| Welcome to Fire Emblem Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Guantanamo Bay to be shut down; per The Advocate, Friday 2009-1-22 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 23 2009, 08:28 PM (436 Views) | |
| Simon | Jan 23 2009, 08:28 PM Post #1 |
The strongest among you may not wear a crown
|
Time for the FEFF Panel (consisting of whoever feels like discussing) to weigh in. What's your stance on the closing of Guantanamo Bay? I am in favor of this move because I believe the United States cannot hope to proclaim itself a protector of liberty with secret prisons scattered across the globe like this. I understand that in a war like this one it may seem prudent to use such interrogation methods, and it is true that foreign prisoners of war are not United States citizens; however, the Constitution itself was written in the spirit of providing basic liberties to all of humanity, regardless of what they have done, and we cannot flout the basic ideals we as a nation strive to uphold. Torture is simply not something I can feel comfortable with knowing my nation's protectors are using, even if it is done in the interest of saving my life. I may be alone on the forum in this particular stance, I don't know -- but I would rather die than have the Constitution violated. I don't stand alone in that belief, either -- every soldier in the military lays down his or her life in order to protect and uphold the Constitution. Even if it means dying because a known terrorist would not reveal plans of an upcoming attack through ethical interrogation, too many people have died in past wars for our own nation to be ignoring the basic tenets on which it was founded. Just my $.02, feel free to chime in. |
Previously: Ron DeLite, Simon
| |
 |
 
|
| Sentenal | Jan 23 2009, 09:05 PM Post #2 |
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
Personally, I don't feel like the Constitution protects non-citizens, much less terrorist. Does it really protect the country if we release people who want to kill us? 61 former detainees are believed to have returned to Terrorist activities since being released. I see releasing them as a direct contradiction to Obama's oath to protect this country. The Constitution of the United States exist to protect its citizens. I don't see how releasing dangerous people who wish for the destruction of this nation, is protecting the country. Seems like the opposite of that. That is what goes against what the Constitution stands for, IMO. |
| |
|
|
|
| Yzarc | Jan 23 2009, 11:13 PM Post #3 |
Coxian
|
I don't understand how anyone could be pro-GTMO You use logic like "we should be allowed to torture people so long as they're terrorists" but the fact is, we're not even sure all of them are terrorists. And even if they are, why are we scared to try them in here in the United States? If the things that happen in GTMO are nothing to be ashamed of, then why oh why does are government have to do it overseas where they're out of their own jurisdiction? It's blatantly unconstitutional so they go places where the constitution doesn't apply. Look, it's not like he's just gonna go "Okay, Guantanamo Bay is closed, all the prisoners are released, have fun kids!" No, he's gonna do something with him. Hard to say what right now, but that's why he's waiting a year to close it, so they can figure out what to do with the detainees. Guantanamo Bay doesn't help protect us, our freedoms or anything we stand for. All it does is allow the government to do whatever it pleases outside the bounds of its own constitution, and if you've got to be a fool to believe that everything the government does is in your best interest. |
  
| |
|
|
|
| Feez | Jan 23 2009, 11:25 PM Post #4 |
|
Ebullient Future
|
I am in favor of this and agree with Yzarc Drowsnam, currently known as Bill Clinton. |
|
|
|
| cool story bro | Jan 23 2009, 11:31 PM Post #5 |
|
everything i wanted to say and then some |
| A NEW WORLD ORDER | |
|
|
|
| Jake Marshall | Jan 23 2009, 11:40 PM Post #6 |
姚明
|
I've not read up on the topic very much, but I pretty much agree with this. My question is where do they go? Are they released back their homeland, where if they are involved in terrorist activity they can once again become involved? Are they taken here to US prisons where many are all ready over their capacity. I don't know if this was the right decision or not, but I believe it was a very hasty decision to be making so early in his term. I'm not very sure about this, but I pray that it doesn't hurt America, or anybody in anyway. |
| 你好！ 我的英文名字是 Bosco! 我的中文名字是李福林！ | |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 24 2009, 01:18 AM Post #7 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
What could happen to them, though? I'll give you some possibilities. 1.) They are released. A terrible solution, and I pray it won't happen, but some probably will. 2.) They are tried in a military court. Which would be acknowledging fucking terrorist as soldiers. 3.) They would be tried in civilian court, which too is retarded, since they aren't US Citizens. I don't believe any of the torturing done to the prisoners at Gitmo is anywhere near the level of torture they would do to one of us. Can you compare things done in Gitmo to what happened to people like Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl? I don't believe that the inmates were tortured as punishment for whatever they did, but it was most likely used as an interrogation method. I also believe things like that are pretty much the only way to get information to protect this country out of people like that. As for the "You've got to be a fool to believe that everything the government does is in your best interest" comment, I would love to tell you that next time we talk economic policy. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Yzarc | Jan 24 2009, 01:46 AM Post #8 |
|
Coxian
|
Wow really? That's your only argument against this? Some sort of morality issue? These guys don't deserve trials because they're terrorists. What kind of logic is that? By that logic, every person tried of a crime is guilty. Here's something that's important to note - "Terrorists" are enemies of the United States. They are not evil, or lesser beings or anything like that. They're just significantly different and to say they don't deserve to be treated like humans just because they don't think we deserve to be treated like humans doesn't make sense. Is it wrong of them? Yes. That doesn't make it right for us though.
That's so not the point, and is completely irrelevant. The point is that we're doing wrong by loopholing around our own constitution just so we can do things that are clearly wrong.
I disagree.
Cute. Edited by Yzarc, Jan 24 2009, 01:47 AM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Sentenal | Jan 24 2009, 02:03 AM Post #9 |
|
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
|
I got rid of the double post, don't worry about it.
Do you really see no difference between a soldier and a terrorist? Terrorist are significantly different. Significantly different, in the fact that they almost exclusively target civilians. They are not an army. They don't represent a country. They are a group of murderers, who because they cannot challenge us militarily, they turn against the people the military is supposed to protect. If they are acknowledged as soldiers (lets just ignore the fact that they aren't soldiers), then they would have to be treated as such. According to the Geneva Convention, there are two types of Combatants. Privileged Combatants, who follow the law of war, and thus qualify as a POW, and unlawful combatants, who due to their nature, don't qualify as a POW. Terrorist sure as hell don't follow the law of war, and therefore are clearly unlawful combatants. Due to that, there it is absurd to give them the rights of a POW. Its not loopholing around the Constitution, since the Constitution doesn't protect non-citizens.
Ya I'm sure Terrorist will talk if we just sit down and ask nicely. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Askio | Jan 24 2009, 10:52 AM Post #10 |
Crit McGee on Speed
|
On one point, I agree they don't deserve a military trial, as it would acknowledge that are soldiers. However, that doesn't stop a general trial. by our own constitution as well as the basic rights of any nation, a crime committed in or against us is punishable by us. We could just as easily put them on a civil trial, simply for those who have been confirmed as committing crimes of terrorism. The point of the matter being they don't have to be considered POWs. Those we know for certain are criminals can be tried as criminals can and should be tried, not locked up in some prison out of our borders where 98% of the country doesn't know what the hell is going on. It would make us look better too.
Are you serious? Its true it doesn't protect non-citizens, however the constitution, as well as things like Geneva Convention, which the US used its own constitutional values to help create, prevent things like this from happening. Or at least it's supposed to. Our constitution prohibits this strictly, and is supposed to, in this day and age, protect human rights. combine that with the fact that many of the so called terrorists at GTMO haven't even been successfully proven as such, which is why they are kept over there, means that between UN laws, as well as the Declaration of Human rights, they are entitled to certain rights, and the US is obligated to give that to them. So in truth, the US is loopholing its constitution, the UN, the Geneva Convention, and the Human Rights Declaration. Yeah, 4 is so much better than 1.
Ya I'm sure Terrorist will talk if we just sit down and ask nicely. [/quote]. I believe you are missing the point. Terrorists would do horrible things to certain Americans. Yes they would. I can't argue this and any one with any sort of intelligence can't either. They terrorize us for a reason. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter. If, by the way your looking at things, that its fine, then its fine for them to do it, and its fine for anyone to do it, the cycle will never end. Just because they do it we should do it too? Thats silly. And why the hell are we using the same tactics as terrorists? Torture has never been consistently effective, its inhumane in most forms, and the US, the only true remaining superpower, is going out of it's way to resort to the same practices as these people? That means we could technically be called 'terrorists' if thats a criteria for the title. Plus, the whole "they do it so we should be able too' is a bit of a naive and childish argument in my opinion, and I would laugh, cry, and throw the nearest item at my television if I saw or heard our leaders using that pathetic reason as an excuse. (no offense to you, but it is a 5 year old and below concept) Edited by Askio, Jan 24 2009, 11:09 AM.
|
 Fire Emblem Online Askio: 9-1-1 | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 24 2009, 12:31 PM Post #11 |
Troll
|
I agree with the closing down of Guantanamo Bay because of the US Constitution. Although many people claim that US Citizens are the only people who should receive the benefits of the US Constition, this is a fatal oversight of why the US Constitution was written. Madison did not draw up the document as a way of giving benefits to citizens, but rather to limit government. If you look at the majority of our Amendments - the 1st and 8th for example - the protections offered come through the restrains on government power. The first prevents the government from eliminating free speech; the people aren't given express permission to say whatever they desire. The 8th prevents the government from using cruel and unusual punishment; the people do not gain the inherent right not to suffer cruel and unusual punishment. These are restrictions against the government, even if the citizen comes from the United States or not. I am, firmly, against releasing all of these prisoners but the government must be restrained. Edited by Reaver, Jan 24 2009, 12:31 PM.
|
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Jan 24 2009, 12:53 PM Post #12 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
The entire election cycle, Obama said one thing I agreed with, and that was that America doesn't torture. And now HE'S going back on that. I am 99% against torture. Deliberately causing someone pain? Yeah, unethical in my book. Screw the Constitution and Geneva Accords. We could argue the legal ramifications of torture all day. But that doesn't change the moral ramifications. We always imagine these doomsday situations where this terrorist knows the location of some atom bomb, and should we torture to find out where it is. In that situation, I'd probably torture the guy, but at the same time knowing what I was doing was wrong. When you start justifying torture of a thinking human being for God's sake, then you've got a problem. At the same time, given my stance on torture, closing Gitmo is stupid. Not kinda stupid, very stupid. Either a) it's just an empty gesture and everything will keep going on behind the scenes, and moving all the prisoners is a colossal waste of money and military resources, or b) We'll start trying them in military of civilian courts, most of them will get acquitted because soldiers don't collect evidence and the CIA will be unwilling the reveal their (potentially illegal) information collecting techniques. Or c) A lot of prisoners will be released, some of which will return to kill, and then Obama gets bloody egg in the face. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| +Reaver | Jan 24 2009, 12:58 PM Post #13 |
|
Troll
|
So Barack Obama is 99% against tortue and you call him a hypocrite? Keep in mind that for the vast majority of detainees previously tortured, they will never be tortured again. If the threat which can be prevented through torture is grave, lasting, and certain, I think it is unethical to act as a bystander if the information is available and can prevent the loss of hundreds - possibly thousands - of lives. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
|
|
|
| Conan O'Brien | Jan 24 2009, 03:07 PM Post #14 |
|
SKILLNADEN ÄR DRINKABILITY
|
I never said I was 100% against torture. He did. Unless I have a flawed view of what it means to be a hypocrite, that means he is and I'm not. (Not like I actually called him one anyways) I just think that when you justify torturing to save tens of thousands, then you justify for saving a hundred people, then dozens. Where's the cut-off? If for example you think torturing someone to save five lives is okay, I'd argue that you'd be allowed to torture the vast majority of Gitmo, since most terrorist attacks kill more than that number, and most probably could tell you the name of one other member. Then your 99% turns into 10% of cases. I mean personally, I'm all about WWJD, and I can't see JC cracking someone's skull open. |
~~Wind Sword
Touching. Scientology
Smartest post ever made. | |
|
|
|
| Soja | Jan 24 2009, 11:13 PM Post #15 |
Gentle Water, Crashing Waves
|
My views are in line with Reaver's. I don't think releases should come as a result of this, though. All leads must be investigated. These men should be treated like enemy combatants, and tried as such, not as citizens. I'm against coercive interrogations because, well... you will eventually get something from your subject. But is that information reliable? Everyone has a breaking point, and at that they will say anything to make it stop. It's a mistake to go into an interrogation wanting to hear something from someone. If you do that, you're pretty much making someone talk from a script, and nothing new has been gained or learned. :| |
Fusion Universe - FEF Fanfic Slayers Forth - Slayers Fanfic Smartest Member '06 & '07 & '08 & 'o9, Favored Debater '07 & '08 & '09, Most Popular '08, Manliest '08 & '09, Author of Nightmares, Scourge of the Luxon, Rules Lawyer, Nick's Former Hero, Crysta's Lover | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:11 AM Nov 23
