up to.
Closing GitMo is probably dumb. Changing the rules to allow Gitmo detainees due process is something we should do.
Couldn't agree more thrash. An excellent post.
-
so you just said that you would rather 30,000 innocent people die than one innocent man, who must have done SOMETHING, end up in GT bay? Wow, Chuck, wow.
And GT bay is a far cry from the Gulag, so don't even throw that out there. That's such a BS comparison i can't even start on that one.
It's easy to cry about fair treatment of prisoners and terrorists while you sit in your nice comfy office or home typing away on your computer. Its easy for you and me and everyone to say how it should be, but that is different from what needs to be done. Its sad that we as Americans have gotten so out of touch with what it takes to be able to preserve this lifestyle. You and i have never had to pay the price for what we have.
-
I can choose not to visit NYC.
I can't choose to not be kidnapped by black helicopters from US soil.
It's stupid to protect "America" from terrorists if doing so means you stop being America. In America, we don't detain people without charging them, and we don't let them rot in jail for years without getting a trial.
Of course I don't want 30,000 people to die. But it's a false dichotemy I used to illustrate the point: the idea of American justice from the time of Jefferson onward is that it is better for 10 guilty men to walk free than for 1 to be wrongly imprisoned. Free people can defend themselves from guys that the justice system hasn't caught yet. But nobody can defend themselves from a government that has no rules it has to obey.
-
I totally agree that they should be given the due process of the law, as we as American citizens enjoy (or are supposed to). But i disagree that GT bay should be closed, as it serves as a vital holding point for known terrorists and their accomplices. Have a fair trial, present evidence, and hang em high if they are guilty.
-
I think we're on the same page. I wouldn't making closing Gitmo a priority.
My understanding is that they like to use it because they dont think US law applies there. I think that's wrong and i think we need to lead by example and show that our system is just enough that we'll use it on anyone, no matter where they came from or what we think they did.
-
GarageAlchemist;255887 wrote:
so you just said that you would rather 30,000 innocent people die than one innocent man, who must have done SOMETHING, end up in GT bay? Wow, Chuck, wow.And GT bay is a far cry from the Gulag, so don't even throw that out there. That's such a BS comparison i can't even start on that one.
It's easy to cry about fair treatment of prisoners and terrorists while you sit in your nice comfy office or home typing away on your computer. Its easy for you and me and everyone to say how it should be, but that is different from what needs to be done. Its sad that we as Americans have gotten so out of touch with what it takes to be able to preserve this lifestyle. You and i have never had to pay the price for what we have.
Funny, I agree with a post that someone else wrote and I get accused of being the guy saying it. But on principle I do agree, because as thrash has posted I don't want to stop being America to protect America.
-
He closed it.
-
how about we load em up in a jeep and send em down a long road riddled with roadside bombs?
You may not agree that it should be closed, or that we should keep prisoners without holding a trial. But its all perspective. To them, WE are the terrorists, to us, THEY are the terrorists? Who is right? None are right, and all are right. But they aren't going to stop trying to kill us, so what is it that we should do? I say holding them in a cell is much better than what they would rather do to us.
-
In all honesty, I don't think that Gitmo should be closed. I also don't see a point in holding them there indefinitely either. Get the information we need from prisoners or whatnot and either execute them, let them go or charge them with something and lock 'em up. The state of limbo is not necessarily a good thing.
That being said, there is a lot of information that goes into this decision that we are not privy to so any speculation/opinions that we have may or may not be completely accurate.
-
GarageAlchemist;257046 wrote:
how about we load em up in a jeep and send em down a long road riddled with roadside bombs?You may not agree that it should be closed, or that we should keep prisoners without holding a trial. But its all perspective. To them, WE are the terrorists, to us, THEY are the terrorists? Who is right? None are right, and all are right. But they aren't going to stop trying to kill us, so what is it that we should do? I say holding them in a cell is much better than what they would rather do to us.
I think the main difference between "us" and "them" is that we never try to kill civilians in wartime nor do we hide behind civilians to try protect ourselves. That is a big difference between how the two sides operate...sure we may be viewed as terrorists to them or whoever but there is a big difference in the way we operate vs the way they do.
MisterCMK;257047 wrote:
In all honesty, I don't think that Gitmo should be closed. I also don't see a point in holding them there indefinitely either. Get the information we need from prisoners or whatnot and either execute them, let them go or charge them with something and lock 'em up. The state of limbo is not necessarily a good thing.That being said, there is a lot of information that goes into this decision that we are not privy to so any speculation/opinions that we have may or may not be completely accurate.
Exactly. We don't know half of the story when it comes to most of this stuff but I think just shutting it down is kind of a short sighted attempt at trying to appease to world and make yourself (referring to Obama) look like you care.
-
shit, we pay for it. And its our "elected leader" that makes the decision, so why shouldn't we be privvy to the information that goes into the decision.
The second part of what Dustin said i agree with totally.
-
Shutting it down doesn't necessarily mean they all get sent home. Those held on charges will be sent to a different detainment camp elsewhere (from my understanding)
-
I fuckin love this.
Obama shuts it down-idiot
Mccain shuts it down-brilliant.
-
The whole thing is a big sham so Obama can score points with the lefties. He said he's going to close it within the next year? wtf? Over the course of the year he's going to decide what should be done with them... shouldn't he have thought that through before hand?
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Bp-08;255724 wrote:
they are suspected terrorists. who cares if they are guilty or not. i mean even if they arnt guilty, they were still somehow a suspected terrorists and its not like the government just goes and picks random people and say they are a terrorist.
People who are "persons of interest" aren't necessarily thrown into slammers either in murder cases whatever.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login