

Guantanamo Bay (dention camp) thoughts

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by locked&loaded, Jul 19, 2007.

  1. locked&loaded

    locked&loaded its redskin season

    2,827 Messages
    85 Likes Received
    Id like to find what everyone thinks of it.

    Personally i think its disgusting and should be shut down asap (now).
  2. sacase

    sacase Well-Known Member

    4,304 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    For what? How is it disgusting? Do you have first hand knowledge of what it is like?
  3. locked&loaded

    locked&loaded its redskin season

    2,827 Messages
    85 Likes Received
    sorry man, do you live in a hole? Their have been complaints of torture, mistreatment, embarrassing procedures etc. ring a bell? And the excuse they have is.... its not on american soil. Which is a complete joke.
  4. bbgun

    bbgun Benched

    27,868 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Welcome to Al Qaeda talking points night. Your understanding of the threat posed by the enemy and the will needed to defeat them is positively childlike. Gitmo is the only incarceration facility where prisoners leave fatter and in better overall health. It's practically Club Med for terrorists. Just out of curiosity, where do you want us to detain battlefield jihadists? Orlando?
  5. sacase

    sacase Well-Known Member

    4,304 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    Right, well I am sure there are a couple people on this board who have been there and they can tell you what it is really like. like the detainee's not wanting to leave and them gaining weight because they are eating better than they ever have.

    I am not trying to be rude at all, I am just saying that Gitmo is not that bad on those guys. Most of the guys there hard hard core dudes would would love nothing more than to kill every american they see, many of the detainee's that we have released have been killed or arrested again in Afghanistan.

    Personally I don't consider stress positions and sleep deprivation mistreatment, hell anyone who has been through basic training suffers from that! We go out of our way to accomidate their religeon, something they would never do for us. Last time I looked we were not the ones cutting people's heads off with dull machete's.
  6. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,394 Messages
    1,424 Likes Received
    ever know a prisoner of war (or any other kind really) to go "no, things are great here, i'm thinking up new terrorist plots just so i can stay around".

    the koran that got "peed" upon - we gave those to them. would we get the same amount of consideration in a terrorist prison camp? no, they lob heads off with spoons.

    no one is advocating torture that i know of but we do need to back off the extreme that guantamo is such a terrible place. would it even rank in the top 20 of "roughest prison camps of all time"?
  7. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,394 Messages
    1,424 Likes Received
    there's a spot in idaho we can slip 'em in.

    on one hand people yell at bush cause we're not protecting the border so terrorists can just walk on through.

    yet on the other hand, let's bring 'em in ourselves and let our judicial system set 'em free then our rehab department get 'em a job at a flight school.
  8. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal Insulin Beware

    10,965 Messages
    1,277 Likes Received
    I'm curious to know how much of the torture was in isolated incident and how much is common place.
  9. AtlCB

    AtlCB Active Member

    3,684 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    A lot of the accusations came from an Amnesty International report that was later debunked. Independant investigators discovered that Amnesty International's investigation comprised of only interviews with the inmates. Many of the inmates contradicted each other and some couldn't even replicate their stories when they were asked to repeat them months later in the seperate investigation. :lmao2:

    Amnesty International had a political agenda. The international organization has been at odds with the U.S. for years over our use of the death penalty.
  10. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,859 Messages
    1,704 Likes Received
    Any way you look at it we treat our prisoners a whole lot better then Al Queda does. No real short haircuts at Gitmo.
  11. Rackat

    Rackat Active Member

    2,134 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    We provide culturally correct meals.

    We allow the Quoran.

    We allow them to continue their religious practices.

    Our guards have to put up with feces and urine being thrown at them, as well as being spit upon. The prisoners have threatened the guard's families, and the guards themselves that when they get out, they will hunt them down.

    Of the prisoners that have been released, there have been multiple incidences of them being recaptured, or killed, on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    All of this while our politicians argue about the prisoner's "rights".

    How many of them have we executed?

    On the other hand, our forces are treated to horrid treatment in back rooms. They are then summarily executed in a most inhumane way. Usually by cutting off their head with a machete or a large knife. The best our captured soldiers can hope for is that the knife is sharp enough that the execution is relatively quick.

    Torture? Ask John McCain about torture. Ask Admiral John Stockdale about torture. Waterboarding and scaring the **** out of them with dogs or draping women's clothing on them is not torture. Even wiring their testicles is not torture, because they didn't carry through. It may scare the hell out of them, but it isn't torture.

    I was in Somalia in 1992/93. I saw the Islamic fanatics kill those that opposed them. Even though the people they were killing were Islamic and Somalian. There was no trial, there was no commuted sentence, there was nothing but a swift death. They do this to their "own" people. What would they do to you?
  12. 03EBZ06

    03EBZ06 Need2Speed

    7,979 Messages
    411 Likes Received
    Well said and I totally agree with your post.

    Those captives are treated humanly unlike how our soldiers are treated. What OP stated is nothing more than what some believes, not factual, which is being dishonest.
  13. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,859 Messages
    1,704 Likes Received
    locked and loaded is obviously a drinker of the far left cool aid. Sadly all too many have done that.
  14. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Bad Santa Staff Member

    61,304 Messages
    4,628 Likes Received
    I have no first hand knowledge and have not read any credible reports of the torture at Gitmo.

    I will say I think there probably are things that have or do happen but I doubt it is on a regular basis...in other words I would imagine it is isolated incidents.

    I think the ones they want to torture and the like are the ones that are shuttled to different countries in "torture taxis".

    It is hard to say that the US does not torture as we have seen the whole Abu Ghraib situation.

    I just happen to think they do it elsewhere when it is done.

    Personally I have a feeling that Gitmo, at least the detention centers there, will be shut down within the next couple years. I would imagine it would be after the next president is in office.

    I think they will just use facilities in other countries.

    I question the admin for what I think is circumventing the geneva convention code at times which by doing so is against our constitution.

    The line that they are much worse to our troops does not hold water as WE are part of the geneva convention code. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and honor our agreements and laws. We should not bring ourselves down to their levels.

    However as I said I think IF it happens at gitmo it is an isolated instances and you can not always control when a soldiers gets stressed out and does something stupid.
    Does not mean the soldier is off the hook for actions but it is not something that is mandated through his chain of command.

    So. I think gitmo is ok but I also feel they are going to close those centers down, move them to foreign areas and that by doing so they can get away with more things without as much accountability.

    What we do, even if we torture, is still MUCH better than the treatment our soldiers would get from the enemy. However it still does not justify torture because we are held by a higher standards and by the Geneva Convention code and the constitution.

    We will see.
  15. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed...part 2 Zone Supporter

    28,394 Messages
    1,424 Likes Received
    agreed. but i also feel if our enemies won't play by these rules, we need to come out and publically say we won't either. otherwise you create handcuffs for your efforts and give them a blueprint on how to kick your tail all over the place. and they've done it.

    but i do agree we need to publically remove ourselves from it *in this war only* and we'll fight on any terms we have to fight in order to win. i want to be noble, i want to be proud, i want to be the good guy, but i also want to be free and not have islam thrown down my gullet simply because we took the high road in this war and they blew it out from under us.

    i don't believe there is ever a "clean" war and never will be. i do agree we are a better people and i do agree there are methods we should never resort to - such as killing on the internet and various others - child bombs, yada yada.

    but i don't agree we should follow a rulebook when the other side just laughs at it. it's like watching a grade b movie where the fbi follows the "anti - terrorist code" and they count on it and plan for it.

    never saw bruce willis follow the book. : )
  16. sacase

    sacase Well-Known Member

    4,304 Messages
    83 Likes Received
    I understand what you are saying but here is the thing about the Geneva Covention. It is supposed to be used between countries that have signed it. For instance if we go to war against France it applies since both france and ourselves have signed it. However if we go to war against a country that has not signed it then niether party is obliged to follow it. Therefore we are not bound by it. Now if people want to say we should follow it because it is the "right" thing to do, then that would be hard to argue since it is purely a moral stance.

    Many countries have skirted the Geneva Convention, it is common practice. For instance, you are not supposed to use .50 cal weapons on people, you are only supposed to use them on equipement, but yet all of our vehicles have them mounted. So how we get around this is simply this. That uniform you are wearing...its equipment, your LBE/LBV...that's equipment, your weapon....that's equipment. The gunner is simply shooting at those things and the person just happend to be in the way, so sorry. If you look up the .50 cal sniper rifle, it is called a Anti-Material rifle, not anti-personell, there is a reason for it.

    My pesonal feelings on it is simply this. Our enemy thinks of us as weak because of all the restrictions that we put on ourselves. I think some of them are good because I do not want to turn our soldiers into unfeeling killing machines, that would not be fair to them. But on some level we need to get down to the enemy's level and "talk" to them on it so that they "understand" us better.

    If we have to use snapping barking dogs then so be it. For the most part Terrorists are deathly afraid of dogs. If we have to parade them around in women's underware, I have no problem with that. If we were fileting them alive I would have a problem with that. SO basically if we are not causing permenent physical harm and are just scaring the hell out of them, then I don't see any issues.
  17. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,859 Messages
    1,704 Likes Received
    Anyone who thinks what happened at Abu Ghraib was torture knows nothing about what torture really is. Abuse- yes there was abuse there. But NOT torture.
  18. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Bad Santa Staff Member

    61,304 Messages
    4,628 Likes Received
    There was torture...including a death.

    Just because you or the administration wants to say it is not torture does not make it so.

    It was torture under previous ideals and that is exactly why the administration was trying to change the definitions of torture and update the military guidelines for it to get around it.

    It is also why they were using "torture taxis" to other countries that don't have a problem with torture and denying doing it until it was exposed.

    One can be abused and one could argue that it is not torture.

    One can not be tortured without abuse.

    You have the right to the opinion that there was no torture at Abu Ghraib. I would say there was indeed torture both of a physical and mental nature.
  19. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,859 Messages
    1,704 Likes Received
    I happen to know a couple of soldiers who were at Gitmo and knew people who were at Abu Graib. There was no torture at either one. There was abuse at Abu Graib. There was no torture. You can keep bleating about it brain but it does not make it true.
  20. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Bad Santa Staff Member

    61,304 Messages
    4,628 Likes Received
    You may wish to read the following....

    LINK from Official White House site

    This was a Statement given on May 3rd 2003

    Statement by the Press Secretary on the Geneva Convention
    The James S. Brady Briefing Room

    1:40 P.M. EST

    MR. FLEISCHER: I have an announcement to make. Today President Bush affirms our enduring commitment to the important principles of the Geneva Convention. Consistent with American values and the principles of the Geneva Convention, the United States has treated and will continue to treat all Taliban and al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo Bay humanely and consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention.

    They will continue to receive three appropriate meals a day, excellent medical care, clothing, shelter, showers, and the opportunity worship. The International Community of the Red Cross can visit each detainee privately.

    In addition, President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists.

    Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Although the United States does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate Afghani government, the President determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Convention.


    So your idea of who or who does not fall under the geneva convention code and the reasons why are incorrect.

    The other country does NOT have to be a part of the geneva convention code.

    Now there are other reasons why they might not fall under it...if you read later in that briefing but not for the reasons you describe.

    Also...can you provide a link to the Geneva Convention code talking about 50 Cal weapons. I am not saying you are wrong but I do not remember reading that. I was thinking the only weapons the Geneva Convention ever talked about were chemical or biological weapons.

Share This Page