Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

Elind said:
According to fools perhaps, but in reality capture is required first:cool:
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. The Idi Amin method of gathering evidence - beat seven kinds of it out of the prisoner, until the prisoner confesses. Or dies. Sure-fire method of getting good evidence, that.
 
BPSCG said:
Explain to me what the Islamist terrorists' purpose is in wearing civilian clothing instead of camoflage, since you seem to think they are pretty much equivalent, when, by wearing camoflage and carrying their arms openly, they could avail themselves of the protections of POW status under the GC.
Click to expand...
Just so I understand: Is that your criteria for defining an enemy combatant?
 
Earthborn said:
Unless of course the enemy choses to shoot trees...
Click to expand...

Which isn't a crime, and if the enemy is doing that, that's good for your side, because that reveals their position and wastes their ammo. So it's still effective, regardless of their choice. And nobody complains if our actions lead the enemy to shoot up trees.

That is just the result of my refusal to pass moral judgement on things that are not mine to judge. How does that make me "wrong" ?
Click to expand...

Because when your enemy commits a crime against you, and a heinous, immoral one at that, how is it NOT yours to judge? As I said, this refusal to judge isn't the mark of moral refinement, it is moral cowardice and cheap relativism. And it makes it easier for our enemies to continue to commit such crimes when they are not held accountable. You would take offense, I suspect, if someone were to question which side you are on in this conflict. And yet, you won't even act like you really are on our side on an issue where there isn't even any ambiguity. That is, in a word, wrong.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because when your enemy commits a crime against you, and a heinous, immoral one at that, how is it NOT yours to judge? As I said, this refusal to judge isn't the mark of moral refinement, it is moral cowardice and cheap relativism. And it makes it easier for our enemies to continue to commit such crimes when they are not held accountable. You would take offense, I suspect, if someone were to question which side you are on in this conflict. And yet, you won't even act like you really are on our side on an issue where there isn't even any ambiguity. That is, in a word, wrong.
Click to expand...
This is where we differ, I think.

We ARE "on your side", but we do not agree that your way of dealing with the situation is the best. Or even right or legal. You are talking mindless animal revenge, thus being as immoral and illegal as your enemy. We are talking about being altogether something else - being demonstrably better, more civilised, more just people than they are. If necessary, we WILL use force to achieve our aims, but it is not the only method.

That you choose to call us "useful idiots" and "appeasers" and suchlike, and advocate illegal mindless violence as your only response, only serves to reinforce your place in their lower camp. It drags you down to the same level of infamy as the enemy you despise so much.

We are looking for a permanent solution to a long-term problem that threatens us all, including curbing their mindless violence. You are looking for mindless bloody revenge without even thinking where it leads to next.

Cartoonist/commentator Rueben Bolling nailed this a few months ago (25 March)...
 

Attachments

  • td060325.jpg
    td060325.jpg
    102.4 KB · Views: 10
Zep said:
Ah, yes. The Idi Amin method of gathering evidence - beat seven kinds of it out of the prisoner, until the prisoner confesses. Or dies. Sure-fire method of getting good evidence, that.
Click to expand...
Excellent. Earlier you compared the U.S. justice system unfavorably with Stalin's, and now with Idi Amin. And this from someone who keeps braying about how his country is our friend.
 
BPSCG said:
Are you saying you agree that the U.S. justice system is, in important ways, similar to Stalin's and Idi Amin's?
Click to expand...
Sometimes only a friend will tell you your BO stinks today. Everyone else just point and laugh at you, or hold their noses and walk around you, and you wonder why they do.
 
Zep said:
Sometimes only a friend will tell you your BO stinks today. Everyone else just point and laugh at you, or hold their noses and walk around you, and you wonder why they do.
Click to expand...
And what do you call a "friend" who tells you only what he finds offensive about you, not just today, but every day?
a_unique_person said:
No, but as Zep says, something smells. Don't take my word for it, the real justice system appears to have major issues with Guantanamo, as do many of your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...
Please explain what you mean by "the real justice system," since it's clear you do not mean the U.S. justice system, which you and Zep appear to agree is as bad as, or even worse than, those of Stalin and Idi Amin. Warning: If you say "the U.N." or "The Hague," you get the laughing dog.
 
BPSCG said:
Excellent. Earlier you compared the U.S. justice system unfavorably with Stalin's, and now with Idi Amin. And this from someone who keeps braying about how his country is our friend.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you are deliberately missing the point or not.

I'm pointing out that methods being advocated by some sound like the sort of methods Stalin and Amin actually employed, and which were universally denounced as barbaric and crimes against humanity.

And a good friend would try and talk them out of this unproductive line of thought, wouldn't you agree? If they are willing to listen...
 
BPSCG said:
And what do you call a "friend" who tells you only what he finds offensive about you, not just today, but every day?
Click to expand...
I don't know - I've never done that. I'm sure if I trawl all my 16.7K posts, I'll find many that praise the USA in many areas - far more than deal with this one negative issue.

But of course, you don't want to see the other side, do you...
 
Earthborn said:
From a moral standpoint, it depends on which morality one believes in.
Click to expand...
If your morals allow you to deliberately put non-combatants (you know- innocent civilians) at risk of death and injury, then you have a point.

But I expected better than this from you, Earthborn.

You know, the whole reason such tactics are illegal (a point you concede) according to the GC is because it puts non-combatants a risk. I really am astonished that you are defending this tactic.
 
Zep said:
I'm sure if I trawl all my 16.7K posts, I'll find many that praise the USA in many areas - far more than deal with this one negative issue.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, yet perception is reality. The AussieNuts' song continues in just one key for some of us.

But of course, you don't want to see the other side, do you...
Click to expand...
Who said, "With 'friends' like you ...."?


Wildcat said:
I really am astonished that you are defending this tactic.
Click to expand...
Why? Her singing presents nothing but standard Eurotrash ideals.
 
Because when your enemy commits a crime against you, and a heinous, immoral one at that, how is it NOT yours to judge?
Click to expand...
I do not consider anyone my enemy, nobody has comitted a crime against me, and it is not mine to judge because it is not my job to judge people, and I lack the expertise I consider necessary to do so.

As I said, this refusal to judge isn't the mark of moral refinement, it is moral cowardice and cheap relativism.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is noted.

And it makes it easier for our enemies to continue to commit such crimes when they are not held accountable.
Click to expand...
So people can only be held accountable if I judge them? I'm the ultimate judge over everything and everyone? I have never noticed. Seems to me that lots of people are held accountable even if no one asks me to do it, so I don't see how my refusal makes it easier for your enemies to commit such crimes.

You would take offense, I suspect, if someone were to question which side you are on in this conflict.
Click to expand...
No, I would not take offence. I would rather think that it is a silly question: why should I be on anyone's side?

And yet, you won't even act like you really are on our side on an issue where there isn't even any ambiguity.
Click to expand...
I won't act like I'm on your side, because I am on no one's side. In war, I don't take anyone's side, because I am no great fan of the whole concept of war to begin with.

That is, in a word, wrong.
Click to expand...
So in your opinion someone is wrong for not taking your side. Do you also believe that anyone who does not take your side must automatically be on your enemies' side?
 
Zep said:
Ah, yes. The Idi Amin method of gathering evidence - beat seven kinds of it out of the prisoner, until the prisoner confesses. Or dies. Sure-fire method of getting good evidence, that.
Click to expand...

You suggest that first a case should be made with evidence reviewed by a board, and then go back and see if you can find the perp later?
 
Earthborn said:
I do not consider anyone my enemy, nobody has comitted a crime against me, and it is not mine to judge because it is not my job to judge people, and I lack the expertise I consider necessary to do so.
Click to expand...

Your lack of expertise and ability to make judgements is noted, which is why it is strange that you bother to participate in these discussions.
 
Zep said:
I'm not claiming anything about these people in Gitmo, YOU ARE! You are claiming they are "illegal combatants", a classification that does not seem to have ever existed before. It seems to be designed specifically to avoid any ethical and legal responsibilities in detaining people without charge and without trial indefinitely. Do you, or do you not, have any argument that shows otherwise?
Click to expand...

Yes you are claiming! You are claiming that they are innocent until proven, by a court recognized by YOU, that they are not. We say they were captured in circumstances that any reasonable person would consider as an enemy combatant, ENEMY that is, and what's more we tend to believe our own people more than the enemy, which you don't appear to do.

I gave a rational assessment of the practicalities involved some time ago, which I never saw your response to, and I gave your Indonesian friends the benefit of the doubt that they faced the same problems in convicting the instigator of the murder of so many of your people. Why did you not demand that he be extradited to Australia? Because you know you couldn't convict him?

Gitmo is probably the smartest thing that the Bush crowd ever came up with, but that really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom