Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090514/pl_afp/usattacksguantanamodetention_20090514105450]Obama mulls 'indefinite detention' of terror suspects[/url]

Yeah, I am antagonizing here, but some interesting notes going on this week as Obama learns that being President means protecting the country, not attacking the other party.

Also, interesting that this article says White House, not Obama.

Finally, yes there are abuses, but maybe once in a blue moon defending our country means more then acting like there aren't "thugs" out there who will stop at nothing to see us harmed.

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

you can say what you want, but whom ever is running this country will try to do the right thing. Bush just made alot of bad decisions while in office. i really believe he thought he was doing the right thing. at the end of 4 years history will judge Obama's decisions

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

I hate this regardless of who holds prisoners without being able to charge them with a crime. If this same stuff was happening to American's over seas people would be screaming bloody murder. Just like people complain and act like it's a terrible act when American's get tortured, but are fine with it when we do it to our enemies. You're either for something or against it -- you can't have a one way argument.

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

the voice of reason. coming from a puppy kicker:)

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Daseal;557370]I hate this regardless of who holds prisoners without being able to charge them with a crime. If this same stuff was happening to American's over seas people would be screaming bloody murder. Just like people complain and act like it's a terrible act when American's get tortured, but are fine with it when we do it to our enemies. You're either for something or against it -- you can't have a one way argument.[/quote]

Have you ever looked at the MIA and POW stats?
Also as every American soldier knows, they fall under the country's laws that they serve in. Yes some may scream bloody murder, but if an American commits a crime on foreign soil, they are going to face the justice of that country, sometimes regardless of American pressure.

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Daseal;557370]I hate this regardless of who holds prisoners without being able to charge them with a crime. If this same stuff was happening to American's over seas people would be screaming bloody murder. Just like people complain and act like it's a terrible act when American's get tortured, but are fine with it when we do it to our enemies. You're either for something or against it -- you can't have a one way argument.[/quote]
Well if we had Americans flying into buildings and doing terrorist stuff I would not give a rats ass what happened to them.

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

Daseal is right, of course. But i think that in matters like these, it's not so much a detached discussion about right and wrong as it is about choosing a side. We're americans, so we need to look out for our own interests, not those of the rest of the world when the circumstances dictate that they are mutually exclusive. No one else is going to do us any favors in that regard and we really need to stop acting as if it is our moral duty to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Also... it's "indefinite" not indefinate.

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;557396]Daseal is right, of course. But i think that in matters like these, it's not so much a detached discussion about right and wrong as it is about choosing a side. We're americans, so we need to look out for our own interests, not those of the rest of the world when the circumstances dictate that they are mutually exclusive. No one else is going to do us any favors in that regard and we really need to stop acting as if it is our moral duty to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Also... it's "indefinite" not indefinate.[/quote]

I plead sickness on the title, I absolutely hate spelling mistakes!

Could a mod please fix it.

Thanks

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

BleedBurgundy, I understand your stance -- but most of the civilized countries in the world have basically said 'we won't if you won't.' Fact is, if you're okay doing it to other people -- then you better be prepared for it to happen to us and not be able to bitch too much.

[quote]Well if we had Americans flying into buildings and doing terrorist stuff I would not give a rats ass what happene[/quote]
Here's the problem with this, FD. Why are these people in Cuba being held? Because we have suspicions and that's it. If we had evidence we would be able to hold them legally under the constitution. However, we don't have evidence that the folks being held are terrorists.

If a CIA or FBI operative gets caught in say... Iran. Would you be fine if the Iranians tortured them to get information? If you're fine with that, then I have no gripe with your stance. If you're saying we can torture potential terrorists and they can't -- then we have an issue.

CRedskins -- I'm well aware of the MIA / POW stats. My grandmothers first husband is MIA from Korea. To me, it comes down to one thing. Equality on both sides. Do unto others as you would want others to do unto you. If you're pro torture, I can understand and respect that as long as you're fine with Americans being tortured when captured.

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

I say we follow the Geneva Convention. Since these people are un-uniformed fighters they should be tried and shot. Just like the convention says we have a right to do.

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

To what end are we holding these prisoners? Further information? And at what point do they become human and actually have some rights. If you can't build a case to prosecute, then i think it's a human rights violation to continue to detain them. Again, my original question: To what end?

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Daseal;557401]BleedBurgundy, I understand your stance -- but most of the civilized countries in the world have basically said 'we won't if you won't.' Fact is, if you're okay doing it to other people -- then you better be prepared for it to happen to us and not be able to bitch too much.


Here's the problem with this, FD. Why are these people in Cuba being held? Because we have suspicions and that's it. If we had evidence we would be able to hold them legally under the constitution. However, we don't have evidence that the folks being held are terrorists.

If a CIA or FBI operative gets caught in say... Iran. Would you be fine if the Iranians tortured them to get information? If you're fine with that, then I have no gripe with your stance. If you're saying we can torture potential terrorists and they can't -- then we have an issue.

CRedskins -- I'm well aware of the MIA / POW stats. My grandmothers first husband is MIA from Korea. To me, it comes down to one thing. Equality on both sides. Do unto others as you would want others to do unto you. If you're pro torture, I can understand and respect that as long as you're fine with Americans being tortured when captured.[/quote]
No we captured most of them on the battle fields in Affiganistan while fighting them. The problem is we know they are terrorist but the only evidence we really have is they where fighting against us. So we know by the fact we caught them on the battlefield their bad guys but we have no real evidence that they are organized terrorist. Thats the whole big deal about not allowing them trials like we have here in the US and even Obama must know this is a problem with the stance he is now taking.

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;557399]I plead sickness on the title, I absolutely hate spelling mistakes!

Could a mod please fix it.

Thanks[/quote]
Well I have to tell you sorry in advance as my spelling sucks and I don't know how to add spell check to a site like this. Then I have grammer and other many issues. The good news is I have a secretary to do any letters but she can't do my posting.

re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;557399]I plead sickness on the title, I absolutely hate spelling mistakes!

Could a mod please fix it.

Thanks[/quote]

I was thinking of maybe banning you indefinitely as punishment...and as beautiful irony for this thread...but I'll fix it for you instead

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=dmek25;557369]you can say what you want, but whom ever is running this country will try to do the right thing. Bush just made alot of bad decisions while in office. i really believe he thought he was doing the right thing. at the end of 4 years history will judge Obama's decisions[/quote]

I suspect that history will not judge him in merely 4 years, I think it will take longer than that.

Re: Indefinate detentions under Obama???
 

So they are guilty of fighting foreign invaders trying to hunt down terrorists that their government was associated with. After drilling these guys for information, there is no point in detaining them.

If you've really got a hard on for punishing these guys, why not send them back to Afghanistan. We're going to be there for the next 20 years killing the Taliban anyway.

Re: Indefinate detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Monksdown;557417]So they are guilty of fighting foreign invaders trying to hunt down terrorists that their government was associated with. After drilling these guys for information, there is no point in detaining them.

If you've really got a hard on for punishing these guys, why not send them back to Afghanistan. We're going to be there for the next 20 years killing the Taliban anyway.[/quote]
The CIA has allready confirmed that a good number of the ones that we have let go we have gone back with the terrorist. If I'm correct most of these guy's are not citzens of Afghanistan.[url=http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2009/01/13/some-freed-terrorism-detainees-return-to-the-fight.html]Some Freed Terrorism Detainees Return to the Fight - US News and World Report[/url]

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=firstdown;557414]Well I have to tell you sorry in advance as my spelling sucks and I don't know how to add spell check to a site like this. Then I have grammer and other many issues. The good news is I have a secretary to do any letters but [B]she can't do my posting[/B].[/quote]
why not? give her a small raise, and she's all set :)

Re: Indefinate detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Monksdown;557417][B]So they are guilty of fighting foreign invaders trying to hunt down terrorists that their government was associated with.[/B] After drilling these guys for information, there is no point in detaining them.

If you've really got a hard on for punishing these guys, why not send them back to Afghanistan. We're going to be there for the next 20 years killing the Taliban anyway.[/quote]These guys [B]were [/B]the terrorists. They were part of the Taliban and Al Qeada. They were not local tribal folks just firing on "invaders" or part of the Afghan army defending their country.

There is a huge point to keeping these guys detained. Once they are released they will rejoin with either their original terrorist ties or form new ones with cells in whatever country they're released to. From there they will kill innocents.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

Just to clarify.

Being a member of the Taliban militia doesn't make you a member of Al Queda.

Yes they support them. I'm relatively sure that decision isn't made at the 15 year old fresh recruit level.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

This why the US stopped winning wars.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=firstdown;557414]Well I have to tell you sorry in advance as my spelling sucks and I don't know how to add spell check to a site like this. Then I have grammer and other many issues. The good news is I have a secretary to do any letters but she can't do my posting.[/quote]

Actually, my browser gives me a redline for spelling and blue for grammar mistakes. I mostly ignore the grammar, but really do try to correct the spelling ones.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Daseal;557370]Just like people complain and act like it's a terrible act when American's get tortured, but are fine with it when we do it to our enemies. You're either for something or against it -- you can't have a one way argument.[/quote]You're looking at this as if it's a country vs. country conflict. In which case you would be 100% correct. This is not the same situation. We're not dealing with soldiers from another country. We're dealing with animals who murder innocents purposely, behead innocents on video, and kill civilians to make it look like we did it. The sole purpose of these morons is to impose their ideology on the world through terror. If waterboarding 3 of the high-level operatives to save innocent lives (American or otherwise) needs to be done, then let's save lives. Last I checked American civilians weren't running around in foreign countries trying to kill Iraqis, or Afghans, or any other country's civilian population.

Keep in mind the "torture" (I'm assuming waterboarding) you're referring to was no worse than what our own special operations forces undergo during training. Although we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we know that other countries or terrorist organizations won't hesitate to torture our folks if they're captured.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Monksdown;557455]Just to clarify.

Being a member of the Taliban militia doesn't make you a member of Al Queda.

Yes they support them. I'm relatively sure that decision isn't made at the 15 year old fresh recruit level.[/quote]
Completely understood. However members of both groups were captured and are at GITMO. I'm also not sure how many 15 yr. olds are at GITMO. If there are juveniles detained at GITMO (which I doubt, but I don't know for sure) I would support fast-tracking a determination on them.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

If the glove don't fit you must acquit. No one ever said being president is easy but being a bad president is easier. I am confidant that Obama will put them on trial and I'm willing to put money on it. It may take some time to build a case against certain detainees but it will happen.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

I'm pretty much split down the middle on this issue. On one hand being former military, I can agree with what the Bush administration did. And although I don't beleive in physical torture, I do beleive in mental torture to influence the enemy to release valuable information that may not only save the lives of american citizens but of the soldiers who are on the ground doing the job. That information is vital to operational success and if anyone thinks that a prisoner of war is just going to walk up and start giving up information freely, then you are sadley mistaken. If anyone thinks that if any other country captured a prisoner of war and does not physically torture them, then they need to wake up and join us in the real world. The problem that I have is these guys have sit in this prison for so long that the ones who are were not terriost are now probably just as dangerous as the ones that are not. So what do you do with them and where would you send them?

I love Obama but I would not announce to the world that we are not going to torture prisoners anymore, because by saying that you have just put the U.S. at a operational disadvantage when they do capture prisoners of war. I would have just said that we intend to handle prisoners and detainees differently than the previous administration and left it as that. Just my opinion.....

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

Anyone that is captured on the battlefield should be held until the war is over. Obama seems to be acknowledging that his election did not end the war - which is to say that the war against terror now has added legitimacy. Until the Jihadists are defeated or we are defeated, we have every right to detain these people outside of the domestic legal system.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

Interesting note on the torture angle. I'm reading a book called Legacy of Ashes which is a history of the CIA. In the 1950s, the Agency gave prisoners at a penitentiary in Kentucky (regular prisoners mind you, not Russians or Cubans or captured commies) LSD for 77 straight days. Apparently they were just seeing what would happen. Now, for anyone who hasn't taken acid, trust me. After about the third day on government LSD in a prison setting, which was probably a very strongish dose, waterboarding would seem fairly tame. The point is that, this country has a long history of pushing the envelope in all sorts of areas. To pretend that Bush did something new or extraordinary is laughable.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Daseal;557370]I hate this regardless of who holds prisoners without being able to charge them with a crime. If this same stuff was happening to American's over seas people would be screaming bloody murder. Just like people complain and act like it's a terrible act when American's get tortured, but are fine with it when we do it to our enemies. You're either for something or against it -- you can't have a one way argument.[/quote]
Who have we tortured ? Waterboarding is NOT torture . Waterboarding causes ,,,, ZERO injuries ,,, no muscle or ligament damage , no respitory illness , no lung desease , no eye , ear or throat damage . We are not waterboaring service men / women ,,, these people are terrorists targeting civilians . Show me how what we are doing today is equal to what the Germans/ Japanese or VC did to our SOLDIERS ? I understand your point , but comparing WB'ing with Breaking Bones and starving people to death is like apples and oranges , IMO . And they are not criminals they are terrorists .

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=SmootSmack;557416]I suspect that history will not judge him in merely 4 years, I think it will take longer than that.[/quote]

That's the issue with people today; and we say that Skins fans are impatient!

We're already hearing how Obama is the worst president ever. I was definitely not a fan of Baby Bush but it will still take awhile to see his true effect on our nation, just like it took awhile to see Reagan's. I'm not insinuating that they'll be equally viewed, just an example.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=70Chip;557628]Interesting note on the torture angle. I'm reading a book called Legacy of Ashes which is a history of the CIA. In the 1950s, the Agency gave prisoners at a penitentiary in Kentucky (regular prisoners mind you, not Russians or Cubans or captured commies) LSD for 77 straight days. Apparently they were just seeing what would happen. Now, for anyone who hasn't taken acid, trust me. After about the third day on government LSD in a prison setting, which was probably a very strongish dose, waterboarding would seem fairly tame. The point is that, this country has a long history of pushing the envelope in all sorts of areas. To pretend that Bush did something new or extraordinary is laughable.[/quote]
70, i totally agree with this post. i know, it must be a first

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=70Chip;557628]Interesting note on the torture angle. I'm reading a book called Legacy of Ashes which is a history of the CIA. In the 1950s, the Agency gave prisoners at a penitentiary in Kentucky (regular prisoners mind you, not Russians or Cubans or captured commies) LSD for 77 straight days. Apparently they were just seeing what would happen. Now, for anyone who hasn't taken acid, trust me. After about the third day on government LSD in a prison setting, which was probably a very strongish dose, waterboarding would seem fairly tame. The point is that, this country has a long history of [B]pushing the envelope[/B] in all sorts of areas. To pretend that Bush did something new or extraordinary is laughable.[/quote]

LOL...good one. We've done it before, and we can do it again because we've done it before. To infinity and beyond!

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

Something else to think about is the word "Terrorist." What defines someone as a terrorist as opposed to a revolutionary/activist/conventional enemy? It's been said many times previously, but in the second half of the 18th century, terrorists went by the names of Washington, Jefferson and Adams, just to name a few. Terrorist, or in the Bushian vernacular "torrist," is just the latest broad brush that we use to paint anyone with views in opposition to our own. Many of the inmates in Gitmo are enemy combatants. Thus they were "terrorists." Yet, in the 1930s and '40s we somehow resisted the urge to keep indefinitely all Axis POW's that we captured. I really fail to see what the difference is aside from the obvious cultural distinctions. Again, these are all conversations in the abstract because right and wrong don't truly exist in a situation like this. We can use vocabulary to justify whatever we want and spin it a thousand times. The problem is that there are a large percentage of Americans who believe their own bullshit.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;557460]You're looking at this as if it's a country vs. country conflict. In which case you would be 100% correct. This is not the same situation. We're not dealing with soldiers from another country. We're dealing with [B]animals[/B] who murder innocents purposely, behead innocents on video, and kill civilians to make it look like we did it. The sole purpose of these morons is to impose their ideology on the world through terror. If waterboarding 3 of the high-level operatives to save innocent lives (American or otherwise) needs to be done, then let's save lives. Last I checked American civilians weren't running around in foreign countries trying to kill Iraqis, or Afghans, or any other country's civilian population.

Keep in mind the "torture" (I'm assuming waterboarding) you're referring to was no worse than what our own special operations forces undergo during training. Although we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we know that other countries or terrorist organizations won't hesitate to torture our folks if they're captured.[/quote]

"animals" rarely do the kind of deeds you describe. That level of cruelty is solely the domain of humans. I'm not a peta clown, just saying... We do these things because we misapply the limited reasoning skills we have and carry out actions in the name of country, religion and ideology that we would never do otherwise.

Also, because i'm in the mood to play devil's advocate, what makes one form of killing superior to another? "Terrorists" strap on explosives and blow themselves up in a market killing hundreds of civilians. The "Good Guys" use cluster bombs and other conventional weapons that eliminate people on a much larger scale, killing countless civilians regardless of our best intentions. I really don't get the whole "these people are monsters" arguments unless we as Americans just need to feel morally superior to those we destroy. In my opinion, that's simply a weakness of intellect.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote]Who have we tortured ? Waterboarding is NOT torture . Waterboarding causes ,,,, ZERO injuries ,,, no muscle or ligament damage , no respitory illness , no lung desease , no eye , ear or throat damage . We are not waterboaring service men / women ,,, these people are terrorists targeting civilians . Show me how what we are doing today is equal to what the Germans/ Japanese or VC did to our SOLDIERS ? I understand your point , but comparing WB'ing with Breaking Bones and starving people to death is like apples and oranges , IMO . And they are not criminals they are terrorists .[/quote]
If you don't feel like the sensation of drowning is torture, then I feel you're severely mistaken. Just because there's no 'physical' pain doesn't mean that the pain is still great. I couldn't think of anything worse than sleep deprivation myself. The fact is, most of the people in gitmo probably aren't all that bad. If they were so radical and terrible, wouldn't we be able to have evidence to charge them? I feel like everyone deserves their day in court.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;557879]"animals" rarely do the kind of deeds you describe. That level of cruelty is solely the domain of humans. I'm not a peta clown, just saying... We do these things because we misapply the limited reasoning skills we have and carry out actions in the name of country, religion and ideology that we would never do otherwise.

Also, because i'm in the mood to play devil's advocate, what makes one form of killing superior to another? "Terrorists" strap on explosives and blow themselves up in a market killing hundreds of civilians. The "Good Guys" use cluster bombs and other conventional weapons that eliminate people on a much larger scale, killing countless civilians regardless of our best intentions. I really don't get the whole "these people are monsters" arguments unless we as Americans just need to feel morally superior to those we destroy. In my opinion, that's simply a weakness of intellect.[/quote]
Your kidding right? There is a hudge difference. Yes in war civilians are going to died but they are not the target when we strike at a target. The bad guys your talking about target civilians.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

Firstdown, don't act ignorant. Every country targets civilians first. It has to do with destroying infrastructure. Often children are involved. Israel has been said to purposely bomb schools, during school hours. Same with hospitals.

Unfortunately, when you invade, civilians will feel the brunt of the attack. We've been very lucky as Americans to not see wars on our own soil (besides the ones we conduct on ourselves, and Pearl Harbor.) I couldn't imagine the constant state of fear many countries, especially in the instable middle east go through every day. 9/11 was terrible, but it pales in comparison to what most countries see regularly.

Yes, we're not striking the target 'to kill civilians', but we are targeting important structures that we know will lead to civilian death. It's an unfortunate side effect of war.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

I don't get why people are so worked up over waderboarding people whos misson in life is to kill us. We did it to three people and it lead to us saving lives. Obama released the meathods we used but for political reasons decided not to release the results we had from waterboarding. I personaly think that because if Americans knew how well it work their opinion might change.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

FD - Didn't a CIA operative just say that waterboarding gave us absolutely no useful information behind a screen to Congress? Honestly, I'm not really against torture. But I also realize it is an action that can also be taken against our soldiers. I guess my biggest issue is that we have no evidence on the guys we're doing this to, instead we THINK they're connected. Would you be fine being abducted and tortured because they THOUGHT you may be an Anti-American terrorist? No, you'd be screaming for a lawyer and proof.

All I'm asking is torture people you know have information.

Re: Indefinite detentions under Obama???
 

[quote=firstdown;557900]Your kidding right? There is a hudge difference. Yes in war civilians are going to died but they are not the target when we strike at a target. The bad guys your talking about target civilians.[/quote]

I'm absolutely not kidding. Civilians are just as dead in either scenario, whether they had been specifically targeted or not.