The Road to Guantanamo

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Anyone seen it yet?

Considering seeing it later today, at the movie theatre.

 

Great that the torture at Guantanamo's getting so much attention. Bloody disgrace, if you ask me.

[StaffSaberist]

Indeed, it isn't exactly something any American wants to bring up.

 

Quite seriously, the men in charge of Guantanamo and Gitmo need to be put into jail immediately. They are a disgrace to our country and do not represent America at all.

 

Now, I can just see ShadowTemplar ranting about how all this is Bush's fault. If you're reading this, ST, save it. I've heard it before and don't care to hear it again. Quite seriously, the men in charge of this who need jail time (perhaps with some of the detainees?) are the owners, head interrogators, etc.. The people in charge of the building. Even if they did nothing wrong, they sure as hell didn't do right.

 

As for the movie, I'm not going to watch it. Really, one look at the words "drama" and "documentary" speaks volumes. If this turns out to be a Muslim version of The Passion of the Christ I wouldn't be surprised one bit. I haven't heard of Michael Winterbottom and I can't find any info on his political alignment. A shame. I was interested in this as it would tell all concerning how this movie will be portrayed.

 

The movie, I noticed, has some scathing reviews about the movie being "unashamedly political", and similar. To be fair, others are touting it as the best movie in a long time. Either way, it slams hard on a scab noone wants touched. I have a respect for Michael Winterbottom; he's got serious cajones putting this to film. I don't know how accurate the movie is; it may be fact or fiction, but either way, based on the reviews, it's terrifying.

 

My only real concern, however, is the possibility that Muslim extremists will attempt a Jihad in an attempt to free these prisoners. Should they be released? Maybe, maybe not. I'm personally leaning toward the latter, though I'd need more info on each case before I could even decide. However, terrorist attacks aren't the way to go, and I'm hoping against hope the Musims know this. Most do; it's the minority that worry me.

 

With all that in mind, there is a legal standpoint as well. As sad as this may seem, since they are not legal citizens they have no rights in this country. In layman's terms, that means that so long as they are being cared for properly, they can be detained as long as they want, presumably to collect evidence. That may seem harsh, but it's the truth, until the laws are changed. Which I somehow doubt will happen. I leave it up to you whether that's a good thing or not.

 

Great that the torture at Guantanamo's getting so much attention.

 

To be honest, I can't tell if that is sarcasm or not. However, I will say this: I believe that it was good that it was brought up, but it needs to drop. There are other world events in the world. I find it highly disturbing that the Guantanamo story has been covered more than five times as much as the 9/11 attacks. Oh, 3,000+ civilians dead? Meh, a week's coverage, since it's extra big. However, the idea that there may be a mistreatment of POW's? Get's more coverage than I can count; it feels like more than a year.

 

Of course, I fully expect to get flamed to all hell for what I have said. Go ahead, do your worst. I for one am done for tonight.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

My only real concern, however, is the possibility that Muslim extremists will attempt a Jihad in an attempt to free these prisoners.

I hear Michael Moore is gathering men;)...

 

Should they be released? Maybe, maybe not. I'm personally leaning toward the latter, though I'd need more info on each case before I could even decide. However, terrorist attacks aren't the way to go, and I'm hoping against hope the Musims know this. Most do; it's the minority that worry me.

It's not about "release or not release" if you ask me. They're criminals, and they need to be brought to trial. If they're found guilty, punish them justly. If they're found innocent, release them. Follow the rules and the Geneva Conventions and the papermill.

[toms]

Anyone see that a few days ago the US went before the internation Torture Commisson and reiterated its belief that torture was wrong and should be stamped out wherever possible? What a joke that is...

 

Not heard anything at all about this film.. though if it is a drama/documentary then I dislike the idea already.

 

[edit] Oh, its that tv documentary that was on tv a few months ago?? Meant to watch that but missed it completely.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Now, I can just see ShadowTemplar ranting about how all this is Bush's fault. If you're reading this, ST, save it. I've heard it before and don't care to hear it again.

Indeed, ShadowTemplar. Listen, any idiot has to realize it's far more likely that the entire prison went rogue and started systematically torturing its prisoners over a period of many months without being stopped cold by the torture-hating, sancity-of-life-loving Bush Administration. Geez, liberals and their conspiracy theories:rolleyes:.

 

Meanwhile:

VCS - ACLU Lawsuit Confirms President Bush Ordered Use of Torture

ACLU: President authorized interrogation

And, of course, the FBI note itself.

[StaffSaberist]

I don't have time ATM to critisize all of your sources. But I can start. The first source:

 

NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq.

 

Released by the ACLU? The same ACLU that attempted to make part of the pledge unconstitutional, for whatever reason? I am amused, but I somehow doubt that the ACLU is above falsifying a document or twisting its meaning. Your article uses the ACLU as a source, and the ACLU is quite biased. At the least, there's going to be a ****load of spin on it. (BTW, Why the hell does the ACLU need so many damn websites? I find it funny that republicans need only one, liberals need a ton, yet we're still the favored party? (George Bush aside))

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I don't have time ATM to critisize all of your sources. But I can start. The first source:

 

 

 

Released by the ACLU? The same ACLU that attempted to make part of the pledge unconstitutional, for whatever reason? I am amused, but I somehow doubt that the ACLU is above falsifying a document or twisting its meaning. Your article uses the ACLU as a source, and the ACLU is quite biased. At the least, there's going to be a ****load of spin on it. (BTW, Why the hell does the ACLU need so many damn websites? I find it funny that republicans need only one, liberals need a ton, yet we're still the favored party? (George Bush aside))

The ACLU wanted that part of the pledge ruled unconstitutional because people like that f***head McCarthy had s*** about god added into the pledge in the mid-1950s. And the ACLU isn't all that biased. Some of their cases ignore what could be called "common sense", but they do adhere to what's in the Constitution.

[TK-8252]

I hate to burst your bubble but the Republicans are not the favored party as of now if you have any faith in polls.

 

1 in 3 Republicans want to see their OWN PARTY lose control of Congress. That's pretty bad if you ask me.

[Good Sir Knight]

TK-8252 is very correct. The reason why Bush's approval rating is low is because conservatives are pissed off about the way he's going about things.

 

Of course the left likes to believe that people are moving to their side though this couldn't be further from the truth. Conservatives are bitter about Bush's pro-immigration stance.

 

 

As far as Gitmo? Wow it just constantly amazes me that this is looked at as the new Gulag in the world. Regardless of whether its right or wrong, I think Amnesty Intl. and the rest are wasting their time on 300 terrorists when they could be leveling criticism on China for jailing innocent bloggers. Or how about North Korea's real gulags? How about Belarus?

 

Furthermore, people in Gitmo were captured on a battlefield known as Afganistan. When someone is taken into custody during a war by a Geneva Convention signatory they are awarded rights only if:

 

1. They have papers proving that they are a soldier with a Geneva signatory.

 

2. They are wearing a uniform.

 

Combatants on the battlefield that are caught without their papers or uniform are considered spies at best.

 

This means that they can be lined up and shot immediately after there capture. This also means that the victor can torcher, degrade and basically do what ever they wish with the captured soldier.

 

Instead, we put them up in Gitmo. They live in conditions that would be heaven compared to how the homeless in this country live and people still cry about it.

 

Detainees in Gitmo are LUCKY to be there. They are LUCKY that they are torchered with sound, sleep deprivation..etc instead of electrodes on their crotch.

 

Furthermore many detainees at Gitmo have vowed to continue their Jihad.

 

I wonder how Duke La Cross players are considered guilty until proven innocent though when it comes to enemy combatants it's the other way around?

 

I know that I'm going to get a wave of criticism for this piece, feel free too... I'll be happy to respond.

[Sigundr]

Seriously, the US thinks that a bunch of lacrosse players are more dangerous than a bunch of terrorists in Gitmo in a cell reading the Torah all day long and chanting that they would go to heaven if they blew the s*** outta themselves. I mean come on, lacrosse players are really that god loving to blow themselves up and think they are going to paradise? yeah, right.

[TK-8252]

Seriously, the US thinks that a bunch of lacrosse players are more dangerous than a bunch of terrorists in Gitmo in a cell reading the Torah

 

Torah?

[Sigundr]

damn it, i meant Koran, sry. Torah is the jewish holy book. sry

[StaffSaberist]

I hate to burst your bubble but the Republicans are not the favored party as of now if you have any faith in polls.

 

1 in 3 Republicans want to see their OWN PARTY lose control of Congress. That's pretty bad if you ask me.

 

LESSON 1.1: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PERSON AND A PARTY.

 

A PERSON:

 

per·son Audio pronunciation of "person" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)

n.

 

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.

2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=person

 

A (POLITICAL) PARTY:

 

An established political group organized to promote and support its principles and candidates for public office.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=party

 

BUSH ≠ REPUBLICAN PARTY

 

Note, students, that this does not make him a Democrat or even "not a true Republican", though this is up for debate. What this does mean is that things directly related to Bush are not always related to the Republican Party, or vice versa.

 

If you have any questions, please see me after class.

 

-Mr. Staff

[TK-8252]

Easy there, bud. I mean the polls that are specifically for the Republicans in Congress, not the President. The polls show that even many Republicans are displeased with their own party, not just the President. Not to say that the numbers for the Democrats are that great either...

[Good Sir Knight]

Okay now I agree with the author.

 

Because it's so hip to stand against America and it's war, I want to be cool too.

 

Lets just ship every single one of those detainees back to their home country where they'll surely be torchered to death.

 

Sounds like a great plan to me, can't wait.

[StaffSaberist]

^^^^

LOL

 

TK, sorry to get a little "in-the-face", I mis-interpereted what you posted. However, GSK's post above is probably correct (assuming that was sarcasm, I'm not often able to tell on the 'Net). If they aren't tortured to death, however, as innocents, they'll probably return to their criminal ways (in the case of a guilty person). The issue isn't keeping them in prison, it's treating them humanely in prison. And I'm all for that.

[Good Sir Knight]

sarcasm...heavy...palpable...sarcasm....

 

teh net is notorious for distorting these things...heh heh...

[StaffSaberist]

Well, that's the issue with the internet. It's all just text on a page. Unless definite clarification is there, it is difficult to tell if it's sarcasm or a legitimate argument.

[rccar328]

Personally, I believe that the allegations of torture at GTMO are a bit overblown. I'm not saying by any stretch that there is no torture, but part of me believes that if we're not pulling the terrorists' fingernails off with pliers, they're getting better than they deserve. But then, the more rational side of me says that if the're being treated better than my knee-jerk reaction wishes they were treated, that's probably a good thing. But realistically, our military has too much to lose by doing anything truly horrific - just look at Abu Gharaib - relative to torture tactics utilized by several other nations (including Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq), the acts perpetrated there by the US military were stupid and insignificant (please note that I'm not trying to downplay what happened there - those soldiers acted inappropriately, and it's a good thing those involved are being punished for what they did)...yet America was called on the carpet by its own and the international community (including some nations perpetrating worse acts upon their own citizens).

 

All that aside, though, as Good Sir Knight pointed out, the Geneva Conventions only apply to specific cases, and these terrorists do not meet the criteria. In reality, we owe them nothing legally, and the fact that they aren't being taken out and shot, or being tortured using truly brutal techniques really says something positive about America. The fact that they have access to the Koran and prayer rugs says even more.

 

 

 

As to disaffected Republicans, I count myself as one of them - I am no longer a registered Republican...but that in no way means that I want to see the Democrats start winning elections. Officially, I am not affiliated with any particular party (it's better that way - less junk mail and phone calls around election time), but I unofficially count myself as part of the Constitution Party (the only reason I'm not registered with them is because I found out about them after I registered as an independant). The problems that I keep hearing from Republicans and former Republicans is that the Republican party is moving too far to the left.

 

If the Democrats end up winning a majority in Congress this election, or even the Presidency (Heaven forbid!), I'm sure they'll advertise it as a great victory for their party, but I think that the reality will reflect that it's actually a defection of conservatives from the Republican party due to too much of a neo-con influence. And even if the Democrats do end up winning a few elections, I highly doubt that any kind of continuing trend will develop from it. After all, from what I've heard, polls are showing that Democrats are getting less and less satisfied with their party, too.

 

Let's face it - there's too much corruption, petty bickering, pork barrel spending, and political correctness on both sides of the aisle. It's all talk and very few good solutions, and especially with the way America has been so politically charged since 9/11, people are getting tired of the current entrenched system in Washington.

 

Personally, I think a change is coming...as it is now, politicians in both parties are battling to keep their bases, and I predict that it won't be too much longer (probably around 8-15 years) before both parties are battling to remain relevant in the political realm. Of course, this could just be wishful thinking on my part, but this is the way I'm reading the situation, and it's a change that I definitely welcome.

[Good Sir Knight]

Personally, I believe that the allegations of torture at GTMO are a bit overblown. I'm not saying by any stretch that there is no torture, but part of me believes that if we're not pulling the terrorists' fingernails off with pliers, they're getting better than they deserve. But then, the more rational side of me says that if the're being treated better than my knee-jerk reaction wishes they were treated, that's probably a good thing. But realistically, our military has too much to lose by doing anything truly horrific - just look at Abu Gharaib - relative to torture tactics utilized by several other nations (including Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq), the acts perpetrated there by the US military were stupid and insignificant (please note that I'm not trying to downplay what happened there - those soldiers acted inappropriately, and it's a good thing those involved are being punished for what they did)...yet America was called on the carpet by its own and the international community (including some nations perpetrating worse acts upon their own citizens).

 

All that aside, though, as Good Sir Knight pointed out, the Geneva Conventions only apply to specific cases, and these terrorists do not meet the criteria. In reality, we owe them nothing legally, and the fact that they aren't being taken out and shot, or being tortured using truly brutal techniques really says something positive about America. The fact that they have access to the Koran and prayer rugs says even more.

 

 

 

As to disaffected Republicans, I count myself as one of them - I am no longer a registered Republican...but that in no way means that I want to see the Democrats start winning elections. Officially, I am not affiliated with any particular party (it's better that way - less junk mail and phone calls around election time), but I unofficially count myself as part of the Constitution Party (the only reason I'm not registered with them is because I found out about them after I registered as an independant). The problems that I keep hearing from Republicans and former Republicans is that the Republican party is moving too far to the left.

 

If the Democrats end up winning a majority in Congress this election, or even the Presidency (Heaven forbid!), I'm sure they'll advertise it as a great victory for their party, but I think that the reality will reflect that it's actually a defection of conservatives from the Republican party due to too much of a neo-con influence. And even if the Democrats do end up winning a few elections, I highly doubt that any kind of continuing trend will develop from it. After all, from what I've heard, polls are showing that Democrats are getting less and less satisfied with their party, too.

 

Let's face it - there's too much corruption, petty bickering, pork barrel spending, and political correctness on both sides of the aisle. It's all talk and very few good solutions, and especially with the way America has been so politically charged since 9/11, people are getting tired of the current entrenched system in Washington.

 

Personally, I think a change is coming...as it is now, politicians in both parties are battling to keep their bases, and I predict that it won't be too much longer (probably around 8-15 years) before both parties are battling to remain relevant in the political realm. Of course, this could just be wishful thinking on my part, but this is the way I'm reading the situation, and it's a change that I definitely welcome.

 

This is the first time I've agreed with someone on here 100%. Genius.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Released by the ACLU? The same ACLU that attempted to make part of the pledge unconstitutional, for whatever reason?

The same ACLU that's an invaluable player in protecting people from abuse.

As for the Pledge, "under God" is unconstitutional. But that's for another thread.

 

Detainees in Gitmo are LUCKY to be there. They are LUCKY that they are torchered with sound, sleep deprivation..etc instead of electrodes on their crotch.

I hope you're joking.

 

All that aside, though, as Good Sir Knight pointed out, the Geneva Conventions only apply to specific cases, and these terrorists do not meet the criteria. In reality, we owe them nothing legally, and the fact that they aren't being taken out and shot, or being tortured using truly brutal techniques really says something positive about America. The fact that they have access to the Koran and prayer rugs says even more.

So if I rape someone I'm a good person because I could have raped and murdered the person. Right.

 

Sure, and I think that the fact that ibn Ladin only killed 3000 people on 9/11 speaks novels about how nice he is. He could've struck later on the day and killed tens of thousands. How evil of us to take him down .

 

But then again, I hope you're joking, too.

[toms]

Released by the ACLU? The same ACLU that attempted to make part of the pledge unconstitutional, for whatever reason? I am amused, but I somehow doubt that the ACLU is above falsifying a document or twisting its meaning. Your article uses the ACLU as a source, and the ACLU is quite biased. At the least, there's going to be a ****load of spin on it.

The same ACLU that gives their free time and money to fight for YOUR civil rights? Damn them, damn them all to hell!!!

 

So basically, they have released a document that you don't like, so you are claiming that it is probably forged, with no evidence or precedent, simply because they are damn liberals???????? Seriously, WTF?!?!

 

If it is evidence then it is evidence... you can't start claiming that its fake just because you don't like it's implications! The ACLU has been around for decades and freely supported numerous people in their battles for free speech and liberties... i know that makes them your natural enemies, but i don't think that in all that time they have done anything that implies they would forge evidence.

 

I find it funny that republicans need only one, liberals need a ton, yet we're still the favored party? (George Bush aside))

Again, WTF?!?

Had you been smoking weed when you made that post? There are just as many republican websites out there as liberal ones...

http://www.blogrankings.com/Politics_Republican.html

 

Detainees in Gitmo are LUCKY to be there. They are LUCKY that they are torchered with sound, sleep deprivation..etc instead of electrodes on their crotch.

Ooh, lucky them... i assume you'd be happy to join them then? Cos if they decided to put you in there you'd have as much chance as them of appealing the decision and proving your innocence.

I also assume you are including the KIDS who have been locked up there for years now? And the british guys who were kept without trial, charges, the right to defend themselves etc.. for THREE YEARS before being completely released because there was NO EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM!!!

 

Gosh, i can't see why anyone would object to that fair, humane treatment... or why it would make america a hypocritical joke in a lot of the world.

 

The UK government's attourney general thinks it should be closed:

"It is time, in my view, it should close," he will say. "There are certain principles on which there can be no compromise. Fair trial is one of those - which is the reason we in the UK were unable to accept that the US military tribunals proposed for those detained at Guantanamo Bay offered sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards."

the UN thinks it should be closed, all the human rights groups (again - evil guys not above forging evidence imho) think it should be closed..

[StaffSaberist]

This is the first time I've agreed with someone on here 100%. Genius.

Seconded. No time in the morning to address the other points, so farewell for now.

[rccar328]

So if I rape someone I'm a good person because I could have raped and murdered the person. Right.

 

Sure, and I think that the fact that ibn Ladin only killed 3000 people on 9/11 speaks novels about how nice he is. He could've struck later on the day and killed tens of thousands. How evil of us to take him down .

 

But then again, I hope you're joking, too.

You're totally twisting what I said. What I said is that the US isn't legally obligated to treat the prisoners at GTMO as well as they are being treated. Legally, they could be killing them outright and be perfectly fine - after all, this isn't your average joe we're talking about here - these are terrorists who were caught fighting against our military.

 

No, rape doesn't make you good just because you didn't commit murder. Osama isn't peachy because he "only" killed 3,000 people...because those acts are already wrong. Sleep & sensory depravation are no picnic, but they're much more humane than what we could be doing to those prisoners (and still be within the law). Also, there is a reason for subjecting these prisoners to sensory & sleep depravation - to get information from them that could save lives (unlike your strawman, in which rape is for self gratification, and Osama did what he did out of hatred).

[Spider AL]

You're totally twisting what I said. What I said is that the US isn't legally obligated to treat the prisoners at GTMO as well as they are being treated.

Exactly what legal standard are you referring to? The camp, the detainment of the prisoners, the lack of prisoner status afforded to the detainees, AND their treatment have ALL been denounced internationally. Most pundits agree that it's all completely counter to international law, AND US LAW TOO. Illegal.

 

If the US government decides to ignore all the law that has come before, and says that it's legal, then it's legal? Is that what you're maintaining? That would be an utterly pathetic, wilfully ignorant viewpoint, which I would scoff at without mercy.

 

Hear my scoffing.