Abuse at Gitmo

Dann757 · By: **Dann757** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:48 am

"Beyond our Constitution there is International Law & just plain human morality"

Devil you sure don't budge I'll say.

Is that the same plain human morality that occurred on 9/11? You remember, the act of war in which 3000 innocent civilians from many countries died unspeakable deaths?

SuperBeetle · By: **SuperBeetle** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:09 pm

: (147.35 KiB) Viewed 4 times; View: New Page • Popup • Select:BBCode; [nepathumb]10889[/nepathumb]

: (25.78 KiB) Viewed 2 times; View: New Page • Popup • Select:BBCode; [nepathumb]10890[/nepathumb]

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:43 pm

Dann757 wrote:"Beyond our Constitution there is International Law & just plain human morality"

Devil you sure don't budge I'll say.

Is that the same plain human morality that occurred on 9/11? You remember, the act of war in which 3000 innocent civilians from many countries died unspeakable deaths?

I don't know how to get though to you: :bang:

1. So, we should lower ourselves to the inhumanity of our enemy/criminals? (should we have thrown German civilians into gas chambers?...Beheaded innocent Japanese civilians?....Eaten Jeffrey Dahmer's family :lol:

)

2. Shouldn't we punish only the guilty? (or can we just lash out & round up anyone in a fit of rage?....How about the Swedes?...Danes?......Canadians? ....doesn't the horror of the 9/11 crimes give us the right to torture & kill anyone convenient target?

Definition of War:
The Legal Term * War * Defined & Explained National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments. National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence;

war
1 /wɔr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [wawr] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, warred, war⋅ring, adjective
–noun
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

I argue that the commonly understood definition of war includes the concept of one nation fighting another.

What nation attacked us on 9/11?
Is there a foreseeable end to this war?
Define victory in this war?
Who is a legal combatant in this war?

SuperBeetle · By: **SuperBeetle** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:03 pm

Devil505 wrote:
Dann757 wrote:"Beyond our Constitution there is International Law & just plain human morality"

Devil you sure don't budge I'll say.

Is that the same plain human morality that occurred on 9/11? You remember, the act of war in which 3000 innocent civilians from many countries died unspeakable deaths?

I don't know how to get though to you:

Exactly what I was thinking, Devil. You just don't get it.

Did anyone you know get killed during the 9/11 attacks???????? :?:

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:18 pm

SuperBeetle wrote:Exactly what I was thinking, Devil. You just don't get it.

Did anyone you know get killed during the 9/11 attacks????????

Since you guys just refuse to respond to any of my points, I'm going to play the game one last time & then I give up.

Does the horror of the 9/11 attack give us the right to punish any convenient target?
Do we have a right to lash out & take revenge on innocent people & countries?

Give me a moral or rational argument that justifies us exacting revenge on people we merely "suspect" are guilty, regardless of how bad the crime was.

Poconoeagle · By: **Poconoeagle** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:25 pm

Since you guys just refuse to respond to any of my points, I'm going to play the game

Life is not a game..... Guarenteed if you lost a loved one in the attack you wouldnt be typing this BS.

My best buddy mark lost 340 of his firefighter bretheren also..... I dont usually jump into these things but

all I can say is my stubborn ex wife was a Mass-hole also :!:

SuperBeetle · By: **SuperBeetle** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:28 pm

Devil505 wrote:
SuperBeetle wrote:Exactly what I was thinking, Devil. You just don't get it.

Did anyone you know get killed during the 9/11 attacks????????

Since you guys just refuse to respond to any of my points, I'm going to play the game one last time & then I give up.

Does the horror of the 9/11 attack give us the right to punish any convenient target?
Do we have a right to lash out & take revenge on innocent people & countries?

Give me a moral or rational argument that justifies us exacting revenge on people we merely "suspect" are guilty, regardless of how bad the crime was.

I see you didn't answer my question so, that must be a NO. Maybe you know someone that is in Gitmo then? Who was "pusnished" that was innocent? My friends that died on 9/11????????

This is my last post on this thread.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:37 pm

My final point is this:

I keep arguing that we have all the right in the world to exact revenge on the criminals responsible for 9/11 but we have no right to punish innocent people.

You guys respond to that by simply re-stating how horrible the crime was ?????

Punish the guilty, not the innocent.

coalkirk · By: **coalkirk** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:33 pm

OK, Devil, I understand now. I'll notify Barrack to send the 224 "gentlemen" to your home for reintroduction back into polite society. Can't hanlde all 244? No problem. I'm sure Jonz would embrace them as well.

Serioulsy though, let's just wait and see what Obama does with them. I'm sure you may have noticed on page 24 of the newspaper story about when Obama gave the order to close Gitmo within a year and the secret CIA prisons abroad, he held onto one little tool the Bush people used....rendition. So we won't keep these folks and apply any "inhanced interrogation techniques" ourselves, we're going to outsource it just like all our other jobs. The Egyptians and the Pakastanis are more than willing to torture, far worse than any thing we did such as water boarding.

mikeandgerry · By: **mikeandgerry** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:43 pm

Devil505 wrote:I have my own news flash......Beyond our Constitution there is International Law & just plain human morality which says that nobody should ever be tortured by a civilized nation & that every person deserves the right to prove their innocence in a legal proceeding of some type, regardless of nationality.

I'm pretty sure you said something in another topic to the effect that "when someone starts using the word "morality" is when I get worried and the trouble starts"

Apparently you do think morality can be defined by society. Previously you denied that.

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:17 pm

coalkirk wrote:Serioulsy though, let's just wait and see what Obama does with them.

Very good idea Terry...I agree. (don't forget, President Obama is not talking about releasing them like Bush did with 60 of them. He's going to close the prison & relocate them to another prison)

coalkirk wrote:he held onto one little tool the Bush people used....rendition

I've not seen/heard a White House position on that yet, have you? (not speculation---An authorized WH statement)

coalkirk wrote:The Egyptians and the Pakastanis are more than willing to torture, far worse than any thing we did such as water boarding.

Have a link showing that we'll continue to send them there?

spc · By: **spc** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:39 pm

Devil505 wrote:Have a link showing that we'll continue to send them there?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tinue.html

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:47 pm

spc wrote:
Devil505 wrote:Have a link showing that we'll continue to send them there?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tinue.html

Nice to see you again Stephen. The article you link too merely says:
"According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed".......YET. (my word...YET) The new administration has only been in office for less than 3 weeks with the economy as their main focus. I would disagree with continued rendition without some no-torture guarantees, & I feel that President Obama will do the right thing in that regard. It's still a work in progress.

spc · By: **spc** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:59 pm

Devil505 wrote:"According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed".......YET. (my word...YET)

I see you are still using your crystal ball. :lol:

Devil505 · By: **Devil505** On: Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:04 pm

spc wrote:I see you are still using your crystal ball.

I am!

(& it's so rare for you & I to disagree on anything!! :lol:

)

Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo

Re: Abuse at Gitmo