Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gitmo?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:24:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What is your opinion on closing or keeping Guantanamo Bay Naval Base open?

What should we do?

What would you do if you were prez!?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:27:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:24:22 PM, comoncents wrote:
What is your opinion on closing or keeping Guantanamo Bay Naval Base open?

What should we do?

What would you do if you were prez!?

Close it down. From my knowledge, many of the people there are innocent. Also, I don't believe in torture(waterboarding). I don't see why these people(the ones that are actually guilty!) couldn't just be put in regular prison if the US feels they must be detained.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:28:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:27:01 PM, Nags wrote:
It's unconstitutional. So yes, close it.

Argument from authority.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:31:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:24:22 PM, comoncents wrote:
What is your opinion on closing or keeping Guantanamo Bay Naval Base open?

I'm glad its being closed, though I'm disappointed that the Obama administration created the amount of hype over it that it did. They must have known that it would take quite a lot of political wrangling to ensure it be done, and that you simply couldn't close it down right away. But, apparently it didn't, and now they set an expectation too high and will reap the consequences.

What should we do?

Close it. It might have had its place before, but at the current moment is neither feasible nor truly wanted. When such an institution gets the reputation it has, you have to decide whether or not its beneficial to keep it open. Does is still serve a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by other places? I don't think it does.

What would you do if you were prez!?

Close it.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:32:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:28:31 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:27:01 PM, Nags wrote:
It's unconstitutional. So yes, close it.

Argument from authority.

Yes, yes it is. The United States of America operates on authority. So my argument is not a fallacy. Don't get involved in this thread if you just want to spew anarchist crap.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:32:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:31:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
and that you simply couldn't close it down right away.

Sure you could.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:34:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:32:49 PM, Nags wrote:
The United States of America operates on authority.

What do you mean by this?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:37:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:34:45 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:32:49 PM, Nags wrote:
The United States of America operates on authority.

What do you mean by this?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution created the federal government of the US. The federal government has three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Each branch has authority of it's own and the power to regulate the other branches.

Must I go on? 3rd Grade Civics.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:38:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@Volkov

It must be tough to always hear american problems, rather than serious canadian ones.
I almost think of you as american when we argue about the constitution or obama.
I forget sometimes that you are canadian.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:40:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:38:45 PM, comoncents wrote:
@Volkov


It must be tough to always hear american problems, rather than serious canadian ones.
I almost think of you as american when we argue about the constitution or obama.
I forget sometimes that you are canadian.

Lol, I think its rather a blessing that I don't hear about serious Canadian problems. The less serious things end up, generally the better things are. Of course, if you ask me right now, things are very serious.

But, hey, this is a mostly-American website, so I'm used to it.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:40:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:37:22 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:34:45 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What do you mean by this?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution created the federal government of the US. The federal government has three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Each branch has authority of it's own and the power to regulate the other branches.

Must I go on? 3rd Grade Civics.

What does this have to do with whether gitmo should or should not be closed?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:41:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:32:57 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:31:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
and that you simply couldn't close it down right away.

Sure you could.

Sure, you could, if you were willing to let go hundreds of prisoners that would most likely come back and hit the US again.

Or, you could kill them all, and be seen as even worse a macabre country.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:42:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:40:22 PM, Reasoning wrote:
What does this have to do with whether gitmo should or should not be closed?

Are you purposely ignorant or...?

At 2/13/2010 9:34:45 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:32:49 PM, Nags wrote:
The United States of America operates on authority.

What do you mean by this?

So, I answered:

At 2/13/2010 9:37:22 PM, Nags wrote:
The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution created the federal government of the US. The federal government has three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Each branch has authority of it's own and the power to regulate the other branches.

Must I go on? 3rd Grade Civics.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:44:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:41:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
Sure, you could, if you were willing to let go hundreds of prisoners that would most likely come back and hit the US again.

How did you reach this most likely figure? Are they not to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Or has that whole idea been thrown under the bus?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:45:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:44:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:41:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
Sure, you could, if you were willing to let go hundreds of prisoners that would most likely come back and hit the US again.

How did you reach this most likely figure?

"One in ten freed Guantánamo detainees goes back to terrorism"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

Are they not to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Or has that whole idea been thrown under the bus?

Volkov and I both agree on this, which is why they need proper trials.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:46:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"The Constitution says that we should close gitmo, therefore we should close gitmo"

That is an argument from authority and is not valid. You must first explain how this magical scroll known as the constitution determines right from wrong.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:50:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:45:58 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:44:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:41:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
Sure, you could, if you were willing to let go hundreds of prisoners that would most likely come back and hit the US again.

How did you reach this most likely figure?

"One in ten freed Guantánamo detainees goes back to terrorism"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

But most do not. It is ethically unjustifiable to continue there imprisonment.

Volkov and I both agree on this, which is why they need proper trials.

It is my understanding that they do not have the evidence to convict very many at all of the suspected "terrorists". This means that the vast majority at least should be immediately freed.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:54:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:46:05 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"The Constitution says that we should close gitmo, therefore we should close gitmo"

That is an argument from authority and is not valid. You must first explain how this magical scroll known as the constitution determines right from wrong.

Habeas corpus has been suspended and so has due process, which is unconstitutional.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:56:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:50:10 PM, Reasoning wrote:
But most do not. It is ethically unjustifiable to continue there imprisonment.

Right. I was just pointing that out.

It is my understanding that they do not have the evidence to convict very many at all of the suspected "terrorists". This means that the vast majority at least should be immediately freed.

No, they shouldn't be freed, they should be given trials regardless of evidence. If they lose, they are imprisoned. If they win, they are freed.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 9:57:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:50:10 PM, Reasoning wrote:
But most do not. It is ethically unjustifiable to continue there imprisonment.

So, it is ethically unjustifiable to continue their imprisonment... yet it is ethically justifiable to let one in ten come back to attack the US?

I'm far from a supporter of these tactics, but the situation is as it is right now. You can't simply let them go right away and hope none of them come back to harm you.

It is my understanding that they do not have the evidence to convict very many at all of the suspected "terrorists". This means that the vast majority at least should be immediately freed.

I disagree. There are some in there that definitely need to be freed right away. Some already have, and the US already has guaranteed them safe passage. Its a slow process, but I'd rather take it slowly, filter out those we have evidence against versus those we don't and those that we know are absolutely innocent (there is quite a number, apparently) rather than take a risk in letting them all go free and the chance that some might present a danger again.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:06:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 9:57:41 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 9:50:10 PM, Reasoning wrote:
But most do not. It is ethically unjustifiable to continue there imprisonment.

So, it is ethically unjustifiable to continue their imprisonment... yet it is ethically justifiable to let one in ten come back to attack the US?

Where did it say in the report that they attacked the US? Of course there is nothing special about the US that makes this any less tragic. But they are to be considered innocent until proven guilty and they cannot be proven guilty, which means that they should be considered innocent and freed immediately.

I'm far from a supporter of these tactics, but the situation is as it is right now. You can't simply let them go right away and hope none of them come back to harm you.

Sure you can.

It is my understanding that they do not have the evidence to convict very many at all of the suspected "terrorists". This means that the vast majority at least should be immediately freed.

I disagree. There are some in there that definitely need to be freed right away. Some already have, and the US already has guaranteed them safe passage. Its a slow process, but I'd rather take it slowly, filter out those we have evidence against versus those we don't and those that we know are absolutely innocent (there is quite a number, apparently) rather than take a risk in letting them all go free and the chance that some might present a danger again.

Meanwhile innocent men are being kept in cages at gitmo.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:23:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 10:06:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Where did it say in the report that they attacked the US? Of course there is nothing special about the US that makes this any less tragic. But they are to be considered innocent until proven guilty and they cannot be proven guilty, which means that they should be considered innocent and freed immediately.

It simply doesn't work this way in reality, Reasoning. There are justifiable concerns about these people, and while "innocent until proven guilty" should be reinstated as soon as possible, you cannot let them go if they represent a threat to the US, to American forces, to allied forces, etc. Some of these people are Taliban commandos, for Christ's sake. Are you saying we should just immediately let someone like that go?

Sure you can.

You wouldn't if you actually considered the risks.

Meanwhile innocent men are being kept in cages at gitmo.

And in your world, its possible innocent lives could be lost because one of those individuals decided to set up an attack against the US, or any country, and its citizens.

This is where the revolutionary zeal fails - it tries to rush everything. You simply can't if you want to have some control over the situation. This is why Kerensky failed at the outset of the Russian Civil War. Great guy, great ideas, even well liked, but he simply tried to rush the process and it ended up going all to hell and Lenin got into freaking power.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:30:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As a veteran of the US military, Gitmo prison is an embarrassment. I want Gitmo to stay "open" as it is a base we need, but the prison is a slap in the face to those of us who served. I look at it as a sad episode in America's history.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:34:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 10:30:32 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
As a veteran of the US military, Gitmo prison is an embarrassment. I want Gitmo to stay "open" as it is a base we need, but the prison is a slap in the face to those of us who served. I look at it as a sad episode in America's history.

That's another important point - thanks for bringing it up, sherlock.

Gitmo is still an important military installation for the US military. It should continue in this same capacity. I see no reason why not - does anyone else?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:39:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 10:23:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/13/2010 10:06:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Where did it say in the report that they attacked the US? Of course there is nothing special about the US that makes this any less tragic. But they are to be considered innocent until proven guilty and they cannot be proven guilty, which means that they should be considered innocent and freed immediately.

It simply doesn't work this way in reality, Reasoning.

It would should enough others be convinced that it is what ought to happen which is what we are debating right now.

There are justifiable concerns about these people, and while "innocent until proven guilty" should be reinstated as soon as possible, you cannot let them go if they represent a threat to the US, to American forces, to allied forces, etc.

Sure you can.

Some of these people are Taliban commandos, for Christ's sake. Are you saying we should just immediately let someone like that go?

If they can't be proven guilty of any crime, yes.

Sure you can.

You wouldn't if you actually considered the risks.

Sure I would.

Meanwhile innocent men are being kept in cages at gitmo.

And in your world, its possible innocent lives could be lost because one of those individuals decided to set up an attack against the US, or any country, and its citizens.

Indeed.

Now let us assume that the vast majority of kidnap victims in gitmo have little to no evidence against them that they committed any crime and furthermore that they hold a vote on whether the whole group should be released or not and it is an overwhelming affirmation as I would assume would happen.

By holding this vote we would be able to see on which side the innocent people stand, whether they consider it worth it to have themselves and other innocent people stay in the cage to prevent the possible future attacks. And upon seeing the results would it not be the greatest of arrogance to claim that you know better than them what their freedom is worth?

This is where the revolutionary zeal fails - it tries to rush everything. You simply can't if you want to have some control over the situation. This is why Kerensky failed at the outset of the Russian Civil War. Great guy, great ideas, even well liked, but he simply tried to rush the process and it ended up going all to hell and Lenin got into freaking power.

I ask only for justice.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:39:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 10:34:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
Gitmo is still an important military installation for the US military. It should continue in this same capacity. I see no reason why not - does anyone else?

Until the US opens up relations with Cuba, I don't think the Naval Base should remain. Cuba doesn't even want the Naval Base there, saying it's illegal or violates international law or something like that.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 10:41:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 10:30:32 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
As a veteran of the US military, Gitmo prison is an embarrassment. I want Gitmo to stay "open" as it is a base we need, but the prison is a slap in the face to those of us who served. I look at it as a sad episode in America's history.

Who is "we"? I don't need gitmo. I also find it odd how you mentioned "those who served" as being the abused party rather than the kidnap victims who were kept in cages and tortured.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran