Jump to content

Were Democrats Wrong About Guantanamo?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Rumsfeld and Sen Graham said no waterboarding or enhanced techniques were used.

 

FWIW

 

Rep . King says that the garnered info came from waterboarding.

 

Now Leon Panetta is saying that info from waterboarding was used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the people that oppose it and what it represents propose a new place to put these terrorists?

 

Guantanamo Bay is that place where our moral authority begins to erode.

 

My family has a close friend who served at Guantanamo. He would laugh at this statement. Water-Boarding has been used on 3 people. That is it. The kind of crap that the guards have to go through and water-boarding a few people doesn't compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the people that oppose it and what it represents propose a new place to put these terrorists?

 

 

 

My family has a close friend who served at Guantanamo. He would laugh at this statement. Water-Boarding has been used on 3 people. That is it. The kind of crap that the guards have to go through and water-boarding a few people doesn't compare.

Three people is still three too many, since waterboarding is considered torture and is still of questionable interrogation value.

 

The problem with Guantanamo Bay isn't the location, but what is or has been done there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three people is still three too many, since waterboarding is considered torture and is still of questionable interrogation value.

 

The problem with Guantanamo Bay isn't the location, but what is or has been done there.

 

"Questionable" only in your own mind. Enjoy your fantasyland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't agree with "enhanced torture" or even commonplace torture. Above all, it conflicts with my religious beliefs and moral values. Recent events don't change my mind even one iota.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the people that oppose it and what it represents propose a new place to put these terrorists?

 

If they were all terrorists we would have the ability to charge, convict, and sentence them. Many there are held in Guantamamo - with no evidence against them or under the mere suspicion of having information - because they can be held indefinitely without trial or recourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three people is still three too many, since waterboarding is considered torture and is still of questionable interrogation value..

 

You and I have a strong difference in opinion when it comes to torture. Its not like we're stretching their limbs, breaking their bones, electrocuting them or making them walk on fire. You are telling me you wouldn't water board if-god forbid- a family member of yours went hostage to some lunatic and you have a person who may know the whereabouts of them? I just don't see that happening, then again I don't know you.

 

Its nice and philosophical to say through this method we lose our moral authority, we've started to put ourselves in the same category as those we oppose and all the bologna but when it comes down to it, we're in a war. Crap happens. Water-boarding in no way shape or form puts us in the same category as them. They fly planes into buildings killing thousands. I'm not seeing the correlation. If I can save lives by making it appear to someone that they are going to drown and scare them, I'm gonna do it and thank President Bush for making the call to have it happen.

 

The problem with Guantanamo Bay isn't the location, but what is or has been done there

 

Like I said earlier, The kind of crap that the guards have to go through and water-boarding a few people doesn't compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were all terrorists we would have the ability to charge, convict, and sentence them. Many there are held in Guantamamo - with no evidence against them or under the mere suspicion of having information - because they can be held indefinitely without trial or recourse.

 

So are you for closing Gitmo for that reason? If so, where would you place the accused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those that are opposed to "enhanced interrogation techniques" are so because of what they represent, a loss of our moral authority. This country was built on freedom and the respect of individual rights, values that are even employed in the implementation of our criminal justice system. We're supposed to be the country that doesn't torture its "enemy combatants" ... when we do, we've started to put ourselves in the same category as those we oppose.

 

To many people, Guantanamo Bay is that place where our moral authority begins to erode.

 

 

A lot of stuff has changed including laws since the country was founded. Our enemy combatants used to line up in a straight line row after row and try to beat us fair and square. this enemy not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you for closing Gitmo for that reason? If so, where would you place the accused?

 

It depends. If they attacked the United States they could be charged and tried here, for instance, like Khalid Sheik Muhammad should have been. The problem with Guantanamo is not that its existence in and of itself is wrong, but that it's used as a legal ruse to escape the United States' and international legal standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Questionable" only in your own mind. Enjoy your fantasyland.
I've read the pros and cons ... "confessions" obtained via torture techniques aren't always reliable.

 

There is no fantasy involved in that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.