Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Obama suspends trials at Guantanamo

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    For six marks, can anyone tell me why the phrase above is not routinely heard in American courts of law? Dude. You're on an Irish website. Around a decade ago, 98% of us voted to release our own home-grown terrorists to walk around on the streets, never mind give them due process.

    So because the Irish Govt is stupid the US Govt has to act the same way?:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #33
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    When they are willing to strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up and take as many of us with them as possible they don't deserve due course. Their still breathing and in one piece. That more than they deserve and the people defending them are pieces of ****.

    So we've established that you don't believe in our (the American) constitution and would like to piss on the graves of the founding fathers because of your personal feelings. Lets move on.

    Ok, so what else doesn't deserve due process?

    Murder? Rape? Paedophilia? What your'e saying is, depending on the alleged crime, some people don't deserve a fair hearing.

    In fact, depending on the perception of crime. I mean, I might see you as a terrorist, you might see me as an invader whose with the army who dropped a bomb on your pregnant wife.

    Either you have law and rule or you don't. You can't pick and choose because you're prejudiced against a certain people.


  • Options
    #34
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    So because the Irish Govt is stupid the US Govt has to act the same way?:rolleyes:
    Stupid, eh?

    We keep hearing about how Bush's shredding of the Constitution has kept America free from terrorist attacks on its soil since 9/11.

    When d'you suppose the last terrorist attack took place on Irish soil? Bearing in mind all the actual convicted (y'know, by a court of law) terrorists we have walking around?


  • Options
    #35
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Overheal wrote: »
    You havent answered my question. Bear in mind forum rules http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055396904

    What do you suggest we do if he strays from the rules... send him off to Gitmo perhaps?


  • Options
    #36
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,297 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It would be fitting :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Here is a quick one from a simple internet search. It really wasn't too difficult at all to find. I picked one from a source I consider to be nonpartisan in order to avoid the borish "right wing" clap trap type comments that are usually noted with my links when individuals can't dispute the facts, and just attack the source.
    http://thehill.com/byron-york/when-waterboarding-works-2007-12-13.html

    I think you will find I did attack the facts of your previous article so your argument makes no sense . You have no comeback to the fact that the lack of a "Gitmo" during the Clinton years worked also.


  • Options
    #38
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    It is not enough to just close Guantanamo down. Someone has to be held accountable for the inhumane treatment of the inmates.


  • Options
    #39
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Ludo wrote: »
    I think you will find I did attack the facts of your previous article so your argument makes no sense . You have no comeback to the fact that the lack of a "Gitmo" during the Clinton years worked also.

    FYI... The US was attacked during the Clinton years. He (and others to be fair) was just do blind to see we were already at war. Ergo no need for a Gitmo terrorist detainee type operation (although it was there during the Clinton years). And for those who think the terrorists just started planning the terror attacks of 9/11 on January 21, 2001 (the day after GWB took office), I have a bridge leading into Brooklyn to sell ya.


  • Options
    #40
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    I think you people need to read up on what torture really is. They got their 3 meals a day got to pray to Mecca when they wanted too. Nobody was maimed or mutilated. They're all healthy and still breathing properly [which is alot more than most these ****s deserve] Wow we doused them with water how horrible. The bastards needed baths anyway.
    Very very wrong, nearly 100 people have died while in custody since 2002 (page 9 here, not just talking about Guantanamo), some by torture; the Bush administration itself has even admitted to having used torture!


  • Options
    #41
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    FYI... The US was attacked during the Clinton years. He (and others to be fair) was just do blind to see we were already at war. Ergo no need for a Gitmo terrorist detainee type operation (although it was there during the Clinton years). And for those who think the terrorists just started planning the terror attacks of 9/11 on January 21, 2001 (the day after GWB took office), I have a bridge leading into Brooklyn to sell ya.

    If you had read earlier I did state that there was an attack one month into Clintons term. Never said there was not ANY during his term just that he kept USA from attack for longer than Bush has. I would guess that attack was planned during a Bush presidency also :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    The answer to your question might best be poised in the form of another question... Why close Gitmo?

    PR?


  • Options
    #43
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Ludo wrote: »
    Never said there was not ANY during his term just that he kept USA from attack for longer than Bush has. I would guess that attack was planned during a Bush presidency also :rolleyes:

    As I recall, during the Clinton years there was the 1993 First World Trade Center Bombing as mentioned, then the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya, and the USS Cole bombing in October of 2000. I guess that’s what happens when you fight terrorism in the courtroom... you keep getting attacked. (I might have forgotten a few.)


  • Options
    #44
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Stekelly wrote: »
    PR?

    As stupid and ridiculous as the reasoning, "PR" might be the best answer to the question of "why close Gitmo".


  • Options
    #45
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    As I recall, during the Clinton years there was the 1993 First World Trade Center Bombing as mentioned, then the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya, and the USS Cole bombing in October of 2000. I guess that’s what happens when you fight terrorism in the courtroom... you keep getting attacked. (I might have forgotten a few.)

    Oh right. Ya see the article you linked to said there were no attacks ON US SOIL. That is what we were discussing. If you are now changing this to terrorist attacks on US interests anywhere in the world, I think you will find that by Bushs own definition of terrorism, there has been terrorist attacks on US interests on every single day since the US went into Afghanistan. That must be the worst record of any US president. Make up your mind what you are arguing please and stop trying to change it to suit your point of view.


  • Options
    #46
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    As stupid and ridiculous as the reasoning, "PR" might be the best answer to the question of "why close Gitmo".

    I actually agree. The good PR of closing Gitmo, banning torture and living up to the US constitution will help restore the American image throughout the world and help restore its moral authority. Is this a bad thing?


  • Options
    #47
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Ludo wrote: »
    Oh right. Ya see the article you linked to said there were no attacks ON US SOIL. That is what we were discussing. If you are now changing this to terrorist attacks on US interests anywhere in the world, I think you will find that by Bushs own definition of terrorism, there has been terrorist attacks on US interests on every single day since the US went into Afghanistan. That must be the worst record of any US president. Make up your mind what you are arguing please and stop trying to change it to suit your point of view.

    I believe a US Embassy is technically considered US soil. And being a BJ (and yes that is a play on words) Clinton fan, I think you would appreciated the phrase "it all depends on what your definition of is is."


  • Options
    #48
    CamperMan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭CamperMan


    how many have been released ... 50?, 50 suspect terrorists being allowed to go free.... has Obama gone mad?


  • Options
    #49
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    How about the US embassies in Kabul and Baghdad then...plenty of action there.

    By the way, There have been 14 attacks on US embassies during the Bush presidency excluding the Kabul and Baghdad ones.

    Give some good reasons to keep Gitmo open. Why is it necessary to stoop to the level of terrorists to defeat them?


  • Options
    #50
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Ludo wrote: »
    Give some good reasons to keep Gitmo open. Why is it necessary to stoop to the level of terrorists to defeat them?

    You may have hit on something. Although we don’t, we could stoop to the level of the terrorists -- kill them all without mercy. No need for the troops to second guess what to do -- Take no prisoners! Then I guess you’re right... here will be no need for a Gitmo.


  • Options
    #51
    figs86
    Registered Users Posts: 334 ✭✭figs86


    for those who are interested in reading another forum where i had a posting duel with some very stubborn, very republican americans do click the link:

    http://forums.cigaraficionado.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9426054/m/588107485/p/1

    i supplied a definition of torture for them from the U.N. Convention Against Torture (that their Government had signed up to) and they still said no, America doesn't torture people because they make up their own definition of torture

    Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:
    “ any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

    what goes on in gitmo is torture.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    figs86 wrote: »
    for those who are interested in reading another forum where i had a posting duel with some very stubborn, very republican americans do click the link:

    http://forums.cigaraficionado.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9426054/m/588107485/p/1

    i supplied a definition of torture for them from the U.N. Convention Against Torture (that their Government had signed up to) and they still said no, America doesn't torture people because they make up their own definition of torture

    Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is:
    “ any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

    what goes on in gitmo is torture.
    It's also worth noting that under article 7 of that convention, the U.S. is obliged to prosecute Bush/Rumsfeld; it's not optional.


  • Options
    #53
    Jim_Are_Great
    Closed Accounts Posts: 652 ✭✭✭Jim_Are_Great


    Nice Guy wrote:
    If you f*cking beat this pr1ck long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it f*cking so!

    Damn lefties.


  • Options
    #54
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,301 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Ludo wrote: »
    If we are going to get into silly debates, then technically Clinton kept America safer for longer than Bush...and he is a democrat...oh my god!
    Sudan offered Bin Laden on a plate to the US. Clinton says no. Sudan attacks the USS Cole, Clinton does nothing. I think Clinton was thinking with the wrong head during his term?

    =-=

    As for camp xray, a good prisoner will hold out, and then tell the captors false information after some torture. This information, due to being gained by means of torture, may be seen as "good intel", and be the cause of American troops in Iraq. It's f**king bullsh|t. Reliable intel is rarely gotten by torture. If they're innocent, let them go.

    If they were caught holding any sort of arms whilst with the enemy, they are guilty. If they shoot at americans, or their allies, they are guilty.

    If they are guilty, shoot them there and then, or face charges for staying alive, and not letting your enemy shoot you to ensure he's your enemy, and not a "journalist" carrying a gun...:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #55
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    torture is a fidget issue

    what was scary about Guantanamo was the government was not obligated to stay who was there and why

    that means the US had the power to make people disappear without explanation

    scary


  • Options
    #56
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Great! Our nincompoop DEMOCRAT congressman Jack Murtha wants to welcome a flood of Guantanamo Bay jihadis into my state. Finally has proven to me that Pennsylvania has been invaded and is now ruled by complete idiots. Looks like now I’ve got to go out and purchase a couple more firearms on top of the ones I just picked up in advance of Obama’s impending attack against the second admendment.

    I wonder if we have to take their jihadists, can we send Murtha to Gitmo?


  • Options
    #57
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Great! Our nincompoop DEMOCRAT congressman Jack Murtha wants to welcome a flood of Guantanamo Bay jihadis into my state.
    Let me ask you this, since JohnMc1 ran away from the debate: how do you know they're jihadists? Are you a conditional believer in the constitution also?


  • Options
    #58
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Let me ask you this, since JohnMc1 ran away from the debate: how do you know they're jihadists? Are you a conditional believer in the constitution also?


    Do I know without a shadow of a doubt that the remaining detainees are jihadists… no. But since so many detainees have already been released, many who have gone back to their terrorist ways, I assume what are left are the really really really bad guys. You can look up examples if you wish, its quite easy… take special interest in Said Ali al-Shihri.

    And yes I believe in the Constitution, but before I bite any further, what have you got up your sleeve? And please don't be selective in your Constitutional facts. Lots of abuses by the Democrats against the so called "living" Constitution. Once we lock them all up first, then maybe we can look at Constitutional debate regarding Bush and Rumsfeld. Looks like this might get fun.


  • Options
    #59
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Do I know without a shadow of a doubt that the remaining detainees are jihadists… no. But since so many detainees have already been released, many who have gone back to their terrorist ways, I assume what are left are the really really really bad guys. You can look up examples if you wish, its quite easy… take special interest in Said Ali al-Shihri.

    One example. And this guy was released by Bush.

    Do you have sources for others because despite the scaremongering since this story broke last week, I haven't seen any others.

    And yes I believe in the Constitution, but before I bite any further, what have you got up your sleeve? And please don't be selective in your Constitutional facts. Lots of abuses by the Democrats against the so called "living" Constitution. Once we lock them all up first, then maybe we can look at Constitutional debate regarding Bush and Rumsfeld. Looks like this might get fun.
    But noone is asking about Democrats, they were asking YOU what YOu believe.

    If you don't have the conviction to stand by our constitution and such things as the Bill of Rights and due process, then you're equal to the people who are trying to destroy our way of life and our constitution from the outside.

    Maybe worse, because at least they declare they want to do it.


  • Options
    #60
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Do I know without a shadow of a doubt that the remaining detainees are jihadists… no. But since so many detainees have already been released, many who have gone back to their terrorist ways, I assume what are left are the really really really bad guys. You can look up examples if you wish, its quite easy… take special interest in Said Ali al-Shihri.
    Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
    And yes I believe in the Constitution, but before I bite any further, what have you got up your sleeve? And please don't be selective in your Constitutional facts. Lots of abuses by the Democrats against the so called "living" Constitution. Once we lock them all up first, then maybe we can look at Constitutional debate regarding Bush and Rumsfeld. Looks like this might get fun.
    Nothing up my sleeve. I'm curious how you reconcile the indefinite detainment of suspects without trial - worse yet, the presumption of guilt - with a Constitution that was designed to prevent precisely that sort of tyrrany by your government.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    One at a time please.

    GuanYin… glad to see you back and on my case again girl!

    First, war is hell.

    5 second internet search… here are 61 more for you. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/pentagon_says_61_former_gitmo.html

    The Constitution applies to US Citizens.

    The detainees in Gitmo don’t fall under the Geneva Convention.

    Yeah, I know… not quite superfluous. I think more in depth debate will have to take place over the weekend when I have more time for this serious discussion. Sorry.


Advertisement