wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yes...and? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punksandwich Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I don't care about reader comments. I care about the actual content of the news story being presented. If there's something wrong with the factual element of what I posted, please post a correction. Otherwise, I don't give a rip and a half what a bunch of yahoos online have to say. Let me be the first to congratulate that. The actual content, YES, very important. And in this other thread where you so vehemently question my post about Obama's genetic makeup, I'm glad I'm not a yahoo by your definition, because you certainly cared about what I said. So you don't care about yahoo's posts, but others. Whew, I was worried about my status for a moment. I think I'll have me a Yoo-hoo, care to share ? Yogi will I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Hi all, They also suspended the on going trials.Two of them have admitted and plead guilty in the 9/11 attacks. So were do we put them? Oh,yes Murth said he take them,.... KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Gets even better: Obama to sign order Thursday authorizing the closing of Gitmo within a year WASHINGTON – The Associated Press has learned that President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order Thursday to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center within a year and halt military trials of terror suspects held there. The executive order was one of three expected imminently on how to interrogate and prosecute al-Qaida, Taliban or other foreign fighters believed to threaten the United States. A senior Obama aide said the president would sign the order on Thursday, fulfilling his campaign promise to shut down a facility that critics around the world say violates domestic and international detainee rights. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the event has not yet been announced. Thank you, Mr. President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Hi all, They also suspended the on going trials.Two of them have admitted and plead guilty in the 9/11 attacks. So were do we put them? Oh,yes Murth said he take them,.... KB Where do you put Charles Manson? You lock em up, throw em in Maximum security prison, but you don't animastically torture them for the rest of their life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepyep Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Hi all, Where do you put Charles Manson? Mason had a complete trial. You lock em up, throw em in Maximum security prison, but you don't animastically torture them for the rest of their life KB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yes, of course he did. Why don't our prisoners? But hell, they should be allowed some form of trial, if only to determine their status as a POW, civilian, etc. Horrible as they are, our law still allows them certain rights which Guantanamo denies (for some unknown reason) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperDave Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Hi Mr Drummer, Hello again, a pleasure to cross swords with you. (1.) Wether they are POWs or not, they were in a country that the USA were fighting in, they were there to opose the USA, or if indeed on holiday then they were very sturid and up to no good. If they were not soldiers, and they were armed when caught they should have been shot as colabarators of the enemy. But the USA needed information so they were taken prisoner. And as POWs they should never have released untill the war was over, and if that war is forever then you should never release them, Period. (2.) Sorry you are wrong there. Mr Bush, Mr Blair and Bin Laden have all called it a "War" or "Jihad" so that will do for me, a war it is, you dont have to declare a war to be at war, as we all know, most wars are now conducted that way. (3.) If Israel had not started this conflict with the Palestinians in 1947 by taking away their lands and giving the land to European Jews, not Israelies, then maybe the Palestinians would not be reacting the way they still do 50 years later, and you are right though, there will be no end to it. Regards, Danny Well done Danny, we're mostly in agreement. They certainly should keep those who have been linked to terrorism, committed terrorist acts in the past and are the biggest threat to this country permanently locked up. Those that aren't could possibly be released if we feel they wouldn't be a threat. As far as where to move them. How about with those so-called pardoned turkeys Sarah Palin visited during her run for vice-prez? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Well done Danny, we're mostly in agreement. They certainly should keep those who have been linked to terrorism, committed terrorist acts in the past and are the biggest threat to this country permanently locked up. Those that aren't could possibly be released if we feel they wouldn't be a threat. But the innocent men AREN'T being released, that's the whole problem As far as where to move them. How about with those so-called pardoned turkeys Sarah Palin visited during her run for vice-prez? Where "to move them"is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 Obama wouldn't be in discussions about closing down Guantanamo Bay if he didn't have ideas about what to do with the people already being held there. My hope is that those who are innocent will be released and those who are in fact guilty of committing X crime will be placed in prison, where criminals belong. No more torture, no more indefinite detainments without counsel. We're better than this. I was discussing this on another board, and someone made a sad, but true point. It sucks that we needed the President to come forward and say he's putting an end to torture. It shouldn't have been done in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 But the innocent men AREN'T being released, that's the whole problem Where "to move them"is irrelevant. Who is innocent. Please print there names. Is Khalid Sheikh Muhammad innocent. Is the 12 million in state and federal prison, anyone of those innocent. This isn't like Pres. Bush actually going to Iraq and just randomly picking out assholes. These are member of our military doing this. Im sorry, but guilty men have left and have killed. Granted some have been let go and not killed, are they innocent? or are they just smarter not to get caught. Still, It really doesn't matter. If this doesn't bite us in the ass, than it's good. If it does, than Obama will serve one term and 200,000 marines will be waiting to kick his ass. and as far as i can find, only three have been waterboarding and all three times info was used to stop a terrorist attack. Imagine if we used a phone book on the 20th hijacker for 9/11. What happen if we opened his laptop and saw the accounts numbers for each hijacker. Do you know what would happen. Nothing. Nothing would happen on 9/11. We are not ripping fingernails off. We are not breaking jaws with our fists. We are playing the radio very loud and we are squirting them with water. Do i want that to happen to me. No. Thats why i don't kill people. I don't want to go to jail either, but you don't see me crying about the 6x8 rooms they get with the 350lbs black guy name bubba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Prisoner on prisoner fighting is going to happen. But state-sponsored torture is wrong. Letting the government do whatever the hell it feels like is wrong, it's why we rebelled in the first place. Viva La Revolucion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Prisoner on prisoner fighting is going to happen. But state-sponsored torture is wrong. Letting the government do whatever the hell it feels like is wrong, it's why we rebelled in the first place. Viva La Revolucion We have state sponsored executions. Liberals hate that, but they don't mind abortions. Pres. Obama wants to raise taxes. Isn't that why we went to war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 Anyone who thinks waterboarding is just "squirting" them with water, severely understates what is happening to these people. Not to mention, I can provide links upon links of people who have said that it is in fact, torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 We have state sponsored executions. Liberals hate that, but they don't mind abortions. Pres. Obama wants to raise taxes. Isn't that why we went to war. Our executions are quick and to the point. Torture accomplishes little (most experts agree that it doesn't give us correct answers) and is highly immoral and unethical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Please link me the names of who thinks thats torture. I will say I don't think its torture. Does these people opinion matter more than me. FUCK NO. The only opinion that matter is the presidents. He thinks so, i think he is wrong. I think Eric Holder thinks its torture, but he also thinks not paying taxes is not that bad and worthy of a pardon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 You want people who feel its torture? Look it up yourself dude. I'm goin to bed. I feel it is torture definitely. You can't morally do that to someone and expect them to walk away unscathed mentally. Physical torture can leaves a few scars, but you'll heal up. But fuck with a mind, and it ain't never getting back to normal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Don't we still hang mother fuckers here in this country, Don't we still fry people in the chair. How is that quick and to the point. how is that not highly immoral and unethical. Im not asking for the Chicago Police treatment. I just want answers. Yes, they may lie, but they are still alive. Unlike the people on Death Row Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 I'm glad you feel so arrogant as to assume that your opinion on torture supercedes anyone elses. Really. There's a lot I don't know in this world and there are a lot of things I feel strongly about that others disagree with, but I would never be so presumptuous as to assume that my personal opinion matters more than theirs simply because it's MY opinion. What a buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Don't we still hang mother fuckers here in this country, Don't we still fry people in the chair. How is that quick and to the point. how is that not highly immoral and unethical. We don't hang anyone. And from what i read, few states allow electrocution and it's only used if the inmate requests it or if lethal injection is impractical/cannot be given. Those are both very quick. Also, while taking a life is always unethical, it is sometimes the only practical thing to do. Firstly, the inmate must be punished, as our law clearly states. Execution makes sure that the person can never roam the streets again or kill within a prison. It also (and this is going to sound awful but it's a reason) helps free up the immense cost it takes to keep the aforementioned person in prison for his life. Torture is none of that, and even more unethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 I agree with the use of the death penalty but only in the most severe of circumstances. Serial killers, serial child predators.....people who cannot under any conceivable set of circumstances be rehabilitated and put back into society. As it is, I think it's overused and I would love to see a complete overhaul of the system in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I'm glad you feel so arrogant as to assume that your opinion on torture supercedes anyone elses. Really. There's a lot I don't know in this world and there are a lot of things I feel strongly about that others disagree with, but I would never be so presumptuous as to assume that my personal opinion matters more than theirs simply because it's MY opinion. What a buffoon. I did not say my opinion matter more. But you were trying to prove your point is more valid because other people agree with you. All Im saying, everyone has an opinion and none of them mean nothing except the one in charge. So if James Carville thinks it's torture, good for him. If Pres. Obama thinks it's torture, i think he is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I agree with the use of the death penalty but only in the most severe of circumstances. Serial killers, serial child predators.....people who cannot under any conceivable set of circumstances be rehabilitated and put back into society. As it is, I think it's overused and I would love to see a complete overhaul of the system in my lifetime. Great post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I believe in the right of self-defense and reasonable defense of others. Taking the life of another will not bring back the lives that were lost. I can only pray for the redemption of the lost souls knowing that an answer will come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pb Derigable Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 We don't hang anyone. And from what i read, few states allow electrocution and it's only used if the inmate requests it or if lethal injection is impractical/cannot be given. Those are both very quick. Also, while taking a life is always unethical, it is sometimes the only practical thing to do. Firstly, the inmate must be punished, as our law clearly states. Execution makes sure that the person can never roam the streets again or kill within a prison. It also (and this is going to sound awful but it's a reason) helps free up the immense cost it takes to keep the aforementioned person in prison for his life. Torture is none of that, and even more unethical. But you can make a case that Torture, as it was proven to stop the terrorist attack on the bridges of New York, can, had, and will save lives. Still, this debate is not about if torture is to be used, because it can't, its based on if waterboarding is. I do not think it is based on what is it used for. Pres. Bush will never get punished, nor anyone who used waterboarding. Pres. Obama would have to propose a law that includes waterboarding as torture, and therefore the act of limitations (i forgot the real word) goes in effect. Pres. Bush has already help pass laws that prevents torture from being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.