Indefinite detentions under Obama???

[CRedskinsRule]

Obama mulls 'indefinite detention' of terror suspects

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.

[dmek25]

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

[Daseal]

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.

[dmek25]

the voice of reason. coming from a puppy kicker

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

Well if we had Americans flying into buildings and doing terrorist stuff I would not give a rats ass what happened to them.

[BleedBurgundy]

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

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.

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

Could a mod please fix it.

Thanks

[Daseal]

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.

Well if we had Americans flying into buildings and doing terrorist stuff I would not give a rats ass what happene

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.

[Trample the Elderly]

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.

[Monksdown]

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?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

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.

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

Could a mod please fix it.

Thanks

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

Could a mod please fix it.

Thanks

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

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dmek25

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

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