US rejects calls to shut Guantanamo (AFP)

  • Thread starter Anchor Man
  • 35 comments
  • 1,082 views
So, the UN wants the US to release captured terrorist suspects? We have already seen released suspects from Gitmo go on to commit more terrorist acts.

The UN is out of its mind.
 
Viper Zero
So, the UN wants the US to release captured terrorist suspects? We have already seen released suspects from Gitmo go on to commit more terrorist acts.

The UN is out of its mind.


Thanks, Bill Oreilly, for repeating exactly what Yahoo news just said.
 
Oh they want to release terrorists of which they have no proof that they really are terrorists? Wow, the USA really is a democracy! They hold their own detention camps in other countries so they can torture prisoners without breaking laws...

Before Guantanamo I genuinely thought that the US was a country which campaigned for human rights and also fair treatment of prisoners. When a US soldier is captured they demand Geneva Rights (even thought they don't acknowledge them) and then when they capture someone the US will just turn around and say, 'What Geneva rights?'
 
xAkirax2004
Thanks, Bill Oreilly, for repeating exactly what Yahoo news just said.

What's up with O'Reilly? Are you scared of him or what?

DODGE the VIPER
When a US soldier is captured they demand Geneva Rights (even thought they don't acknowledge them) and then when they capture someone the US will just turn around and say, 'What Geneva rights?'

I don't think US soldiers expect to get protections under Geneva from any country besides the US.

These detainees are there for a reason. I could direct you to the Wikipedia page which is very informative, but the neutrality of the article is disputed, so everything must be false! Just throw it out the ****in' window and ignore what I said.
 
DODGE the VIPER
Wow, the USA really is a democracy! They hold their own detention camps in other countries so they can torture prisoners without breaking laws...

Before Guantanamo I genuinely thought that the US was a country which campaigned for human rights and also fair treatment of prisoners.
For some reason, I just don't think that forcing prisoners into a naked pyramid and flushing the Qur'an down the toilet (at Abu Ghraib) qualify as crimes against humanity. Worse things happen in frat houses.
 
Terrorists aren't humans, so they don't get the same rights as us. Terrorists are people that shouldn't even get imprisoned, in my opinion. The reason we do it is to get info from them, but they rarely give it.
There are people out there that deserve to be tortured. These terrorists, for instance. So what's wrong with taking them to a different country to do it? I don't see a problem unless the other country doesn't want us there, in which case we would most likely honor their wishes. We have enough torture related problems here; some responsible American citizen recently complained to the government about our lethal injection death penalty, saying that it hurts the prisoners. The only people that get the death penalty in this counrty are cold-blooded killers, serial killers, murderers, people commiting arson, insurance fraud, treason against the government. You know, people, especially, murderers, that really shouldn't be here longer than necessary.
 
keef
Terrorists aren't humans, so they don't get the same rights as us. Terrorists are people that shouldn't even get imprisoned, in my opinion. The reason we do it is to get info from them, but they rarely give it.
There are people out there that deserve to be tortured. These terrorists, for instance. So what's wrong with taking them to a different country to do it? I don't see a problem unless the other country doesn't want us there, in which case we would most likely honor their wishes. We have enough torture related problems here; some responsible American citizen recently complained to the government about our lethal injection death penalty, saying that it hurts the prisoners. The only people that get the death penalty in this counrty are cold-blooded killers, serial killers, murderers, people commiting arson, insurance fraud, treason against the government. You know, people, especially, murderers, that really shouldn't be here monger than necessary.



Exactly. They all deserve to die.
 
Yeah, all these "terrible, awful" degrading pictures show up every now and then, and all of a sudden the general public forgets why these people are prisoners, and dont care all the bad **** that they've done, so, lets punish the people that have the unfortunate duties of dealing with these pieces of trash on a day to day basis.

The only people that complain about the treatment of the prisoners couldn't possibly fathom what it is like to be in the position of the soldiers in those prisons. It makes me sick that when we are in a time of war, we STILL have to "play by the rules".
 
Viper Zero
What's up with O'Reilly? Are you scared of him or what?



I don't think US soldiers expect to get protections under Geneva from any country besides the US.

These detainees are there for a reason. I could direct you to the Wikipedia page which is very informative, but the neutrality of the article is disputed, so everything must be false! Just throw it out the ****in' window and ignore what I said.

No, Bill Oreilly has just has as much of a right to an opinion as much as you or I do. You sidetracked yourself simply because of the fact that I politically stereotyped you. (And Bill Orielly.) I do agree with the fact that letting out even one prisoner from there is quite ludicrous, but the fact of the matter is, I was simply pointing out the fact that you just repeated exactly what the news article. (With the exception of your short opinion) I would agree with you entirely on this event, and I apologize for you misinterperting my message.
 
People are held there without trial though. Ok, I agree you can imprison them if you have proven their guiltiness, but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? These people are being detained for 2-3 years without any chance of a trial happening.
Torture is not acceptable either. If you succomb to torture, what makes you better than them? The only thing torture has succeeded in doing is making more than half the world hate the US even more. :\
 
U.S. will have very hard time battling the terrorists, if they are going to have to play by "innocent until proven guilty". These terrorists are combatants. They are like soldiers in a war. Difference? They target a lot of innocent civilians. I might actually buy the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" b.s., if these terrorists actually focused on attacking just the military. After they cut up innocent airline passengers with box cutters, then proceeded to murder thousands of people, I knew that terrorists are evil. U.S. definitely has my vote to go little bit farther to stop them.
 
Terrorists are ruthless. Technology only goes so far in winning a war, and when you are fighting someone that uses tactics the Vietcong could only dream of, you really need to get back to basics. Terrorists want to die, so they don't care if you kill them. You have to force them to live, and in miserable conditions. You have to do something extreme to make them think twice. The United States doesn't really feel like playing the role of appeasement again; that resulted in WW2. We have to win the first time.
 
DODGE the VIPER
People are held there without trial though. Ok, I agree you can imprison them if you have proven their guiltiness,
What is the proof that you need? He was captured during a battle or raid on enemy facilities. Is that not enough?

How many German soldiers were tried during World War II? Only the leaders. The rest were detained until the end of the war. That is how it works. You detain the soldiers until there is no longer a leadership to send them into battle or no more battle. These guys are there for a long time.

...but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? These people are being detained for 2-3 years without any chance of a trial happening.
Well, the Constitution of the United States applies to American citizens only, but we make exceptions, I just don't see it happening to enemy combatants.

Torture is not acceptable either. If you succomb to torture, what makes you better than them? The only thing torture has succeeded in doing is making more than half the world hate the US even more. :\
Please, define the torture. They have all the same body parts they came in with and they don't look like holocaust survivors.

The difference between us and them is that our prisoners are putr in to detention cells, given food, clothing, shelter, medical treatement, and their own copy of the Koran purchased by the US government while their prisoners usually get their heads cut off with a steak knife and then have the video shown on the Internet for all the world to see.
 
I dont agree . If you dont have prrof that a mans a terrorist you cant hold him. Just keep a coonstant eye on him instead and impose some restrictions to him as to where and what he can do.

I mean didnt us christians go around all over the world taking slaves pillfering and stealing from other nations. Every human being should have his rights.

Nelson madela was a terrorist and so where countless of other great men that we praise to thsi day.

And lets not forget that terrorism was A-okay with the US government when they were funding osama to blow some russian stuff up.
 
So if you're a suspected terrorist you lose the right to a trial?

Who decides who is a suspect?

What about the rights of those British and other nationals detained there. As nationals do they not have the right for their own government to secure their realease because they are being detained without trial, or does that only apply if you're an American??
 
a6m5
I might actually buy the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" b.s., if these terrorists actually focused on attacking just the military. After they cut up innocent airline passengers with box cutters, then proceeded to murder thousands of people, I knew that terrorists are evil. U.S. definitely has my vote to go little bit farther to stop them.

Research into how the IRA were funded and you will see the ""one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" b.s"
 
Sphinx
Research into how the IRA were funded and you will see the ""one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" b.s"
What do you mean? I googled little bit, but couldn't come up with much. Only clear result said that they were at least partially funded thru illegal(or criminal) activities?

In my post, I was talking about how these supposed "Freedom Fighters" are targeting innocent civilians, so I don't see the relevance of how IRA is funded has anything to do with that. I'm probably missing something. Sorry. :D
 
The IRA have a lot of ties to the US, they are allowed to gain funds in the US since they were omitted from a list of Terrorist organisations produced by the US that would not be allowed to raise funds in the US, probably sue to the large Irish community, they reportedly get quite a lot of money from over there. It's a so so example, it provides a good point from certain angles of argument, but it's not the actual US gvernment giving the IRA money, it's mainly the Irish community within the US, the US government just doesn't do anything to prevent it.
 
Oh, I get it. Thanks, live4speed. United States itself has been guilty of attacks on civilians in the past, obviously(as with most other countries). I don't care which side you are on, or who fund your organizaion. I am critical of any country/terrorist/freedom fighters who targets civilians.
 
Poverty
I dont agree . If you dont have prrof that a mans a terrorist you cant hold him. Just keep a coonstant eye on him instead and impose some restrictions to him as to where and what he can do.
I'll ask again. What kind of proof would you need?
I agree that they should be treated as POWs since we grabbed them in a war, but even POWs are detained until the war is over or an exchange is negotiated, are they not?

I mean didnt us christians go around all over the world taking slaves pillfering and stealing from other nations. Every human being should have his rights.
And? You are talking about something that happened over a hundred yeasr ago and until I see a Muslim being forced to pick cotton without pay I don't see the relevance. Gitmo detainees are not slaves by any comparison.

Nelson madela was a terrorist and so where countless of other great men that we praise to this day.

And lets not forget that terrorism was A-okay with the US government when they were funding osama to blow some russian stuff up.
What does any of this have to do with Guantanamo?

To give you a response: The enemy of my enemy is my friend, until he kills 3,000 of my civilians. Don't forget we supplied Osama to fight military targets, we didn't send him to fly a plane into Moscow and kill thousands of civilians.

Now, is this a discussion about Guantanamo detainees or is this about the bad things America has done in generations past?
 
In every war civilians are killed and osama killed civilians for the US. If civilians really was Osamas aim he would have killed alot more people in 9/11 than he did.
 
Poverty
If civilians really was Osamas aim he would have killed alot more people in 9/11 than he did.
What was his aim?

You can say that it was the symbolism of the building but if that were all then it would have been hit at night. No, he waited until just after everyone was at work and then struck. The building was nearly full. It was maximum casualties on purpose and he was aware that it was civilian offices.
 
So you're saying terrorists are fine attacking other countries, but when America is attacked that's the last straw? Then once they attack America we must show no mercy to anyone living in a country from which the masterminds were based? Forget about any human rights, or judicial systems.
 
Poverty
In every war civilians are killed and osama killed civilians for the US. If civilians really was Osamas aim he would have killed alot more people in 9/11 than he did.
Did the U.S. order killing of the civilians, or was that the tactic of Bin Laden? Civilians are killed in wars, everybody knows that. But missions carried out by the U.S. military does not include blowing up civilian buildings with just innocent civilians in it, many of the terrorists' do.

We can nitpick on U.S. all day long, but they do not go out looking for innocent civilians to kill. Terrorists, including Al-Qaeda, do.
Edit:
DODGE the VIPER
So you're saying terrorists are fine attacking other countries, but when America is attacked that's the last straw? Then once they attack America we must show no mercy to anyone living in a country from which the masterminds were based?
Why is this surprising? Does anyone in this forum think there is a country that doesn't put itself first?. That "last straw" involved an attack on one of the world's largest landmarks. Thousands of innocent people were killed. America's been attacked before, including the World Trade Center. But the attacks carried out on 9/11, that was the last straw. Al-Qaeda wasn't going to stop there either. If it wasn't for all the U.S. intelligence and military did, multiple landmarks(including the West Coast this time) would have followed the fate of the W.T.C. also. Golden Gate Bridge, Space Needle, all civilian targets.


DODGE the VIPER
Forget about any human rights, or judicial systems.
In this "War Against Terror", if U.S. actually operated like your local police, respecting their rights, one phone call, innocent until proven guilty, etc, U.S. Governement would have been lucky to barely slow down Al-Qaeda. Almost guranteed way of losing the war.
 
Ok how about this. America has threatned and is doing something unjust to the muslim people but the government cant do anything about it because america has nukes and thay have not. So then angry men come together really annoyed seeking revenge and a way to hurt america. They cant attack the whitehouse or any military bases though because its too highely guarded.

So theiryre only other target? Low protected civilian buildings that will hurt america as much as possible. So buildings that stand as symbols or take out a part of the infrastructure. If all these supposed terrorists who threatn america so much really want to just kill people for no god damn reason they can easily do so. They can get a gun or amke a bomb and then walk into a hospital and blow themselves up. They would cause a hell lot more casualties than osama did with the world trade center.

And why is it that america can have nukes yet they tell every other country that theyre not allowed them?
 
Poverty
Ok how about this. America has threatned and is doing something unjust to the muslim people but the government cant do anything about it because america has nukes and thay have not. So then angry men come together really annoyed seeking revenge and a way to hurt america. They cant attack the whitehouse or any military bases though because its too highely guarded.

When did we threaten to do something unjust to the muslim people? What was the thing that we threatened to do, and why does that justify actual reaction (not just a counter-threat).

And why is it that america can have nukes yet they tell every other country that theyre not allowed them?

We don't.
 
Poverty
Ok how about this. America has threatned and is doing something unjust to the muslim people but the government cant do anything about it because america has nukes and thay have not. So then angry men come together really annoyed seeking revenge and a way to hurt america. They cant attack the whitehouse or any military bases though because its too highely guarded.

So theiryre only other target? Low protected civilian buildings that will hurt america as much as possible. So buildings that stand as symbols or take out a part of the infrastructure. If all these supposed terrorists who threatn america so much really want to just kill people for no god damn reason they can easily do so. They can get a gun or amke a bomb and then walk into a hospital and blow themselves up. They would cause a hell lot more casualties than osama did with the world trade center.
That is the excuse they would use. They can go on their stories, but it still doesn't change the facts. They are targeting civilians.

Poverty
And why is it that america can have nukes yet they tell every other country that theyre not allowed them?
Group of nations, led by U.S. do tell them that. For a good reason, I might add. Two countries that are being publicized for trying to arm themselves with nuclear weapons right now: Iran and North Korea.
Hey, what an coincidence! They are number 1 and 2 on my list of countries that would nuclear attack their neighbors. :dopey:
 
The reason America has nuclear warheads, along with Russia and many other european nations, is for a deterant. It scares people. If you notice, there are lots of countries that have nuclear weapons, and all these countries are sane enough to not use them. We know bad things will happen if we use them. We found that out after WW2. We made a pact to never use them again.
Iran and North Korea (the countries we are worried about) were not part of this pact, and the leaders of those countries are just insane enough to use the weapons they are developing.

Ok how about this. America has threatned and is doing something unjust to the muslim people but the government cant do anything about it because america has nukes and thay have not. So then angry men come together really annoyed seeking revenge and a way to hurt america. They cant attack the whitehouse or any military bases though because its too highely guarded.

So theiryre only other target? Low protected civilian buildings that will hurt america as much as possible. So buildings that stand as symbols or take out a part of the infrastructure. If all these supposed terrorists who threatn america so much really want to just kill people for no god damn reason they can easily do so. They can get a gun or amke a bomb and then walk into a hospital and blow themselves up. They would cause a hell lot more casualties than osama did with the world trade center.

What is it that we are doing unjustly to the Muslim people? I don't understand. Why does it matter that we have nuclear weapons; we won't use them. The reason Terrorists attack America and other democratic countries is because they despise freedom. They have totally opposite beliefs from the US and der Nederland alike. They want total control over what people do. They want to rule the lives of each individual person.
That's not what we believe. You know what we believe, so I won't explain it.
And they absolutely can attack our government buildings and military bases if they want to. I'll send them good luck.
The World Trade Center attack and the Pentagon attack accumulated well over 4,000 casualties. When's the last time you saw a hospital that big? Those people are almost dead, anyway. They attacked the Trade Centers because it is the center for world trade, which its name states. The most important economical building in the world. It was extremely expensive, so they see they can cause monetary loss. A huge number of important people work there, and they hate free people. They killed them, too. They attacked the Pentagon because that is the brain of the most powerful military the world has ever known. The terrorists know that now.
There is a race track in America called Bristol Motor Speedway. It fits 160,000 people in a very small, confined space during an NASCAR race. Why didn't they attack that? It has no governmental or militaristic value. It doens't hurt the counrties ability to fight back or make decisions or fund a war. That's why they attacked where they did.
The reason America attacked these terrorists when no other counrty did is because we are the only ones brave enough to do so. We are the only ones powerful enough to fund and win a war that will takew decades. It's a very slow, uneventful, dangerous, and specialized war. America doesn't **** with people who **** with us. We don't practice appeasement anymore.
America does not target civilians. We target the government, if there is one, which in this case there is not, and military vehicles, weapons, supplies, etc. We attack anything that the enemy can use against us. We don't even target the soldiers if we don't have to. We try to target the equipment and money and government. This is not a conventional war, though. There is no equipment to target; the thing that does the damage is the people themselves. They use whatever happns to be lying around, and they are very good at what they do. Better at improvising than the US, in fact.
In Iraq we attacked important buildings first. This got rid of the headquarters and any strongholds that the Iraqi military had. They couldn't hide indoors anymore. Then we attacked their military supplies and equipment. They couldn't fight us after that. Then they gave up, with minimal soldier and civilian loss. See haw that works? It hasn't always been this way. But the US has changed. We follow these rules of war because it's the right thing to do. And because we're good enough to win while doing it the hard way.
I used the word "we" a lot in those paragraphs. I used that because most Americans, including me, feel a real connection to the ideals and beliefs of our Constitution and we can associate with the loss of those killed in attacks or in battle. We want to defend our beliefs and the sane world's beliefs, just ask any of the United Nations. They help significantly, though America bares the brunt of the work. Nobody likes it when their friends seem to be killed for no good reason. These terrorists will know that when the UN countries get done with them. You live in a United Nations country, you should know this.
 
Back