• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Annan backs UN demand for G.B. closure

manny said:
Because he wants to avoid ending up there?
Click to expand...
Interesting question.

If Annan was to vanish and shortly afterwards was to be seen imprisoned in gitmo what could be done to have him released and who could do it? If the US president announced "we have reliable information, thats all you need to know."......what would prevent this happening.. besides trusting that The US military would not do this unless they had "good reason"?

What US law would this violate?
 
Can someone explain to this ignoramus why America has a base in Cuba in the first place? It's like the Russians having a prison camp in Honolulu.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Can someone explain to this ignoramus why America has a base in Cuba in the first place? It's like the Russians having a prison camp in Honolulu.
Click to expand...

Here's what appears to be a nice article, Soapy:

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/guantan.htm

The issue of returning Guantánamo to Cuba is complicated by the agreement signed by Batista in 1934. The agreement states: "Until the two Contracting Parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations… the stipulations of that Agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantánamo shall continue in effect."

To the U.S. this means an "open-ended duration" that can only be terminated by mutual agreement. To Cuba it means that Guantánamo Bay is "occupied territory."
Click to expand...
 
Soapy Sam said:
Can someone explain to this ignoramus why America has a base in Cuba in the first place? It's like the Russians having a prison camp in Honolulu.
Click to expand...

1) for the reasons that Hutch posted
and
2) becesue they can.
 
The Fool said:
Interesting question.

If Annan was to vanish and shortly afterwards was to be seen imprisoned in gitmo what could be done to have him released and who could do it? If the US president announced "we have reliable information, thats all you need to know."......what would prevent this happening.. besides trusting that The US military would not do this unless they had "good reason"?

What US law would this violate?
Click to expand...
This could mean the President is a repeat offender if he didn't formally charge the prisoner. The accused has a right to challenge the charges in court. That is the law of the land. So the president is a criminal as it stands right now.
 
The Fool said:
Interesting question.

If Annan was to vanish and shortly afterwards was to be seen imprisoned in gitmo what could be done to have him released and who could do it? If the US president announced "we have reliable information, thats all you need to know."......what would prevent this happening.. besides trusting that The US military would not do this unless they had "good reason"?

What US law would this violate?
Click to expand...
Only in the theoretical sense since Annan has diplomatic immunity.

Theoretically other governments could exert severe international pressure on the US. If the US were completely without a conscious there is nothing anyone could do. But the actions of the US in response to the Abu Ghraib photos demonstrated that we are not without a conscious and pressure can be brought to bear to change our governments actions.
 
Melendwyr said:
Why does Kofi Annan hate our freedoms?
Click to expand...

Please tell me you don't really mean this. The Guantanamo prison stands in direct opposition to puported American ideals. I say "puported" now, because it is becoming dreadfully clear to me that the Bill of Rights has become butt-paper for the current administration. The Bill of Rights protects EVERYONE regardless of whether or not you "have reason to believe they are terrorists." The terrorists WANT us to clamp down on freedom; because when we do, they have won. The Declaration of Independence says that when a government becomes tryannical, it is the obligation of the people to throw it out. The time is coming, my friends...

The prisioners aren't US Citizens you say? What about the Geneva Convention? Doesn't apply to the letter? It certainly does in spirit.

When the US treats people openly and fairly, the world will see what good can come of our ideals. When we act against our own principles, we become hypocrites.
 
RandFan said:
Only in the theoretical sense since Annan has diplomatic immunity.

Theoretically other governments could exert severe international pressure on the US. If the US were completely without a conscious there is nothing anyone could do. But the actions of the US in response to the Abu Ghraib photos demonstrated that we are not without a conscious and pressure can be brought to bear to change our governments actions.
Click to expand...
No. There is currently legal presedent. This is why I say that the president is a criminal--someone who has broken the law.

Here's the case where the President was found guilty by the Supreme Court.

Rasul v. Bush

Here's a related thread where we discuss the issue of Guantanamo.

Guantanamo Bay inmates 'tortured', says UN
 
Almo said:
The terrorists WANT us to clamp down on freedom; because when we do, they have won.
Click to expand...

No.

I understand that we should not give up our core values in the fight against our enemies. But you are simply and completely wrong to contend that us clamping down on freedoms represents a victory for the terrorists. They do not CARE if we clamp down on our own freedoms, they would not consider that any kind of victory, and would in fact probably not like it because it would make it harder for them to operate within our territory. They did not hate the USSR any less than us because it lacked our freedoms. It is the fact that we do not submit to their vision of radical Islam, the fact that our mere existence threatens that vision by tempting people away from their primitive, barbaric ideal of society, that they hate. And they achieve victory not when we clamp down on freedom, but when we retreat from them, when we give into their violence (as in Spain pulling out of Iraq on the heals of 3/11) or threats of violence (as in the cartoon protests). So argue all you want about the need to maintain our liberties, but please, stop pretending that restrictions on liberties represent any kind of goal or victory on the part of the terrorists, because they do not.
 
Ziggurat said:
I understand that we should not give up our core values in the fight against our enemies. But you are simply and completely wrong to contend that us clamping down on freedoms represents a victory for the terrorists. They do not CARE if we clamp down on our own freedoms, they would not consider that any kind of victory, and would in fact probably not like it because it would make it harder for them to operate within our territory. They did not hate the USSR any less than us because it lacked our freedoms. It is the fact that we do not submit to their vision of radical Islam, the fact that our mere existence threatens that vision by tempting people away from their primitive, barbaric ideal of society, that they hate. And they achieve victory not when we clamp down on freedom, but when we retreat from them, when we give into their violence (as in Spain pulling out of Iraq on the heals of 3/11) or threats of violence (as in the cartoon protests).
Click to expand...

No.

If the populace gets mad enough at the gov't, they'll throw it out, or at least tell it leave the Islamic countries alone. That's the long term victory they want. Ho Chi Minh knew this, so he fought a PR war with the US and won it.
 
Ziggurat said:
...

It is the fact that we do not submit to their vision of radical Islam, the fact that our mere existence threatens that vision by tempting people away from their primitive, barbaric ideal of society, that they hate.
...
Click to expand...
Ah, googoo, ah, googoo. Big Sammy never does anything wrong!
 
manny said:
Because he wants to avoid ending up there?
Click to expand...


Manny, do I correctly understand that you are accusing our present administration of intending to sieze a diplomat rather than accept criticism?

Really?
 
FreeChile said:
Ah, googoo, ah, googoo. Big Sammy never does anything wrong!
Click to expand...

Strange thing, I never said anything which even remotely resembles that. In fact, it's not even primarily our government that they're actually mad about. The Islamists are engaged, first and foremost, in a culture war, both against us AND against their fellow muslims (who pay a much higher price than we do, BTW). Whether or not our government "does anything wrong" has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of this conflict. Next time you want to try to argue against me, I suggest you actually figure out my position first. Trying to attack a claim I never made, just makes you look silly.
 
Almo said:
No.

If the populace gets mad enough at the gov't, they'll throw it out, or at least tell it leave the Islamic countries alone. That's the long term victory they want. Ho Chi Minh knew this, so he fought a PR war with the US and won it.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And countries like Venezuela, China, Iran, North Korea, Bolivia, Argentina, and the rest of the world are reaping the benefits of that victory. So in that sense, Bin Laden is a genius. With a single attack, he has accomplished the goal of getting Big Sammy out of the affairs of all those places. Of course, he also managed to self-destruct in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom