Guantanamo Redux

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steel1sh

It's obvious that you have very strong opinions/feelings on this matter.

Can you say with all honesty that if your family or (God forbid) if you had a child who's life was in direct danger from a terrorist and the ONLY way you could find out where the child was being held was to torture one of the terrorist pals of the ringleader...you would NOT do this? I can say with all honesty, that if a terrorist was holding my child and I caught one of his buddies, God help him.

---

I've heard this arguement thrown around so many times for the side of torture.

First of all, these prisoners have been in Gitmo for years, nothing they could possibly know could stop an imminent attack, unless they all have email access!

Secondly, assuming that someone was just caught, and the above scenario played out exactly as you mentioned (as unlikely as it is), what's to stop this person intent on killing from making crap up.


I can not believe that this sort of arguement is playing out in the "free world".

I think it was Bush that said "They hate us for our freedom". If that is true, then they're winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bren122

your argument depends on the acceptance that an emotional response is the best response- that relying on outrage or anger or desperation is a suitable justification for any action.

---

Absolutely not. My argument is that we simply do not know how we will respond to ANY given situation unless we are actually confronted with it and I was honest enough to say that I truly do not know how I would react in that situation. I would love to be altruistic and say that I would be "above" my enemy...but I cannot truly say that, since I have never been confronted with that. However, that does not apply only to the scenario I outlined. It also applies to the difficult decisions that our government is throwing at us right now. (Health Care, Cap and Trade, and our current administration in the White House) How each individual will respond to this and either defend the United States as the country it was created to be, or vote in favor of moving forward and transforming it into a different sort of government is also something I was alluding to.

For so many years now the majority of Americans sat back and allowed the backstabbing political arena to sway their votes, rather than actually looking into candidates issues, what they stood for, viewing their track record and conduct in whatever capacity they worked before and voting accordingly. We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents, rather than being sheep led by politicians...and this includes voicing our concerns with what happened at Gitmo. Rather than debate it amongst ourselves, we need to let our politicians know how we feel through emails and phone calls. THAT is the only way something will be done decisively with citizen input.

Point is that all qualifies as hearsay. Ant storiews in the service travel through many ears and mouth. We all know what that does to the fact of the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

I would say Duh!....But:

Its not him alone, the other guys in his unit that I know also have mentioned things.

---

It is not legal loop holing. It is clearly spelled out who is not covered by the Conventions. And the people in question do not meet the requirements of the Conventions.
Yet in spite of that they are being provided with many if not most of them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

A bit of legal loop holing to justify it doesnt mean its right. Besides there are quite a few legal scholars out there that disagree with your point of view.

---

Your implication is you are married to a special operator and I will not even try to discuss anything along those lines.

The problem is that people that say "no torture" and those that say "torture" do not agree on what they are talking about. With out that agreement there can really be no discussion!

Is it right for somebody to walk into a wedding reception sit down among the guests and detonate a bomb? Is it right for somebody to board a random airplane and attempt to blow it up? Another point to consider is that these are not isolated incidents!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

So you have a source you consider valid saying that torture is no longer taking place who is stationed at GTMO as a what? Interogator?

Where as I have a scource who's job involves things I can't speak about, but who is also directly involved with the issue in question, yes ...DIRECTLY. He isnt at GTMO on any regular basis that I know of however, (but GTMO isnt the only place where interogations take place now is it) but some of his friends who are interogators there are; and well, as Ive allready mentioned, its still happening.

As for what our police do and do not, read over the list of things I presented again. I am not talking about a little sleep deprevation now am I?

You can try to self justify and candy coat and side step the issue all you want. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

---

"Bikies"?? Am I to understand that is the Aussie version of MCGs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bren122

when you act like the enemy, you become the enemy. i am all for a few adjustments to the civil code to make it easier to get the information we need- and i think that we're getting more than enough for our safety under the original laws- but we're on a slippery slope. In Western Australia our government has introduced new search and seizure laws on the basis that it has worked against the terrorists, it should also work against bikies- it worked against the bikies so we can try it on the hooligans who carry on cranky on Friday and Saturday night. New Year's Eve we had 2000 'Incidents' and 250 arrests- about 20 times more than last year with fewer public events. where does it stop?

---

Hear! Hear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

As you said, only governments can bring actions under the conventions and protocol.

My point is that NO ONE knows what they would do in a given situation unless that specific situation occurs. It's easy to step up and be righteous when you're not the one faced with such choices.

---

Field intelligence does not really have a shelf life. While a specific piece of data may in fact be "dated" it is still intell. All intell is of value regardless of age. At worst it confirms something you know, at best it tells you about something actionable. Most often it is a lead to search down.
All good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

I've heard this arguement thrown around so many times for the side of torture.

First of all, these prisoners have been in Gitmo for years, nothing they could possibly know could stop an imminent attack, unless they all have email access!

Secondly, assuming that someone was just caught, and the above scenario played out exactly as you mentioned (as unlikely as it is), what's to stop this person intent on killing from making crap up.


I can not believe that this sort of arguement is playing out in the "free world".

I think it was Bush that said "They hate us for our freedom". If that is true, then they're winning.

---

"We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents"
The sentiment is correct! But should the statement not be "return to being knowledgeable constituents"?
Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

Absolutely not. My argument is that we simply do not know how we will respond to ANY given situation unless we are actually confronted with it and I was honest enough to say that I truly do not know how I would react in that situation. I would love to be altruistic and say that I would be "above" my enemy...but I cannot truly say that, since I have never been confronted with that. However, that does not apply only to the scenario I outlined. It also applies to the difficult decisions that our government is throwing at us right now. (Health Care, Cap and Trade, and our current administration in the White House) How each individual will respond to this and either defend the United States as the country it was created to be, or vote in favor of moving forward and transforming it into a different sort of government is also something I was alluding to.

For so many years now the majority of Americans sat back and allowed the backstabbing political arena to sway their votes, rather than actually looking into candidates issues, what they stood for, viewing their track record and conduct in whatever capacity they worked before and voting accordingly. We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents, rather than being sheep led by politicians...and this includes voicing our concerns with what happened at Gitmo. Rather than debate it amongst ourselves, we need to let our politicians know how we feel through emails and phone calls. THAT is the only way something will be done decisively with citizen input.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

"We are now faced with becoming knowledgeable constituents"
The sentiment is correct! But should the statement not be "return to being knowledgeable constituents"?
Just a thought.

---

*smiles*

Yes, that should be the statement, unfortunately, it doesn't apply to everyone. Most of America trusted their politicians to do the job they were elected to do. NOT further their own agenda via lobbyists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

*smiles*

Yes, that should be the statement, unfortunately, it doesn't apply to everyone. Most of America trusted their politicians to do the job they were elected to do. NOT further their own agenda via lobbyists

---

Maybe what we have is 535 lobbyists that are being paid by the budget. I mean since they are insisting on doing what such a small portion of the people want! Isn't that what a lobbyist gets paid for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Maybe what we have is 535 lobbyists that are being paid by the budget. I mean since they are insisting on doing what such a small portion of the people want! Isn't that what a lobbyist gets paid for?

---

You mean, get paid to "lobby" for their corporation's/interest group's consideration and special favors, etc? Yes, and if the corporations and/or special interest groups that paid the lobbyists actually had altruistic motives and the best interests of the American people on their mind, I wouldn't mind so much...and we would all be in a much better place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

You mean, get paid to "lobby" for their corporation's/interest group's consideration and special favors, etc? Yes, and if the corporations and/or special interest groups that paid the lobbyists actually had altruistic motives and the best interests of the American people on their mind, I wouldn't mind so much...and we would all be in a much better place.

---

No ... no ... no! I am talking about the 535 lobbyists that you and I are paying out of the Federal budget (and their staffs)!!