jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (104 posts)

Guantanamo Bay

  1. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 8 years ago

    Do you think it is a wise move for Obama to close down Guantan?

    I don't know much about GB but I do know that is where they put all the terrorist they catch, so I was just wondering what they plan to do with them?

    Where are they gonna go?

    1. Cris A profile image58
      Cris Aposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I didn't know much Guantanamo Bay but I sure did learn alot about it and what they do to suspected terrorists there in the movie Road to Guantanamo - a powerful semi-documentary.

      PS just thought i'd recommend it big_smile

    2. BDazzler profile image81
      BDazzlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I say we put 'em to work building cars ... oh, wait, there's no demand for cars any more ... OK, make 'em build houses ... oh, oh, that won't work ... all the banks are in a mess .. well .. we could make 'em ... nah...

      Seriously, though, no clue!

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I know, and no one asked either.  ???

    3. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes - I think it is a wise move.

      He said he would close it, so if he goes back on that he will lose credibility.

      They are "suspected" terrorists. Labeled that by the government. They have not had a legal trial, and have been held for some time with no trial.

      No one else wants them though. They are not welcome at home, and there has been ongoing debate and discussion as to which country would accept them.

      Goodness' knows why they weren't just shot resisting arrest in Iraq. Wouldn't even have this issue then. yikes

      1. aka-dj profile image76
        aka-djposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        OOH AHH. I thought you were a peaceful man! hmm

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I am a realistic man. tongue

          1. aka-dj profile image76
            aka-djposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            But then you are so tough on killings through religious wars. How is that different?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I am against all wars and all killings whether they are for your government or your god. I was merely making an observation in the form of a question, not suggesting I supported it.

              I am surprised that no one took the obvious easy way of dealing with this that's all. I am not saying I support the US government killing any one they designate as a terrorist out of hand.

              You get out of the wrong side of bed this morning? big_smile

              1. aka-dj profile image76
                aka-djposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Not at all. Even had a catnap this evening.
                I'm trying to get a handle on why I read one comment from you at one time and seemingly the opposite another time. smile

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  lol

                  Well, first of all you need to look at how many jokes I make. big_smile

                  And not make assumptions that because I am a realist that I suggest that this is what I support and favor doing.

                  Whoever decided to bring these "terrorists" back and stick them in Gitmo and torture them did not show a lot of foresight.

                  If I was in charge they would have been shot resisting arrest. But - if I was in charge - we would never have invaded Iraq in the first place. tongue

                  Call me a Renaissance man. big_smile

                  1. BDazzler profile image81
                    BDazzlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    How about this ... just open the doors and give them to Cuba, it's short, sweet and it's not like Cuba likes us ... and, as a realist, if the Cubans shoot them, well, it's not the fault of the US, right?

                    Dang, if only old King George would have just let us drink or tea in peace, we wouldn't even be in this mess, We'd be a bunch of british colonies and it wouldn't even be our problem ... but NOOO... he had to get all kingly and actually expect loyalty from his subjects.

    4. profile image0
      pgrundyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      How about Texas? I think there's a ranch in Crawford that's about to go on the market. big_smile

      1. Nickny79 profile image69
        Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I am astonished to hear see how everyone, even non-Americans, presume to know the who, what and when's about Guatanamo as if they were prisoner's themselves...please name specific people who have been "tortured", the means of their torturing, the date of the torturing, and what due process CONSTITUTIONALLY (and not in your humble opinion) these individuals are entitled to.  Nothing makes me more disgusted than to hear complacent individuals who know NOTHING about NOTHING with regard to Gitmo or what due process these radical bandits are entitled to as a matter of AMERICAN Law.  Continue reading your silly opt-eds...

        In my view, if a couple of bandits were roughed up and held a few years with the result that JUST ONE real terroist was stopped from committing another 9/11 (which I personally witnessed), I would be satisfied that Gitmo served its purpose.  These radicals have no right to due process and if the United State is generous enough to give them any due process, the nations of Europe, least of all the Middle East, have ZERO right to dictate how much.

        I propose we release the contents of Gitmo into France and Germany.

        1. Teresa McGurk profile image61
          Teresa McGurkposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I used to think that the terrorists in Northern Ireland should be killed.  I used to believe that they had chosen to give up their rights as human beings when they decided to use violence against others as a political statement.

          But I was wrong.  If I decide that one life is worth less than another, I am missing the whole point.  If I decide that one life deserves less respect than another, I am not fit to counsel others, judge, practice law, or govern.

          1. Nickny79 profile image69
            Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            That's your opinion.  I can assert just the opposite and be as convincing.

          2. LondonGirl profile image86
            LondonGirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Teresa - couldn't agree more with your whole post.

        2. LondonGirl profile image86
          LondonGirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Constitutional or legal arguments are but one part of the equation.

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          "Gitmo served its purpose." Gitmo served Al Qaeda's purposes more than those of the U.S. by increasing its ability to incite hatred against the U.S. and recruit terrorists for it's jihad. Ditto for our reckless, needless, costly invasion of Iraq.

  2. aka-dj profile image76
    aka-djposted 8 years ago

    OK, mr Renneisance man!
    How will you denote that your post is (merely) a joke, and not a personal conviction, so we/I do not (falsly) accuse you, in the future?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It wasn't solely a joke dj.

      It was an observation in the form of a question.

    2. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It's a joke, like my dad says, "kill em all and let God sort them out."  My dad doesn't actually support killing people, my dad is worse, he would rather let them rot in jail for the rest of theri pathetic lives. 

      If I were in charge I would designate "terrorist island" leave them there to fend for themselves and let them all kill each other cause you know that is what they would end up doing until there was only one guy left who would them feel so remorsefull for having nothing at all he would probably then kill himself.  Viola, problem taken care of.  ;p

      1. BDazzler profile image81
        BDazzlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        And thus, you would re-invent "Austrailia"

        1. Sufidreamer profile image83
          Sufidreamerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          lol

    3. LondonGirl profile image86
      LondonGirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You need to appreciate irony!

  3. aka-dj profile image76
    aka-djposted 8 years ago

    I bid thee all, Good Night! cool

  4. barranca profile image79
    barrancaposted 8 years ago

    Guantanamo is a stain on American values & history.  Shut it down, absolutely.  We tortured prisoners there, held them without trial or representation.  Bring them back to the US.....try them in US courts and if we can't prove anything against them, let them go.  If they have no where to go, give them forty acres, a mule and a profound apology.  THEN return guantanamo to the Cubans....why should we maintain a military base on Cuban soil?   THEN we should repair our relations with Cuba, allow for commerce and normal relations.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Amen, brother! Closing our base at Guantanamo and cancelling our lease there is long overdue. It's been a thorn in the side of our relations with Cuba for years. I don't know why a base there is important. We could bring the ships, etc. to a U.S. East Coast port and turn the keys over to Cuba at the same time we move the prisoners to U.S. military or civilian prisons for trials.

      1. livelonger profile image94
        livelongerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        The reason the Bush Admin liked Guantanamo is that it is military land, where they believed it was not answerable to U.S. law. I agree - it should be closed ASAP, and not only to smooth relations with Cuba (which has also not accepted a single lease payment from the U.S. during Castro's reign).

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Interesting. I wasn't aware that Castro wasn't accepting our lease payments.

  5. Shil1978 profile image94
    Shil1978posted 8 years ago

    Shut down Gitmo for sure but do shut it down in a proper way.  Of course, a lot of violations have taken place and it certainly has dented American image overseas.  However, fact is a lot of the guys under detention there are hardcore terrorists.  It offers a unique problem because it isn't easy to get "evidence" against these guys.  Also, what do you do if you know they were planning something against you, but didn't carry it out (so they are a threat to you but you don't have and can't build any evidence against them).  They've been picked up from Afghanistan and Pakistan in most cases and so to build up a case against them is hard.  However, it is entirely possible that these same guys might (in the future) commit terroristic acts against the US - would anyone want that??  So, the need for extreme care.  Certainly, just don't free all of them.  I would think it would be a great solution if one of the friendly countries takes some of these prisoners, seems unlikely though.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      lol

      The fact is that the law of the land requires evidence. You speak of "facts," yet say there is no evidence.

      If any of them were not anti-American "terrorists" I am pretty sure they will be now. big_smile

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        you aint kiddin, especially the ones that actually were innocent.  yikes!

  6. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 8 years ago

    I think it is sorta creepy.  Like a horror flick where the good guy is downright evil or something (not suggesting anything)  but it is like a Nicholas Cage, Sean Connary flick.  wink

    Just watch in two months there will be a movied called "Freed from Guantanamo Bay".  lol

  7. barranca profile image79
    barrancaposted 8 years ago

    No doubt some of them are terrorists and hate America, and given the opportunity would strike.  But now we have their names, photos, fingerprints, dna, retinal scans etc.  We should be able to keep tabs on them, particularly if every other free government in the world is watching them as well.  It should be difficult for them to travel.  Many of them, however, were just rounded up in Afghanistan, some because accusers were paid a bounty for accusing them.  We are not talking about a lot of people.  There have been terrorists since the beginning of time and there will be terrorists into the forseeable future.  We need to learn how to track, spot and prevent terrorism and dry of the swamp in which they breed...namely the swamp of poverty and disappointed expectations.

    1. Shil1978 profile image94
      Shil1978posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Having photos, fingerprints, etc does not mean that you can keep tabs on them - especially if they have sought refuge in a country like Syria or Iran or any other country that sympathizes with terrorists.  It might be difficult for them to travel for sure, but many of these guys are not foot soldiers - they are the masterminds who think of things like 9/11.  Guys like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad.  They are the ones who are more dangerous than the mere foot soldier, who is just carrying out orders.

      The fallacy of poverty being responsible for terrorism continues to be believed in.  So strange that - look at the cases of terrorist acts.  Have the poor commited them?  All these folks were well educated and came from well-to-do families.  Obama himself was a rich man.  The folks who carried out 9/11 and the London bombings were educated young men who came from families that were not poor or starving.

      1. barranca profile image79
        barrancaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        You make two good points that many of the islamist/terrorists come from educated classes and Bin Laden himself from wealth.  But I would still maintain that conditions of poverty and ignorance are the fundamental preconditions that enable such leaders to shape a movement.   Holding people in indefinite detention without trial is a violation of human rights and the essence of our democracy.  If we stoop to torture and injustice, we are little better than terrorists ourselves.

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    But it is still people being held for years without trial because of what they might have done or might do. If they are such a threat why have they not held the trials and convicted these people in 8 years?

  9. pylos26 profile image78
    pylos26posted 8 years ago

    I don't believe plans exist to close Gitmo...but to close the jail there and make a decision about what to do with the P.O.W.s...cus thats what they officially are.

    1. Make  Money profile image81
      Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yep POWs.  But the Bush administration didn't class them as POWs because they would have had to been treated along the lines of the Geneva Convention, no torture, water boarding, etc.  It will be interesting to see how Obama investigates this.  He said that nobody is above the law.

  10. Shil1978 profile image94
    Shil1978posted 8 years ago

    Barranca, I agree that Gitmo needs to be closed down.  We might never know if holding those detainees made America safer or not.  But, we'd find out when they are released and are out there on Arab streets.

    1. Make  Money profile image81
      Make Moneyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That won't be proof that they were terrorists when they went to Gitmo Shil.  If they do something when they come out it may be because they were there.  I don't think it made America safer.  Like the US support for Israel, just another cause for making enemies.

      1. Shil1978 profile image94
        Shil1978posted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Much more than Gitmo, the Iraq war has created scores of new enemies for America.  Some of the detainees were treated horribly - no one can deny that - but I doubt they would go back and join a terrorist group to take revenge.

  11. barranca profile image79
    barrancaposted 8 years ago

    Shil,  I don't think there is much doubt that our policies have radicalized and created more terrorists than if we had dealt with them swiftly and justly.  Furthermore, modern societies are vulnerable to individuals and small groups with fairly simple, accessible weapons.  The only way we will protect ourselves is with vigilance, cooperation with allies, strong values, a better way of life, and being ready to use force judiciously.  If we let most of these bad guys go, they would melt back into countries like Syria, Yemen and Pakistan.  And perhaps we would have to catch them again, and perhaps they will do damage before we do.  If that is the price we must pay for justice, then so be it.

    1. Shil1978 profile image94
      Shil1978posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Agree with you barranca.  But, on a general note, do you think terrorists need to be provided the same legal rights as any other US citizen?

      1. LondonGirl profile image86
        LondonGirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        How do you know they are terrorists?

        A lot aren't. Or weren't, before they were tortured and locked up for years, of course.

        1. Shil1978 profile image94
          Shil1978posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I am only talking about those who are terrorists - I am not assuming here.  Certainly, there are innocents who've been detained on suspicion, but there are others like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who is a known terrorist.

  12. pylos26 profile image78
    pylos26posted 8 years ago

    The previous administration's thugs spent a huge portion of America's honor torchering those guys...I say take 'em back where they found them and set 'em free, since most of them are obviously just poor people that got captured while fighting for their convictions. Permit the thugs responsible for the torcher to experience the horror of "waterboarding" just to test the process, since its only enhanced interrigation, and let them decide if its torcher.

  13. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    yes...and a 20-something law student knows everything...

    1. Nickny79 profile image69
      Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I don't presume to know everything unlike our interlocutors above.  That was my point.

      And it's early 20's to be precise. wink

    2. Shil1978 profile image94
      Shil1978posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      He's entitled to his opinion and his being 20-something or not really does not matter.

      1. Nickny79 profile image69
        Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you Shil.

      2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        True...but I thought I knew it all when I was in my twenties also.

        1. Shil1978 profile image94
          Shil1978posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Does that mean that he would think the same when he is your age?  Can you be sure of that?  I am sure you don't think your life is a template that would be duplicated.  Doesn't make it right for you to be judgmental about him.  He shows a lot of maturity beyond his age.  Its good that he has strong opinions - you don't have to agree with them, but at the same time, you shouldn't mock them.

          1. Nickny79 profile image69
            Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Alas, it is the practice of people in this forum to mock when they do not have an adequate response to their interlocutor. You are very kind for coming to my defense and if that picture is you, you're quite pretty...no doubt 20 something.   wink

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              lol

              That would be Charlize Theron.

              http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uploads/charlize-theron.jpg

              1. Nickny79 profile image69
                Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Thanks for tip. I will have to learn more about this Miss Theron!

              2. profile image0
                Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Hahahahaha Mark!  Um, don't always approve of some comments, etc., but this was tooooooo funny.  I actually think Mr. Nick is going through a right-before-30, pre-midlife crisis.  Sigh.  It happens to the best of us.  Then you get over the hump and go on....  lol.

                Nick--Didn't you say you had a girl friend from Venice?  And isn't she a pretty blond?  wink

                Uninvited-- I actually, honestly, have leaned left and thought the same way as I do now--even as a teen or when in my early 20's. And I think as I've gotten older, I'm more apt to believe 'I know 'more,' if not everything.''  I think it is about temperment, not a function of maturity or age.


                OK!  Had to catch up on the fun since I'm home from work...

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                  Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  My politics haven't changed much since I was in my 20s either. However, I'm not as polarized about everything anymore. I'm more open to other points of view. Most people I have talked to have told me they were so secure and positive and "know it all" in their 20s, but by the time they reached 40 they weren't as sure.

          2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I'm just saying that most people think that when they are in their twenties that they have everything all figured out, before they have really lived. And this particular 20-something makes a habit of creating posting after posting after posting that basically state what he sees are the facts and that anyone who disagrees with him is either stupid or ignorant.

          3. LondonGirl profile image86
            LondonGirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            It's not so much a question of maturity, more the assumption of legal expert status, from someone with limited academic and no practical experience of the law.

  14. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 8 years ago

    Besides, other countries have prevented terror attacks by using the law and giving people fair trials and not holding them for years without trial.

    1. Nickny79 profile image69
      Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Other countries have prevented terror attacks thanks to the United States...and if I remember correctly UK and Spain among others have had incidents since 9/11 and these are just a few I happen to remember off the top of my head.

    2. Shil1978 profile image94
      Shil1978posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      America is the number one target.  Other countries have passed laws that human right activists have called "draconian."  Why did they choose to pass special laws - if the existing laws were adequate to fight terrorists.

      It just seems to me to be ridiculous that terrorists should be offered the same legal rights as normal citizens.  You have a case like OJ Simpson, where everyone believed he had commited the murder, yet he used the law to his own benefit.

      You want to give terrorists the same rights - so that they use the laws to their own benefit as well.  Do terrorists show any respect for human lives, human rights?  One could show themselves to be honorable guests to appeal to the world, but is it worth the risk to civilian lives.  Perhaps, the reason for this idealism is because there have been no attacks since 9/11.

      1. Sufidreamer profile image83
        Sufidreamerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Sounds like you are assuming that they are guilty without trial.

        Despite differences of opinion about internment, there is no excuse for torture. Apart from being an abuse, it never gives reliable evidence - people will say anything to make it stop.

        1. Nickny79 profile image69
          Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Firstly, you need to recognize that "torture" means different things to different people.  An ACLU liberal calls one thing torture; a sergeant calls something very different torture; therefore, torture needs to be defined.  Secondly, enemy combatants do NOT have the same rights to due process as law abiding citzens of the United States, both constitutionally and according to general principles of equity.

          1. Sufidreamer profile image83
            Sufidreamerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You are the legal expert - What is an enemy combatant?

            1. Nickny79 profile image69
              Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I define enemy combatant in this context as a "non-American citizen accused of participating in or assisting in terrorism."  The Supreme Court during WWII in Ex Parte Quirin used this definition against eight Nazi sabateurs discovered carrying explosives in Long Island, NY.  This is applicable the precedent used today for "unlawful combatants" which include those accused of terrorism and sabotage.

              1. Sufidreamer profile image83
                Sufidreamerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                The Nazi's used the same justification for torturing thousands of Greek partisans during WWII. Is that precedent?

                What branch of Law do 'Enemy Combatants' fall under?

                How do you know that they have participated in terrorism before they have had a trial?

                1. Nickny79 profile image69
                  Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    We don't know with mathematical certainity even after a trial, but if, in the totality of the circumstances a non-American citizen appears to be participating in or assisting in terrorism that is sufficient cause for them to be detained as they have been in Gitmo.

                  1. Sufidreamer profile image83
                    Sufidreamerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Feel free to be offended - I care not.

                    Torture is torture, and using psychological techniques is extremely dangerous. That is not a liberal view, but a scientific view - try researching the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Milgram Experiment, before bandying about the view that it is an 'ACLU liberal' definition. Torture gives unreliable evidence - if I waterboarded you, or deprived you of sleep for a period of days, I could quite easily make you sign a confession that you were Osama Bin Laden. The hypothetical sargeant you quoted is unlikely to have much knowledge of ethics, so I would be reluctant to listen to their opinion. She/He is a soldier, and I respect that, but I would not ask them to define torture any more than I would employ them to represent me in court.

                    If the prisoners are under military law, then they are under the protection of the Geneva Convention. Even your own Supreme Court believes this. Therefore, any official ordering or condoning this treatment stands accused of war crimes - maybe the comparison with the Nazi's is not so far away from the mark. 'Just obeying orders' is not an acceptable excuse for committing war-crimes - Nuremburg was the precedent for that.

                    Let me see if I have this correct - You are condoning that it is justified to lock up innocent people for a period of years. Is that American 'Freedom and Justice'? I used to have immense respect for the American sense of justice, but Guantanamo has destroyed that.

  15. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 8 years ago

    Are statements more true if you type them in boldface? How does that work when arguing a point in a courtroom? smile

  16. barranca profile image79
    barrancaposted 8 years ago

    The use of torture in Guantanamo has been indisputably documented in Phillip Sands' book "Torture Team".  Detainee 063.  The actual log of his "interrogation" is in the book.  Recently an American prosecutor refused to prosecute this prisoner precisely because he was tortured and the case against him was therefore hopelessly botched.

  17. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    It is part of a right-wing, christian, fascist, terrorist conspiracy to destroy the United States of America.

    Combined with a determined attack on the American public's financial situation by the right-wing, christian, fascist, terrorist banks.

    Almost over - when the middle east and China own all the dollars, we shall see how sharia law combined with communist banking brings back "traditional family values" to america.

    How do you think Mr. Hussein got elected?.......... big_smile

    1. BDazzler profile image81
      BDazzlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I was kinda po'd that they had a vast right-wing chirstian conspiricy and didn't invite me.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        It was supposed to be a secret, but everyone can see it now.

        If you want to do your bit, just head to the nearest WalMart and max out your credit cards buying chinese plastic stuff.

  18. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    "Unlike you, who has no interest in the safety and prosperity of US citizens, I am more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to my servicemen and women, and view their discretion in a light most favorable to them.  They serve to protect US citizens and interests, and I'm confident that 98% of the time our soldiers and our law enforcement officials act in good faith, even if they are not omniscient."


    Nick-

    Appreciate your right to an opinion, and also your knack for stirring up discussion.

    It could be on the above matter, however, that you are somewhat misinformed.  There is not a uniform consensus on these matters within the armed forces.  I think Colin Powell would disagree with you.  I personally know a highly decorated army officer who would disagree with you about your entire stance here.

  19. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    I am at work, so cannot say too much here.  Fully support Sufi's take on this matter, however.  Well reasoned.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image83
      Sufidreamerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the vote of confidence, Lita.

      I must get some work done, too - I enjoyed the debate, Nick. smile

  20. Make  Money profile image81
    Make Moneyposted 8 years ago

    It seems the US Supreme Court does make a distinction between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants.

    From Enemy combatant


    But the detainees in Gitmo were captured mostly in Afghanistan through the use of paid informants that could have been turning in innocent people for the pay.  So the Geneva convention should apply seeing they were captured in Afghanistan.

    There is at least one detainee in Gitmo that has been there since he was 15 years old.  The Geneva convention would describe these as child soldiers and not recognized as either a lawful combatant or an unlawful combatant.

    The above link also says,


    Lita may be right in saying there could be a farm in Crawford, Texas for sale soon.

  21. barranca profile image79
    barrancaposted 8 years ago

    "mere agreements" are pretty important.  I'm sure we would agree that an inch of steel is more likely to repel a bullet than an inch of pudding.  Values and interpretations also have an objective as well as a subjective/cultural dimension.  Why else would so many nations and peoples support for the most part a particular set of human rights?   Strict relativism is tiresome, self-defeating and not the way people speak or live in the real world.

    1. Nickny79 profile image69
      Nickny79posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Please cite with specificity the "objective" source of these "values and interpretations."  Empirical facts and value judgments are two very different matters.

  22. Misha profile image77
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Yeah Susan, I can join the choir smile

    Yet coming into 50s I am getting more sure in my views, but still maintain that I can be wrong smile

  23. profile image47
    NewRepublicanposted 8 years ago

    I hope everyone is aware that some terror "suspects" have been released and have already rejoined the ranks of their groups.

    I hope that this closing of Gitmo is just a PR stunt to satisfy the international community and that he will just open it somewhere else under a different name.

    Don't you find it ironic that the international community was calling for the closing of Gitmo but are now saying "hell no" to having to house the suspects on their land?

    1. LondonGirl profile image86
      LondonGirlposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Nope. Because if people learn anything by being imprisoned and tortured, it's not exactly "peace to all men" is it?

 
working