Originally posted by PVS
but you make a mistake here:"-one of the detainees was found in afghanistan with an AK47 in his hand....
-these are the kind of cases of "innocent" people we have to take into consideration."not a good deduction. one example does not speak for the lot. regardless though, america has broken the geneva convention with this crap, claiming some special priviledge in the same manner in which hitler did. after all, 'terrorists' cant be granted the same due process and representation as the rest of us, since they present an immediate danger....but wtf is a terrorist? i thought a terrorist was one who commits the crime. apparently no a terrorist is one suspected of having the will to commit a terrorist act.
in america we have a system of 'innocent until proven guilty'. because of such a system, many lable it as 'siding with the criminal' but tyhe priority is on the protection of EVERYONE, over the punishment of the few. once that priority is switched backwards...and all legal counceling is denied....we have guantonimo bay.
and it is a concentration camp...lets call a spade a spade
i understand what you are getting at and im a)not trying to say that one person represents all people at guantanamo and b) i dont think that guantanamo is the right solution
opinion seems to be black and white on the issue...one mindset thinks that guantanamo is wrong and that all its detainees are innocent and they should all be let go..the other mindset thinks that they are all guilty as sin and should remain caged up forever
neither of these is the case
there are undoubtadly dangerous people locked up in cuba and yes there are most likely people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time
what is a far more worrying concept with regards to human rights is the relatively unknown allegations that the US has been using private chartered planes to ferry guantanamo prisoners around the world to countries where torture of the worst kind is permited by US allies...namely egypt, saudi arabia and pakistan
the other argument on the US governments part i dont agree with is the way they use the fact that guantanamo bay isnt in the US as a way to deny constitutional rights to people
what i do think is wholly approriate however is that they are not granted "prisoner of war" status as many of them did not fight under the "rules of war" regarding uniform and country...they did not fight as soldiers then they do not get the same rights that combatants get
this may sound like a controvertial opinion but in reality it is in line with international law
as for the "concentration camp" analogy...while it is correct in terms of meaning , as in the terrorist suspects are concentrated into one area...i dont believe that the term is generally accepted in that way with regards to WWII...the term "concentration camp" is quite obviously used with respect to the gas chambers and ovens and mass extermination
so i dont think its a very appropriate analogy given the way the term is now embedded in psyche of the international community
Originally posted by jaden101
opinion seems to be black and white on the issue...one mindset thinks that guantanamo is wrong and that all its detainees are innocent and they should all be let go..the other mindset thinks that they are all guilty as sin and should remain caged up forever
i dont think this is the case. i dont think its black and white at all. i dont think people against this system want EVERYONE set free. i just think (and i think most of the cons to this idea think) that they are entitled to basic human rights, which does not include being held in a prison camp indefinately where they may be routinely tortured (and they are) and recieve absolutely no legal counceling for reasons of 'national security' (of coarse).
Originally posted by jaden101
what i do think is wholly approriate however is that they are not granted "prisoner of war" status as many of them did not fight under the "rules of war" regarding uniform and country...they did not fight as soldiers then they do not get the same rights that combatants get this may sound like a controvertial opinion but in reality it is in line with international law
im not sure that is accurate. i highly doubt that international law allows the taking of ones human rights under any circumstances. there are rules to war, yes(always broken) but a prisoner of war is just that regardless of whether or not they followed the rules before being captured.
Originally posted by jaden101
as for the "concentration camp" analogy...while it is correct in terms of meaning , as in the terrorist suspects are concentrated into one area...i dont believe that the term is generally accepted in that way with regards to WWII...the term "concentration camp" is quite obviously used with respect to the gas chambers and ovens and mass exterminationso i dont think its a very appropriate analogy given the way the term is now embedded in psyche of the international community
why not? they are held there indefinately against international law and routinely tortured, and as was the case in abu graib-- killed. why should we not call it what it is? it is an act of evil on the part of a nation in which we have always thought to stand on a foundation of virtues. if it offends some people to hear it called that, i could care less. sometimes political correctness and sensativity only serve to hide the truth under a shroud of dull words.
you might want to have a read...it was also the subject of a recent BBC documentary
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0108-06.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1357699,00.html
http://www.usawatch.org/archives/cat_us_torture.html
why not? they are held there indefinately against international law and routinely tortured, and as was the case in abu graib-- killed. why should we not call it what it is? it is an act of evil on the part of a nation in which we have always thought to stand on a foundation of virtues. if it offends some people to hear it called that, i could care less. sometimes political correctness and sensativity only serve to hide the truth under a shroud of dull words.
again...many of the accusations of torture have come from detainees whos motives for making the allegations are questionable at best...particularly if they have previous resentment against the US...and even more so after being held in cuba
i know of the torture of prisoners in abu graib and i wholly detest it...whether it is the actions of a few idiots (as suggested by the US government) of whether it is a matter of policy doesn't matter...its a disgrace...but in guantanamo to my knowledge there has been no proof os definite torture...only allegations
i will say this for the situation in iraq...i think it is wrong for frontline troops to be acting as prison guards...this was the case in the issue of UK troops torturing iraqi's...one minute they are fighting them...the next they are supposed to be looking after them
the job should have been set aside for either military police or some other more suitable solution should have been found because the situation was a bomb waiting to go off
i think that some equivalence of scale needs to be applied to the media coverage of the events in iraq also
massive..and i mean MASSIVE coverage was given to a woman smacking an iraqi in the head and pointing at his cock...where was the coverage of iraqi "troops" sawing off the heads of 11 asian hostages...where was the news coverage of them hacking a british woman to pieces with machettes...where was the news coverage of them stringing the charred corpses of american troops from bridges?
these things got no coverage whatsoever here in the UK (im sure you will inform me if it is a different case in the US)
you left out that prisoners were murdered. remember the smiling 'thumbs up' photos of troops gloating over corpses.
as far as the beheadings and other attrocities, we got plenty of coverage. thankfully they didnt air the videos in full graphic detail.
if that is the case though, i can see why you would be so anti-liberal, if the media over there is so obviously bias toward the left. if that is the case, it's shameful to say the least.
Originally posted by KidRock
Are you stupid? Ever see the movie Full Metal Jacket? I said that quote one time and i actually quoted it from the movie yet you seem to use that one line against me in every thread. Good job your an idiot. Also where is the thread that said I would move out of the country? and also if I did say i would move out of the country if there was a minority is a bit different then thinking its funny to kill 6 million jews.k got it junior? Or should I draw you a picture with crayons?
I'm not going to waste my time explaining all that crap, because I have better things than to argue pointlessly with morons who deny everything anyone who disagrees with them says. I will ask, however, why is it that you always refer to me as "junior" or address me as a little kid? How old are YOU? 16? 17?
Oh, and it helps when you're calling someone an idiot to spell you're correctly. "Your" is a posessive. "You're" is a contraction of "you are." Idiot.
You know, my righteous and humanitarian side says that torture is wrong, and should never happen. On top of that, people who engage in it should be punished accordingly. However, the deep down human in me says that these people are responsible for terrible acts of inhumanity against us, so torture away.
I know, I know Iraq was not responsible for 9/11....
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You know, my righteous and humanitarian side says that torture is wrong, and should never happen. On top of that, people who engage in it should be punished accordingly. However, the deep down human in me says that these people are responsible for terrible acts of inhumanity against us, so torture away.I know, I know Iraq was not responsible for 9/11....
you speak under the assumption that they are all terrorists.
Originally posted by PVS
you speak under the assumption that they are all terrorists.
No no...I speak under the impression that both sides have a point of view. I understand that all of them are not terrorists. But I also like the tall buildings in my city. I admitted to a double standard. But, that was my point for the beginning. My point is that it's easy to become an ignorant American, as we are accused of being by most people in the world.
And getting information is getting information. But, that was my point.
Look, I don't agree with torture. But, I will say what I think, deep down. Despite the fact that I would never agree with it. Does that make me a hypocrit? Maybe..but I can deal with that.
Erm, of course the complete comparisson doesnt match because one claims he is a republican and the other openly stated that he is a dictator.
Propaganda wise they are in fact identical - and I think that can be seen from some of the replies seen in this thread.
Hitler gives an illusion to American people that they are ''free'' yet passes laws such as 'Patriotic Act' and people let him.
Hitler had such acts too.
Bush and Hitler both had the same principles - you are not allowed to speak up against your country as you automatically become Anti-American/Anti-German.
Now the huge differance here is that Hitler just eliminated such people, while Bush doesn't (or at least we hope he doesnt)
Another differance is that hitler acted in the name of ideology (no matter how crazy it was) while Bush acts in the name of oil and money - you decie which one is worse.
A friend of mine who happens to be originaly from Asia Minor (Arabia to be percise) was stopped at the New York airport because he missed the flight he was originaly supposed to go with because he was ill. The American government suspected he was a terrorst (working for microsoft???) so they stoped him.
The first thing they told him was ''You do understand that from this point on the human rights do not apply - you have surrended your rights to us'' or something to that effect. After all was clear he was free to board the plane - human rights surrendering? Another Hitler similarity.
The huge differance however is the ethnic cleansing Hitler did based on peoples skin colour, religion or creed, while Bush is killing people based on the oil security. Oh and Bush hasnt killed quite as many...
Bush also doesnt have camps where men, women and children are being gassed and tortured and all kinds of horrible things done to them - he has a prison, where soldiers do some terrible things to Iraqis. (obviously nowhere near as bad as Hitler and I hope nothing ever does!!)
So as we can see - while they are very different, they are in many aspects - similar.
So lets revise that they are same in that -
- they are both dictators - one openly so the other not.
- the propaganda and the principles are very similar.
- they both went/are going against international law
- they both violated human rights at some point - one way more than other however.
They are different in that -
-One was a nasty murderer who murdered for ideology and the other one is finishing what his dad begun and is wanting money and oil.
- One had contrencation camps cos he was a sick feck, the other just ha prisons where some dodgy stuff went on.
Different - but still similar.