Obama Orders Halt To Gitmo Tribunals

What are the odds that the Gitmo detainees end up in another facility largely identical to Gitmo with no civilian trials in the forthcoming future?
 
stilicho said:
Have you ever read Bin Laden's 1996 fatwa or any of the more recent pronouncements of al-Zawahiri? It's pretty clear what they want to do. And it isn't just the USA that is at risk. Nor is it only the non-Muslim "western world". The governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are frequently singled out too. Misrepresenting this whole issue as just an American problem is pretty narrow-minded.
Click to expand...

You are right, didn't mean to misrepresent the situation. I am well aware that this is not just an American problem and I didn't mean to preclude all others by what I wrote. Just commenting on the fact that GITMO is an american facility and therefore has incited anti-american sentiment and causes further terrorist strikes targeted towards America and americans abroad. I provided a link and commentary which butresses this assertion. I did not intend for people to perceive as you did, that I see this as solely an American problem

Says you: The conflict is certainly not stopped by rounding up people and incarcerating them indefinitely without a fair trial.

Upon what evidence do you base that assertion? Numerous conflicts have been stopped by incarcerating or executing people who had the means and the ability to inflict damage or defeat upon their foes. Here in Canada, we have to look no further than the trial and execution of Louis Riel. And in 1970, during the FLQ kidnapping crisis, emergency powers were invoked and hundreds of rather uninvolved people were rounded up and incarcerated. By your logic, each of those actions should have sparked a civil war or worse. But they didn't.

That's just a couple of examples from Canadian history but you can look at any wars, rebellions, and insurrections, and discover to your horror that a lot of them were stopped by rounding up people and incarcerating or executing them.
Click to expand...

Did you read the artile I linked to?

If you had you would realize that the practice of rounding up enemy combatants, incarcerating them, treating them inhumanely and torturing them is FUELING this particular conflict and providing the necessary ammo for indoctrination of many a muslim into terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Patriot4life said:
If you had you would realize that the practice of rounding up enemy combatants, incarcerating them, treating them inhumanely and torturing them is FUELING this particular conflict and providing the necessary ammo for indoctrination of many a muslim into terrorism.
Click to expand...
Wow. It's the old, "They hate us because we treat them so badly" argument.

How many jihadi enemy combatants had we rounded up prior to September 11, 2001?

How many jihadi enemy combatants had we incarcerated prior to September 11, 2001?

How many jihadi enemy combatants had we treated inhumanely and tortured prior to September 11, 2001?

I think the answer to all those questions is a number very close to zero.

And yet they somehow still persuaded themselves that nearly 3,000 of us needed to be murdered.

Patriot4life, wash the mud out of your eyes. There are people - probably millions of people - who will hate anyone and everyone in the U.S., no matter what we do, unless it involves conversion to fundamentalist Islam or mass suicide. No amount of making nice to them will change that.
 
BPSCG said:
There are people - probably millions of people - who will hate anyone and everyone in the U.S., no matter what we do, unless it involves conversion to fundamentalist Islam or mass suicide. No amount of making nice to them will change that.
Click to expand...
Yes.

There are also people right here in the U.S. who would rape, torture and kill you or me without a second thought.

Trouble is, we can't tell who they are. No matter how heinous the crime, we can't just lock people up indefinitely without due process.

If we have evidence (real evidence--the sort that would stand up in court) that someone has committed a crime, then charge them and go through the process. If we don't, no matter how dangerous you might think they are, we've got to let them go. To claim that these are evil, murderous people is to beg the question.

The problem of what to do with people who can't be repatriated is another issue, but again, I think that's not insurmountable. (How many fall into that category anyway?)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yes.

There are also people right here in the U.S. who would rape, torture and kill you or me without a second thought.

Trouble is, we can't tell who they are. No matter how heinous the crime, we can't just lock people up indefinitely without due process.

If we have evidence (real evidence--the sort that would stand up in court) that someone has committed a crime, then charge them and go through the process. If we don't, no matter how dangerous you might think they are, we've got to let them go. To claim that these are evil, murderous people is to beg the question.

The problem of what to do with people who can't be repatriated is another issue, but again, I think that's not insurmountable. (How many fall into that category anyway?)
Click to expand...
All of what you said would make sense if we had been treating this as a criminal matter and sent the FBI to arrest them.

Problem is, we declared war on them.
 
BPSCG said:
Wow. It's the old, "They hate us because we treat them so badly" argument.

How many jihadi enemy combatants had we rounded up prior to September 11, 2001?

How many jihadi enemy combatants had we incarcerated prior to September 11, 2001?

How many jihadi enemy combatants had we treated inhumanely and tortured prior to September 11, 2001?

I think the answer to all those questions is a number very close to zero.

And yet they somehow still persuaded themselves that nearly 3,000 of us needed to be murdered.

Patriot4life, wash the mud out of your eyes. There are people - probably millions of people - who will hate anyone and everyone in the U.S., no matter what we do, unless it involves conversion to fundamentalist Islam or mass suicide. No amount of making nice to them will change that.
Click to expand...
Lets analyze this post.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman

BHSCG has characterized the only reason we have given them to 'hate us' as Gitmo. Since absolutely no one has made that argument, and in fact there's so many other reasons that can be named (we trained Osama. We put Saddam in power) he's arguing against a construct.

Reason it's a fallacy: BSHCG is playing a shell game. To disguise weak arguments he's acting like a magician, making you watch and argue with one hand while the other does the trick. Unlike a magician, he is actually attempting to deceive you into thinking the magic is real, and that he really did teleport that quarter into his hand. Like any other Yuri Geller trick, the strawman argument is the resort of a faker, tricking you into believing something that just isn't true.

Logical Fallacy: Nirvana Fallacy

BHSCG has correctly noted that nothing we can do can completely stop terrorism. Therefore he concludes nothing we can do will have any effect on it.

Reason it's a fallacy: This almost doesn't need to be stated. Because he can pick apart any solution that's not perfect he's saying there's no solution. It's the same method homeopaths use when they claim modern medicine doesn't work - they point out the solutions aren't perfect, and then go on to claim that therefore they're worthless. This leads to the next fallacy.


Logical Fallacy the First: False Dilemma

BSCVG charges ahead with this one full on. EITHER our actions stop all terrorists and all hatred OR nothing we do will effect the situation.

Reason this is a fallacy: Yes, there are a certain number of people whose blind hatred and ideology will cause them to commit a number of logical fallacies such that they cannot be reasoned with. HOWEVER, these people are supported and public support is not rallied against them because America is seen as reaping what we have sown. Saddam? Our monster. The Shah? Our monster. Osama bin Laden? Hell, we trained that monster and gave him weapons ourself. When Timothy McVeigh destroyed a building killing hundreds, the militia movement did not rally behind him because his grievances were imagined and nonsensical, and his actions were monstrous. The militia movement collapsed virtually overnight because of him.

When Osama does not provoke a similar reaction, there's a reason for it.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to ridicule

Wash the mud from your eyes

Reason it's a fallacy: BPSHG is implying that a position is hopelessly naive, and smearing everyone even implicitly associated with that. However, as I have demonstrated, this red herring fallacy is obviously false, since he himself has no arguments at all for his position. He merely masses up fallacies and throws them at people.

Now why does anyone think this is convincing?

Heh, that was a rhetorical question. I doubt even BPSCG is convinced by this.
 
BPSCG said:
Wow. It's the old, "They hate us because we treat them so badly" argument..
Click to expand...

No that is not what I said, In no way did I posit that their hatred for Americans is singularily due to Gitmo incarceration of enemy combatants and their subsequent treatment. I did, however, assert that this fuels their hatred and should be avoided at all costs, providing the commentary from an experienced Army interrogator, who claims that in recent years GITMO transgressions and harsh interrogation treatment has been the prime(not only)instigator in further terrorist attacks against Americans. If my eyes are so covered with mud, you must have a clearer picture of what is going on. Can you provide a top military analyst, interrogator, or anyone else who claims that GITMO has somehow deterred the individual evolution to a "terrorist"?

How many jihadi enemy combatants had we rounded up prior to September 11, 2001?

How many jihadi enemy combatants had we incarcerated prior to September 11, 2001?

How many jihadi enemy combatants had we treated inhumanely and tortured prior to September 11, 2001?
Click to expand...

Just because we didn't do those things before Sep 11th and still got attacked
doesn't mean the above mentioned things don't have any bearing on how the fire is currently fueled. This line of reasoning doesn't contain logic.

The road to 9/11 is a long and complex path that involves american intervention into middle east politics over the last 30 years, this is not the topic of this thread and therfore I don't see it fit to comment on it.




Patriot4life, wash the mud out of your eyes. There are people - probably millions of people - who will hate anyone and everyone in the U.S., no matter what we do, unless it involves conversion to fundamentalist Islam or mass suicide. No amount of making nice to them will change that.
Click to expand...

false dichotomy. Let me recap, you're line of reasoning is that we shouldn't bother treating them humanely because it doesn't matter, furthermore in no way, shape or form does treating "suspected incarcerated terrorists" inhumanely and torturing them have anything to do with creating terrorists.

Sorry, I don't agree with you.
 
Nobody sane is saying to be nice to the killers... but it's a propaganda war as much as it is a shooting war. It almost sounds like the argument is being made that since they already have plenty of ammunition there's no need to worry about giving them more.
 
Thanks Greyice,

you did a much better job presenting the idiocy of his post, I would have left it at that but I hadn't refreshed to see your post. Hence, my post.
 
gtc said:
The point is that radical Islam won't stop attacking Western targets (let alone targets in the Islamic world) just because Congress decides to end the war. America can define the enemy however it likes, but it won't stop the conflict.
Click to expand...
This will not convince most on this forum but I'll bet Obama is listening:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/14/61_freed_detainees_said_back_in_terror/UPI-39891231947075/

WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 (UPI) -- U.S. military officials say dozens of detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison camp have likely returned to terrorism activities.

U.S. Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters Tuesday that since 2002, 61 former detainees have committed or are suspected to have committed attacks after being released from Guantanamo, CNN reported.
Click to expand...
 
gtc said:
The funny thing is that by being pragmatic and realistic, Obama can only go down in the estimation of his most rabid followers but he will go up in the estimation of people like me (who wouldn't have voted for him if I was an American).
Click to expand...
Well he just signed an order to shut down GITMO within a year. That is a sharp reversal to his shut it down immediately posture as a candidate. I believe his exposure to presidential level briefings are maturing him quickly.
 
GreyICE said:
Lets analyze this post.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman

BHSCG has characterized the only reason we have given them to 'hate us' as Gitmo. Since absolutely no one has made that argument,
Click to expand...
Actually, if you look at what I wrote, you'll see I'm paraphrasing Patriot4life's argument.
Reason it's a fallacy: BSHCG is playing a shell game. To disguise weak arguments he's acting like a magician, making you watch and argue with one hand while the other does the trick. Unlike a magician, he is actually attempting to deceive you into thinking the magic is real, and that he really did teleport that quarter into his hand. Like any other Yuri Geller trick, the strawman argument is the resort of a faker, tricking you into believing something that just isn't true.
Click to expand...
Well, if restating Patriot4life's own argument is a strawman, then I guess I'm guilty.

BHSCG has correctly noted that nothing we can do can completely stop terrorism. Therefore he concludes nothing we can do will have any effect on it.
Click to expand...
No. I said millions of people will hate us no matter what we do, not that nothing we can do will stop terrorism. Speaking of strawmen.

Reason it's a fallacy: This almost doesn't need to be stated. Because he can pick apart any solution that's not perfect he's saying there's no solution.
Click to expand...
And please show where I said there was no solution. That's your second strawman in two paragraphs.

BSCVG charges ahead with this one full on. EITHER our actions stop all terrorists and all hatred OR nothing we do will effect the situation.
Click to expand...
And I said this where? Strawman number three. You're on a roll.

Reason it's a fallacy: BPSHG is implying that a position is hopelessly naive, and smearing everyone even implicitly associated with that.
Click to expand...
Smearing? I beg your pardon. Telling someone his position is naive is not smearing, except in the world of people with tender sensibilities such as E.J. Armstrong and, apparently yourself.

However, as I have demonstrated, this red herring fallacy is obviously false, since he himself has no arguments at all for his position. He merely masses up fallacies and throws them at people.
Click to expand...
Evidence? I observed that September 11 happened despite Patriot4life's claim that one of the reasons the jihadis hate us is for things we did after September 11. They hated us already, enough to murder thousands of us. They didn't need roundups and incarcerations to hate us. They already did.

Seems to me the only thing you have "demonstrated" is the ability to put three strawmen in one post, and the gall to be outraged when you misidentify one.

I won't discuss the childish aspects of your post except to suggest you grow up.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Yes.

There are also people right here in the U.S. who would rape, torture and kill you or me without a second thought.

Trouble is, we can't tell who they are. No matter how heinous the crime, we can't just lock people up indefinitely without due process.

If we have evidence (real evidence--the sort that would stand up in court) that someone has committed a crime, then charge them and go through the process. If we don't, no matter how dangerous you might think they are, we've got to let them go. To claim that these are evil, murderous people is to beg the question.

The problem of what to do with people who can't be repatriated is another issue, but again, I think that's not insurmountable. (How many fall into that category anyway?)
Click to expand...

Without getting into whether GITMO was good idea or not....

What part of "We are at war with Al Quida" don't you understand?
Or are you a "we never should have used Military force, and treated it like any other criminal act", which in reality means doing nothing effective after 9/11 guy?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Persons lose such right anytime they enter into a state of war against the United States on behalf of a hostile foreign power regardless of who the president is.

There was a very small handful of US citizens captured (I think only one or two) while serving in the Waffen SS in World War II. And neither of them were released prior to the end of the war.

The poor oppressed Mr. Padilla should have chosen somewhere other than a planeload of American civillians to attempt to detonate his footwear.
Click to expand...

1 - Now persons lose such right when they are accused of entering into a state of war against the United States. See the difference? I didn't think so.

2 - The poor oppressed Mr. Padilla had nothing to do whatsoever with planes or footwear. Those who fail to learn the from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. Those who fail history are goobers.
 
WildCat said:
Nah, too expensive. Salt from the ocean is dissolving the place. In fact, that's why it was closed in the first place.
Click to expand...


Besides, it is such a huge tourist attraction as a Historical monument that The California congressional people and The Guvanator would never let it go back to the Bureau of Prisons.
 
- Now persons lose such right when they are accused of entering into a state of war against the United States. See the difference? I didn't think so
Click to expand...
. If you are saying that it is only recently that citizens lose their rights under that situation it is you that is woefully ignorant of history.

2 - The poor oppressed Mr. Padilla had nothing to do whatsoever with planes or footwear. Those who fail to learn the from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. Those who fail history are goobers.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out above, be careful calling people "goobers" when you fit the bill so nicely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom