jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (114 posts)

Gitmo Yes or No

  1. hottopics profile image56
    hottopicsposted 6 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4995988.jpg
    Guantanamo Bay
    To close or not to close, that is the question. This has been a hard decision for the President and the Justice department. Perhaps if it was not a political position as well as a campaign promise, maybe it could be examined properly. Why is there a detention center on this island to start with. It was formed under the Bush administration as a place to hold captured suspected terrorists and process them. In this facility the suspects were to be questioned, charged and tried under a military tribunal for there alleged crimes. Controversy surrounds the treatment of the suspects. Accusations of torture, religious persecution, improper feeding, and more. With this cloud over the facility, President Obama tried to close Gitmo down and more the suspects to the US and try them in federal court. He was not successful.

    The United States spent a lot of taxpayer dollars to build this facility and the cost continues in order to keep it operational. Is there a way to offset the cost but keep the objectives behind Gitmos formation? Here is a possible solution. Is terrorism a United States problem? No, it is a world wide problem. Some countries take it seriously, some do not. The countries that do not take it seriously say they do. They arrest, convict and send to jail these terrorists. Then they release them several weeks later to resume their ways. Perfect example was the Lockerbie bomber. He was convicted to a life sentence but was released. If these convicts were in a special facility, they would never get back in service. So why not make Gitmo a world terrorism court and detention facility. All countries would be required to supply Judges, Lawyers, guards and other required personnel as well as operational funding. This would ensure that every country is watching each other, fair trials can be given in a reasonable time, sentences can be carried out and no one can be released before their time.

    A Gitmo International Judicial System would serve the world with honor as well as performing their mandate with professionalism and honor.

    1. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "The United States spent a lot of taxpayer dollars to build this facility and the cost continues in order to keep it operational."

      GITMO existed long before 9/11. It was obviously "upgraded" to handle these new detainees. However there were three camps well established for housing detainees and refugees long before 9/11.

      1. hottopics profile image56
        hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not for war or terrorists. Either you are to young or frogot how Gitmo came to be in the first place. This is just an alternative idea as to what to do with terrorists and bring the to justice, give them a trial instead of a POW or enemy combative label

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Camp "X-RAY" existed prior to 9/11. Known criminals were detained there. Particularly, known drug runners and others who were attempting to flee Hati,Cuba, etc. and headed for the US. In fact there have been several instances of The Cuban government "cleaning out" their prison system. These former prisoners took to rafts headed for the US. Many were picked up by the Coast Guard.

          Not too young, well versed on the history of the Base. Was stationed there during the 90's.

    2. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      A perfect example of what? A miscarriage of justice?
      There is far too much evidence of a fit up for anybody to consider the conviction sound.

      1. hottopics profile image56
        hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is why we have defense attornies

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Fat lot of use they were at Lockerbie!

          1. hottopics profile image56
            hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            So are you saying that the Lockerbie bomber was convicted of a crime he did not commit, or are you just embarresd by the fact your country, the UK had a hand in getting that criminal released?

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I am saying that the evidence on which he was convicted was phoney. Do you think it sound to offer a key witness an extremely large amount of money dependent on a guilty verdict?

              1. hottopics profile image56
                hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So the answer is yes, you think the Lockerbie bomber was convicted of a crime he did not commit.

                I guess you missed the heros welcome he recived when he returned to Lybia. Or the lecture circiut he was on talking about the bombing and his role in it

    3. IntimatEvolution profile image81
      IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Gitmo- "Open for Business" wink

      If it wasn't for the operations of Gitmo, we would have never of caught Bin Laden.  US authorities found out about this courier guy two years ago, and how?  From a Gitmo inmate.  So there you go.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And we're expected to believe that!
        Right, do you want to buy the Tower of London?

        1. hottopics profile image56
          hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          She cannot buy it, I already own it and will not sell it.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No, the other one!

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              [Groo voice]The small one, from Vegas.[/Groo voice]

        2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Apparently knowledge of Bin Laden's courier's identity came from detainees are Gitmo.

      2. hottopics profile image56
        hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you

    4. recommend1 profile image65
      recommend1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I just noticed this trite, cynical pile of horse dung.   Anyone who thinks that turning an illegal prison camp that routinely tortures and holds people without trial or representation is a fit place for anything other than preservation as a Dachau type museum needs medical attention.

      There is a long standing court of justice in Europe, America turned its back on that upstanding institution when the rest of the world pointed out the illegality of its commercial for-profit warmongering - and where Bush is still under indictment for war crimes issued by several states.

  2. hottopics profile image56
    hottopicsposted 6 years ago

    Information that lead to the demise of Bin Laden came from Gitmo. Just someting to think about

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That has yet to be confirmed, if I'm not mistaken.

      From what I've heard, it was from "a detainee", not "a detainee at Guantanamo Bay".

      It's disgusting that we've come to naturally consider the word "detainee" to be synonymous with tyrannical jailing of possibly innocent individuals.

      1. hottopics profile image56
        hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This came from the Presidents mouth, Joe Bidens mouth and several others.There was only one person who said different

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Gitmo is an unholy symbol of tyranny.

    As long as Gitmo is allowed to exist, we will be a police state without liberty

    1. hottopics profile image56
      hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I guess jails and our justice system is an example of a police state. All I am suggesting is turn it into a world instituion and retention facility dealing only with terrorists. It would be administered by many countries. The accusations as to what Gitmo was would change, people would not be held for years without representation or without a resonable expectation of justice.
      Under your suggestion we shouls close Attica Prison because of what the name represents in the past instead of the instition it has become. If we close everything because someones betrayal or mistake, nothing would be left open. We learn from our mistakes, correct them, make it right or better, and we move on

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, the problem is that you have a detention facility on foreign territory so that it is not bound by your laws, that's all.
        Move it home, give the detainees full access to the law, problem sorted.

        1. hottopics profile image56
          hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, it is on a US base and that makes it US soil. Just like your Embassy in the US is on UK soil. Learn your history

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            whereever the hell it is, the people in there are being tortured without trial for decades.

            The US can rot in hell until it's abolished.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              IN accordance with the Geneva Accords they can be detained until the end of hostilities.  As non-uniformed combatants they could have been summarily executed on the battle field.  I prefer that action far more than the silliness it stirs in some Americans who get  weepy when people who would cut their throat and the throats of their children get good medical care, Halal compliant meals and uninterrupted religious observance far from the battle field while being able to throw nasty little presents of feces, semen and urine on their guards yet remain unmolested.

              1. hottopics profile image56
                hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Evan,

                I read your hub page. If you truly feel that way, then leave the US and the education from our institutions. I see you like going to our collages. By the way, of course other countries teach history and present the US in a different light. Come on, do you think Germany teaches WWII the same way the US does

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  So... your argument is: "Accept that we torture people, or get out"

                  "O beautiful for spacious skies,
                  For amber waves of grain,
                  For purple mountain majesties
                  Above the fruited plain!
                  America! America!
                  God shed his grace on thee
                  And crown thy good with brotherhood
                  From sea to shining sea! "

                  PS- I LOVE going to 'collages', they're very beautiful. I also love to ask questions without using question marks.

                  I taught English in Japan for four years. I'm fully aware that other countries teach history different than we do. What the hell does that have to do with closing Gitmo down?

                  1. hottopics profile image56
                    hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Nothing, you were the one who said " THE US CAN ROT IN HELL" Not me. I am very proud to be an American. I speak with a voice, when I can speak due to the trach I have in my throat to help me breath, of a firefighter who was at gorund zero for 3 weeks 24-7. I was on a rescue detail then a recovery detail. I have seen up close what our enemies can do to us. This was not the first time I served my country or was willing to dye for it. So once again, if you think it is so bad here then leave.

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What, even the innocent ones?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  C'mon, John, we ALL know that EVERYONE the Amerr'kins catch are all terr'ists bent on murdering freedom and cooking Bald Eagles for dinner.

                  There are no "innocent ones": to be caught by Amerr'ka MEANS that you're evil and guilty.

                  DUH!!

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Sadly, it seems to me you're right.

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No, like your British airbases are on British soil, not US soil.
            Learn your history.

        2. sn53Anon profile image62
          sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They are unlawful combatants. They should be tried by military tribunals. Unlawful combatants do not have the same rights as prisoners of war. But if they were treated as POWs they could never be released so long as Islam remains a gutter political-religious system of subjugation, intimidation, and conquest.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And what about the innocent? The unlawful prisoners?
            And what has Islam got to do with it, really?

            1. sn53Anon profile image62
              sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              What about the innocent?
              There are no unlawful prisoners.
              You do realize, don't you, that all of the people who attacked us adhere to the religion of peace?

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And you do realise that not all held at Guantanamo have attacked you don't you?
                And you do realise that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter don't you? And you do realise that makes many Christians terrorists don't you?

                Or do have have a different name for murderers of foreign children?

                1. sn53Anon profile image62
                  sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Which ones do you think were not involved in attacking us?

                  Fine. Let the others build their own detention centers.

                  You will have to explain this just a little bit better.


                  LOL. You might just be a kook.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, for a start, the Brits who were eventually released into British custody with not enough evidence for any sort of conviction, not even a parking ticket.

                    But you'd be outraged at the thought of an Islam run detention centre wouldn't you?

                    And what exactly don't you get about one man's terrorist eing another man's freedom fighter?

                    I'd rather be a kook than totally blind.

  4. tony0724 profile image61
    tony0724posted 6 years ago

    Guantanamo Bay
    To close or not to close, that is the question

          KEEP IT OPEN FOR BUSINESS

    1. hottopics profile image56
      hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Right On

  5. Jeff Berndt profile image89
    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago

    No, Evan is right: if we've detained people on no evidence and not given them a trial, that's a crime.

    If they were prisoners of war, and could be held until the end of hostilities, then we wouldn't be allowed to 'enhanced interrogate' them. You'll notice that the US has been very careful never to refer to the Guantanamo detainees as 'prisoners of war.' Why? Because under the Geneva Conventions you can't torture a POW.

    I'm pretty disappointed in the "love it or leave it" comments. A real Patriot insists that his country should do right, rather than trying to justify the wrong actions of his country, which would be nationalism, not patriotism.

    1. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      In all fairness, if they were captured in the theater of opperations under arms, it's hardly "NO EVIDENCE".

      I don't think we should have ever brought them to US soil. It's pretty clear that we have gathered valuable intel and have also held people needlessly. In the our defense, many of these detainees were refused by their country of origin....We definitely got ourselves caught in a bad situation. However GITMO was the sympton, not the actual problem. The problem was how we addressed the "Global War on Terrorism". We started with a flawed idea and ended up with a civil rights nightmare.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        But many were picked up going on pilgrimage, visiting family and other innocent things.

        There is no doubt that the UK is nearly as excited by the terrorism threat as is the US, but when so many British citizens have been released into UK custody and almost as quickly giver their freedom for lack of evidence something somewhere stinks.

        1. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed, there were obvious problems with the "selection" criteria. However, I would not imply that the majority of GITMO Detainees fit your description.

        2. sn53Anon profile image62
          sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hmm. You would have a point if any of the above applied. We detained large numbers of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. With some exceptions once it was clear an individual was at the wrong place at the wrong time we let them go.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not enough evidence to hold someone. If we've got good evidence, then we need to try them; if not, then we need to release them. We're meant to give suspects a speedy trial, not let them rot in jail for years until everyone they know has assumed that they're dead, then release them and let them pick up the shards of their lives on their own. 'Cos really, if I were one of those guys who got mistakenly detained, and I didn't get out until ten years of my life had been lost, well, you can bet that when I get out, I'll be an enemy of the country that stole those years from me.

        1. sn53Anon profile image62
          sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It might be. In war, sometimes bad things happen to innocent people.

          This is a war. It is not a criminal issue. Unless we want to declare that anyone picked up on or near a battlefield not in uniform is an unlawful enemy combatant. If that is their crime then they could be punished for that and that alone.


          They are not suspects. This is a war.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And you wonder why some Muslims hate you!

            1. sn53Anon profile image62
              sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Hmmm. Have I wondered?

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "They are not suspects. This is a war."

            Then the US is in violation of the Geneva convention, and guilty of war crimes. 'Cos you don't get to torture POWs.

            Or if they're not POWs, then we're guilty of violating our own constitution, because they're being held without trial, without a chance to challenge their detention, and so on and so on.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              But it is America doing these things, so that's OK isn't it?

            2. sn53Anon profile image62
              sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well, no. They are unlawful combatants. They are not soldiers. They have not met the minimum requirements to be covered by the Geneva Convention. Nice try though.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well no, they are alleged unlawful combatants.

                1. sn53Anon profile image62
                  sn53Anonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "Alleged" is for criminal cases.
                  Were they caught on or near a battlefield?
                  Were they wearing the uniform of an enemy combatant?
                  If the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, they might be unlawful enemy combatants.

                  We rounded up thousands of people, identified them, confirmed their stories and released them. Except for the few whose stories did not check out.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "If the answer to the first is yes and the second is no, they might be unlawful enemy combatants."

                    And without a trial, it ain't proven. Unless you're willing to say that our unalienable rights are actually alienable after all.

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Well,if you count the World as a battlefield then yes,otherwise no,many weren't caught on a battlefield.
                    They obviously were not wearing the uniform of an enemy combatant because they weren't enemy combatants.
                    Do you think it fair for the US to take five years to confirm their stories and then release them?

                    But then if you start off from the position that the US can do no wrong there is really no point in discussing anything with you is there?

        2. profile image60
          C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Release them where? I think in some cases they are still there because their country of origin wont take them. Bring them to the US?
          I think you and I can agree that there was NEVER any intent to "trying" most of these people. Simply rounding them up and "squeezing" them to see who would talk is more likely the intent. The whole thing turned into a media circus and divided the public. While the public's outrage may be real, the motivation was strictly political.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      C'mon Berndt! It's so much easier to just yell at the top of your lungs the Star Spangled Banner than to think of how we're shitting all over the lives of innocents.

      Come on all! Join together:

      "O SAY CAN YOU SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!! BY THE DAWN'S EARLY LIGHT, WHAT SO PROUDLY WE HAILED AT THE TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING?! WHOSE BROAD STRIPES AND BRIGHT STARS, THRU THE PERILOUS FIGHT, O'ER THE RAMPARTS WE WATCHED WERE SO GALLANTLY STEAMING!!!!!!!!

      AND THE ROCKET'S RED GLARE, THE BOMBS BURSTING IN AIR, GAVE PROOF THROUGH THE NIGHT THAT OUR FLAGS WERE STILL THERE. OH, SAY DOES THAT STAR-SPANGLED BANNER YET WAVE~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! O'ER THE LAND OF THE FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      YEEEEE HAAAAAAW"


      sing or die

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I know, right? America! F_ _ _, YEAH!

        roll

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Oh man.. I just watched that movie the other day.

          So horribly awesome.

    3. hottopics profile image56
      hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Jeff,

      I agree. noone should be held without evidence. With my suggestion, due process can happen quicker than it is now. If there is no evidence they will be set free, just like our system of law here. When the charges are brought the if the judge sees there is not enough there or a doubts about why they were aprehended, he lets them go. No more holding prisoners for years on end with proper representation.

      Sorry you were not happy with what you claim I said love it or leave it. I did not say to love it, I said if you believe the US should "rot in hell" then that person must not like the USA. So if someone is that unhappy leave. I will not let comments like that go unanswered. Sorry, but I believe strongly in this country even when our country makes mistakes. We learn from them and become a stronger nation

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but MY country was one founded on basic 'unalienable' human rights.

        And, amongst those, is the pursuit of happiness.

        You can't pursue happiness if you've been unlawfully throw in a cell and tortured without the hope of a trial for over a decade.

        Man, I wonder if Yuki would wait for me if I disappeared for over a decade. I wonder if I could survive that torment.

        The country that's doing this to people can rot in hell. The country that promises 'unalienable' rights to their people will float to the heavens.

        1. hottopics profile image56
          hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Evan,

          Based on your statment there would be no countries left. Let me just say this, ALL countries have engaged in torture whether it is past or present. I know you cannot be that blind to believe otherwise. Just one example, I know you liked living in Japan, but Japan has forgotten more about torture than we will ever know.

          I do not know you or your wife personally. But I would bet the farm if Yuki knew you were alive, she would wait ten years for you. Maybe I am to much a sentimental person or maybe I am blind on that subject, but thats what I believe. While I was never gone for 10 years I had a wife that always wondered if I was coming home from my shift at the firehouse. Despite what she may have put herself through worrying about me, she was always there.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Really? Your argument is "well THEY did it!! Why can't we?!". You sound like a 5 year old asking his mommy for a new toy.

            But, here's the kicker...

            JAPAN STOPPED TORTURING PEOPLE.  WE'RE STILL DOING IT.

            PS: Japan DID torture quite a bit of people. Unit 731 was atrocious. ... but guess who paid money to get the data collected? WE DID. Sure, Japan DID the torturing, but we bought the data. So we already know as much as Japan did, AND we're still doing it. Japan probably is forgetting 'about torture', but we learned everything they did... but we're the ones torturing now. We learned, and we seem to be applying that knowledge.

            1. hottopics profile image56
              hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You are blind and narrow minded. How you got that out of the post is beyond imagination, unless you just want to twist everthing to your unimportant point of view. My point was Everyone does it, not just the US, you were incinuating that only the US did it and they should rot in hell. By the way, Japan still does it today even to their own citizens. And Japan would not share any information with the US if they did there would no need for spies on both sides.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "My point was Everyone does it, not just the US,"

                So much for American Exceptionalism. hmm

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Is that your justification then?
                Everybody else does it so why shouldn't we!

                1. hottopics profile image56
                  hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No that was Jeffs. Learn to read

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No, it was definitely your post that I was responding to, did you not write "My point was Everyone does it, not just the US,"?

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Hottopics said:

                    "You are blind and narrow minded. How you got that out of the post is beyond imagination, unless you just want to twist everthing to your unimportant point of view. My point was Everyone does it, not just the US, you were incinuating that only the US did it and they should rot in hell. By the way, Japan still does it today even to their own citizens. And Japan would not share any information with the US if they did there would no need for spies on both sides."

                    Earlier he said:
                    "Let me just say this, ALL countries have engaged in torture whether it is past or present."

                    My comment was in response to these points.

                    Just to clarify.

  6. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    And anyway, it wasn't Jeff's post hottopic responded to, it was Evan's.
    So I  don't think hottopic is in a very good position to criticize other peoples reading skills smile

    1. hottopics profile image56
      hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Like I said, you did not read Jeffs. I know Evan made the first response. In fact this is my quota Evan and you responded to

      "Based on your statment there would be no countries left. Let me just say this, ALL countries have engaged in torture whether it is past or present. I know you cannot be that blind to believe otherwise. Just one example, I know you liked living in Japan, but Japan has forgotten more about torture than we will ever know".

      You stated "No, it was definitely your post that I was responding to, did you not write "My point was Everyone does it, not just the US,"?

      So where did I write those exact words you accuse me if writing? I do not see them. So you either did not read them or you just wrote what you wanted to, out of context. misquoting is why politics is the way it is. It is also why some articles on Hubpages gets the reponses they do.

      You should talk about who is in a good position. People in glass houses, well, why finish this quote.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Dude, you totally wrote that.

        Lookie here:

        "You are blind and narrow minded. How you got that out of the post is beyond imagination, unless you just want to twist everthing to your unimportant point of view. My point was Everyone does it, not just the US, you were incinuating that only the US did it and they should rot in hell. By the way, Japan still does it today even to their own citizens. And Japan would not share any information with the US if they did there would no need for spies on both sides."

        I even put the sentence you don't seem to remember writing in bold italics so you could find it easier. I'll wait while you carefully re-read your own work.

        "misquoting is why politics is the way it is."
        Yeah, misquoting is a problem. But so is saying silly stuff, and then pretending that you never said it at all when someone accurately quotes you.

        Put down the stones, dude. Seriously.

        1. hottopics profile image56
          hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well Jeff, you just proved my point. HERE COMES AN ENGLISH LESSON!! I put this in caps so you could read it easier. SENTENCES END WITH A PERIOD NOT A COMMA. You took a part of the sentence and changed the meaning to what you think not what the sentence actually means. My sentence "My point was Everyone does it, not just the US, you were incinuating that only the US did it and they should rot in hell." was in responce to Evans point the the US should rot in hell. He believes the US is the only nation doing this. Now that does not mean ite ok for the US to do it because everyone does it. The sentence in its entirety does not mean that. It was to point out like you that evan takes things out of context. Correcting someone who wants to twist everthing to there unimportant point of view is not throwig stones Dude. I notice when someone responds to your opinions you try to correct them. But like so many others, its OK for you but not for others

          1. hottopics profile image56
            hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Using partial quotes or sentences is not quoting someone accurately

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Alright, I'll quote the whole sentence :- "My point was Everyone does it, not just the US, you were incinuating that only the US did it and they should rot in hell."

              Do you, or do you not deny that your point was "Everyone does it" if not, what was the purpose of writing that?

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nothing you say changes the meaning of the sentence, which :-
            "My point was Everyone does it, not just the US," is the subject of the sentence. All the rest stands apart from that and certainly doesn't reverse the meaning of that statement.

            1. hottopics profile image56
              hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              MY POINT EXACTLY!!! Nothing I say, including the truth means nothing to you. You will continue to misquote, cahnge swtatements and fabricate. Once again since you cannot get a grasp on reality here is the sentence that you cannot get right:

              "My point was Everyone does it, not just the US, you were incinuating that only the US did it and they should rot in hell".

              Yes I do deny it. The point was in response to Evan who wanted the US to rot in hell because the US was the only country that tortured people. All I was pointing out was that the US was not the only country using enhanced interogation. As I wrote earlier which you left out was I do not believe that everyone should do something just because someone else does it. If that was the case we would have a Queen because UK has one, or a dictator because Libya has one.

          3. Jeff Berndt profile image89
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "HERE COMES AN ENGLISH LESSON!! "

            Okay. lol

            "SENTENCES END WITH A PERIOD NOT A COMMA."
            Correct, and a gold star for you, for demonstrating that you do know (one of) the rules of punctuation, even if you don't consistently put them into practice.

            "You took a part of the sentence and changed the meaning to what you think not what the sentence actually means."
            This is more of a stylistic point than a mechanical point, but the addition of a comma after the word think would make the meaning of this sentence clearer.

            "My sentence "My point was Everyone does it, not just the US, you were incinuating that only the US did it and they should rot in hell." was in responce to Evans point the the US should rot in hell. "

            You need a comma after the word sentence. I'm sure you meant insinuating. When quoting, use a comma instead of a period if you're going to continue the thought without starting a new sentence. It's spelled response. How many Evans are we talking about? Clearly you forgot the apostrophe. Also, what an egregious comma splice. Use a period and have two sentences.

            "He believes the US is the only nation doing this."
            No grammatical errors here, but a comprehension problem. Evan did not say, either explicitly or implicitly, that the US was the only nation that uses torture. He did however say that the US shouldn't be using torture, and is hypocritical for doing so.

            "Now that does not mean ite ok for the US to do it because everyone does it. The sentence in its entirety does not mean that."
            You mean, "it's ok," but typos happen.

            "It was to point out like you that evan takes things out of context."
            Proper nouns get a capital letter. Also, were you emulating me in pointing out that Evan takes things out of context, or were you trying to say that Evan and I both take things out of context? Your intent is unclear.

            "Correcting someone who wants to twist everthing to there unimportant point of view is not throwig stones Dude."
            You mean, "their unimportant point of view." But it can't be all that unimportant to you, since you've invested so much time and effort arguing (if you can call it that) against it. (Typos ignored for expediency.)

            "I notice when someone responds to your opinions you try to correct them."
            Well, I do argue my point, if that's what you mean. As do you. It's kind of expected.

            "But like so many others, its OK for you but not for others"
            Okay, first of all, a sentence ends with a period. smile Second, of course it's okay for others to argue their points. But it's not okay to say stuff and pretend you didn't say it, or to deliberately misconstrue someone's argument. Well, sometimes folks can get away with that, but I tend not to let them.

            So how did you like the ENGLISH LESSON? smile Are you ready to put the stones down, now, Bard of Avon? smile

            Finally, Evan never said that the US was the only country that tortures people. But he did rightly point out that the US isn't supposed to be doing that at all, no matter what other countries might be doing. When you point out that yes, the US tortures, but so do others, it sure as shootin' looks like you're saying, "Well, sure we torture, but so do other countries, so why should we do any different?"

            We should do different because America was founded to be a better country. Someday, I hope that we become that country.

            1. hottopics profile image56
              hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Jeff,

              what a baby OK we concede, we are not worthy of you. Sorry we are not as perfect as you, but then again who could be, OH John Holden. I am sure you did not want to open the can of worms of correcting posts, even though thats how we got here in the first place.

              By the way you too have proven my point you took a sentence and put your spin on it and put quations on it as if I said it. Wonder why that is? There is only one answer.

              "When you point out that yes, the US tortures, but so do others, it sure as shootin' looks like you're saying, "Well, sure we torture, but so do other countries, so why should we do any different?"

              Again I never said "so why should we do any different? And you to left out where I said "  I do not believe that everyone should do something just because someone else does it.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image89
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "Sorry we are not as perfect as you..."
                Well, you're the one who got all "time for an English lesson" when your own posts are rife with grammatical problems. And seeing as how your previous post had the glass houses reference, I just couldn't resist.

                But fine, let's start fresh. Let me ask you straight up: do you think it's okay for the US to be torturing people? If so, why? If not, why not?

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  it's wrong.

                  'nuff said.

  7. recommend1 profile image65
    recommend1posted 6 years ago

    So this thread about the abomination of the American concentration camp at Guantanemo where people are routinely tortured has descended into semantics - grow up for f***s sake !

    If the US condone illegal detention without trial, torture and assasination - how can they complain about others, how can they complain about terrorists who do just exactly the same thing - how can they hold up therir head in a supposedly civilised world.

    1. hottopics profile image56
      hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Recommend,

      I agree but babies will be babies. You are right about the detention center. That is why I posted an idea to eliminate that problem, get the accused proper representation, and give them a fast and fair trial, plus keep them in one secure place that will spread the cost across many nations thus saving the US money. It may not be a perfect plan, but it should not be taken out of context to promote someones personal; view. It is fine to disagree and be angry about Gitmo be noone has an answer to the problem. Notice those who critized me about what I said never offered another idea. That was what I was looking for here. I did another post on another subject and had a larger respnse than this one. There was not one post that was negative, Everyonemade a comment or a suggestion on how to address the problem. It was great to read all the ideas people had, many much better than mine

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why expect the world to legitimise the USs illegality?

        1. hottopics profile image56
          hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I am looking for a change, not for the world to legitimise anything. That was the point to the article. It was a suggestion on handling the world terrorists and to give them fair shot at defending themselves and not be detained for years without representation. Besides close it or saying Ameirica sucks, do you have any suggestions?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Oh yes, plenty and I'll make them again for you.
            Close it, move all the prisoners into real prisons on US soil, give the prisoners a chance to defend themselves, don't claim that the evidence is so sensitive that nobody, not even the prisoners can have access to it.
            Stop all illegal torture, stop pretending things that are done to the prisoners is not torture because others did far worse things.
            Don't expect the world to back your illegal activities, why would you expect the UK to pay you support for holding British citizens when there is not a shred of evidence to support your claims?

            And stop acting like a bunch of terrorists.

            1. hottopics profile image56
              hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Like I said, no ideas. By the way, do not lecture this country about anything. There are many terrorists hiding in the UK. Your Government does not want to arrest them for fear of being attacked. And who was behind letting the Lockerbie bomber go? The UK . OH thats right despite all the evidence you think he is innocent.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I suppose you're right, I mean the CIA spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on getting the evidence they wanted there was no way it could have been tainted!

                Seeing as how that will be too subtle for you, what do you reckon to the CIA offering a poor shopkeeper either $100,000 or $150,000 on a successful conviction and zilch on an unsuccessful conviction?
                And I suppose you'll argue that showing the shopkeeper a photograph of the accused just before an identity parade was fair as the shopkeeper had not seen the guy for three years.

      2. recommend1 profile image65
        recommend1posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The answer is simple - just close the place.

        This is not hard or negative, just get out of Iraq, a positive and decent thing to do, stop using warfare as a way of artificially maintaining your economy and get on with dealing with the issue that you have been broke for 20 plus years.

  8. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 6 years ago

    I fail to understand why somebody with such a frail grasp of written English should want to hang around a site of writers and make themselves look down right dense.

    " Nothing I say, including the truth means nothing to you"

    I mean can you actually make any sense out of that?

    1. hottopics profile image56
      hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, to steal a line from a movie  that Gitmo was a part of" You can't handle the truth".  It means what is says the truth means nothing to you so you spew what you want. Seems simple to me. Sorry you could not understand it

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh stop spouting such garbage.

        1. hottopics profile image56
          hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Back at ya

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I tried to read what you wrote here...

        .. i could NOT understand it.

        "It means what is says the truth means nothing to you so you spew what you want."

        ...what?

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Phew, thanks Evan, I thought it must be me, that nobody on a writers forum could write anything so inpenetrable!

          1. hottopics profile image56
            hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Next time I will right down on a level you can understand. See Jane. See Jane run.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              LOL! You'll right down! You'll right down where or how!

        2. hottopics profile image56
          hottopicsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Evan,

          I decided to see if you and John were right and I was missing something So I printed out the entire post. I passed it around the office, including the in house attorneys. There is a guy here that is the furthest left Democrat I have ever met. There are far right people as well. Funny, none of them could not understand the meaning of what was written in the article and to my responses. The gentleman on the far left agreed with my responses and could not figure out why you both could not understand. Of course I took a beating for my grammer like you gave me, and a few other small writing errors, but that was legitamate. I am sorry you did not get what was written but thats OK. We have had oppisite opinions on other posts and never had a problem understanding what was written. I even agreed with you on a few things. I will look forward to us supporting our issues in the future

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            None of them could not!

            I despair.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              See John.

              See John Read.

              Read John, Read.

              John Read, but couldn't understand.

              Nor could Evan.

          2. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Oh we understood full well what you meant, you meant that other countries used torture so why shouldn't the US.
            It was you claiming to not have meant that, instead trying to put a totally different meaning on it.

 
working