Obama shuts down Gitmo, CIA prisons

[navigator]

This whole tangent actually manages to shine light on one of the problems we have in our country. Too few people are able to define what they mean by "war," nor what they mean by "battlefield."

 

As navigator has more than amply demonstrated, fuzzy definitions allow for fuzzy punishments and fuzzy departures from our clear laws and clear values.

 

All I was asking for is a clear definition of which "war" s/he meant, and which "battlefields" s/he felt warranted differential treatment.

 

His/Her response? An attack on my intelligence and a strawman of my position. I'm so frakkin tired of the lack of clarity and understanding among the larger percentage of the populace of our nation.

 

Which war and the battlefield it happens on is irrelevant, unless your building strawmen. What does my definition matter anyway, they are enemies of this country and our freedoms.

 

Attack? I felt the questions about "which war" and "which battlefield" were intellectually dishonest or baiting. I don't think I should have to clarify the difference between being arrested for commiting a crime and being captured on the battlefield or put a name on the war a bomb maker is fighting. Good grief!!!

 

I guess I get bored reading 3 paragraphs saying the same thing in different ways. Keeping it short and succinct is always more interesting to me, if you disagree then ignore me.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

On the contrary, Mokele, I believe several members, myself included, advocate their release. But that's beside the point of my question.

 

 

 

 

Actually you did more than that, suggesting that people who disagree are "confused", and made a factual statement that you couldn't support, which is what prompted my reply. That having been addressed, I consider the matter closed. We take factual statements seriously around here.

 

Then look up the definition of criminal and prisoner of war, I guess I didn't feel neccessary to lay out support for something that simple.

 

You guys are just attacking my debating style, instead of debating what I said, that says alot.

[iNow]

I don't think I should have to clarify the difference between being arrested for commiting a crime and being captured on the battlefield or put a name on the war a bomb maker is fighting. Good grief!!!

 

<...>

 

You guys are just attacking my debating style, instead of debating what I said, that says alot.

Maybe I can make my point another way. Your bedroom has now been declared a battlefield. You'll be detained without charges indefinitely. Enjoy Gitmo.

 

This is real, navigator. You can't just make sweeping claims without exploring and understanding the implications of those claims.

 

You are speaking as if this whole situation is somehow black and white... as if there really are these clear categories into which people neatly fit called "good" and "evil."

 

I've long ago lived enough life to reject such an approach as naive and silly.

 

 

I understand your point about holding prisoners of war until the threat has ended. What you seem to be missing, however, is just how unstoppable those in power will be if you do not clearly define war or clearly define battlefield or clearly define threat.

[Pangloss]

I see no reason to return his pejorative with further pejorative, iNow. It's undignified.

 

 

Which war and the battlefield it happens on is irrelevant, unless your building strawmen. What does my definition matter anyway, they are enemies of this country and our freedoms.

 

How do you know?

 

How do you know every person in there merits being kept there? How do you know there aren't more men like this one, who was set free after a judge determined there was insufficient evidence to support his detention?

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/08/Ex-Gitmo-detainee-sure-he-was-tortured/UPI-98551244481783/

 

 

I felt the questions about "which war" and "which battlefield" were intellectually dishonest or baiting.

 

It wasn't dishonestly or baiting. You made a statement that the legal basis was wartime footing, and I pointed out that we're not at war on a legal basis. You made an error. I corrected it. Nothing more to it than that.

 

That doesn't mean your opinion isn't valid. It does underscore the point, however, that your pejorative comments about "confusion", "dishonesty" and "baiting" won't be tolerated.

 

 

I don't think I should have to clarify the difference between being arrested for commiting a crime and being captured on the battlefield or put a name on the war a bomb maker is fighting.

 

...

 

Then look up the definition of criminal and prisoner of war, I guess I didn't feel neccessary to lay out support for something that simple.

 

You have to explain the basis by which the determination is made that the event took place on a "battlefield".

 

When you make a factual statement here, you're required to back it up or reveal it to be simple opinion. When you fail to back it up but insist it to be factual, we handle it in the manner you've seen here -- responses that undermine your point and expose your error, followed by infraction notices if necessary due to repetition. Welcome to SFN Politics.

 

But it sounds like you've stepped back to merely expressing your opinion (albeit in a derogatory fashion), so I'll move on. But if you need any more clarification in this area, please don't hesitate to ask.

 

 

if you disagree then ignore me

 

That's not how we work here, and you agreed to abide by this community's standard when you signed up. Please review the following document, and pay particular attention to Section 2, Part 4:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=65&a=14

 

You should also refer to the etiquette guide, paying particular attention to Section 2:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8730

 

Thanks.

[iNow]

I see no reason to return his pejorative with further pejorative, iNow. It's undignified.

So is waving my manhood around in a bar... Never stopped me before.

While I don't think your slap of my wrist was necessary for the post I made, I understand your point.

[SH3RL0CK]

You are aware that nobody is seriously proposing just letting these people go, right? Just moving them to secure facilities in the mainland US.

 

Umm...not true. Reread post # 30 and the link there (if it is still good). Now granted these individuals are probably more a threat to the Chinese than to us.

[navigator]

Maybe I can make my point another way. Your bedroom has now been declared a battlefield. You'll be detained without charges indefinitely. Enjoy Gitmo.

 

This is real, navigator. You can't just make sweeping claims without exploring and understanding the implications of those claims.

 

You are speaking as if this whole situation is somehow black and white... as if there really are these clear categories into which people neatly fit called "good" and "evil."

 

I've long ago lived enough life to reject such an approach as naive and silly.

 

 

I understand your point about holding prisoners of war until the threat has ended. What you seem to be missing, however, is just how unstoppable those in power will be if you do not clearly define war or clearly define battlefield or clearly define threat.

 

 

If someone is making bombs in their bedroom, then I feel it would be justified.

 

You are speaking as if this whole situation is a grey area. I trust those that have been trained in these areas to make the determination of good and evil, although, I am sure they make mistakes from time to time.

 

As far as defining "battlefield" and "threat" it almost has to be a case by case determination giving the tactics these people use. Unless I know the circumstances behind each detainees cature, it is impossible to define either. I would think that both have taken on a much broader scope vs. 10 years ago.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

How do you know?

 

How do you know every person in there merits being kept there? How do you know there aren't more men like this one, who was set free after a judge determined there was insufficient evidence to support his detention?

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/08/Ex-Gitmo-detainee-sure-he-was-tortured/UPI-98551244481783/

 

There are always exceptions. War is a terrible and sometimes an unjust fact of life. Often innocent people are caught in the crossfire, the methods terrorists use magnify these 10 fold.

 

 

It wasn't dishonestly or baiting. You made a statement that the legal basis was wartime footing, and I pointed out that we're not at war on a legal basis. You made an error. I corrected it. Nothing more to it than that.

 

In my opinion, asking me to define the battlefield is absurd, unless you want a broad generalization, which still would be near impossible to cover all the circumstances around each detainees capture.

 

Obama may have said we are no longer at war, but IMO, that is being intellectually dishonest. If not, then why are we still sending troops to Afghanistan?

 

It was really just political posturing in order to close Gitmo.

 

That doesn't mean your opinion isn't valid. It does underscore the point, however, that your pejorative comments about "confusion", "dishonesty" and "baiting" won't be tolerated.

 

 

You have to explain the basis by which the determination is made that the event took place on a "battlefield".

 

When you make a factual statement here, you're required to back it up or reveal it to be simple opinion. When you fail to back it up but insist it to be factual, we handle it in the manner you've seen here -- responses that undermine your point and expose your error, followed by infraction notices if necessary due to repetition. Welcome to SFN Politics.

 

But it sounds like you've stepped back to merely expressing your opinion (albeit in a derogatory fashion), so I'll move on. But if you need any more clarification in this area, please don't hesitate to ask.

 

 

 

 

That's not how we work here, and you agreed to abide by this community's standard when you signed up. Please review the following document, and pay particular attention to Section 2, Part 4:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=65&a=14

 

You should also refer to the etiquette guide, paying particular attention to Section 2:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8730

 

Thanks.

 

Understood.

[iNow]

I trust those that have been trained in these areas to make the determination of good and evil

This is obviously where you and I differ tremendously.

[Pangloss]

I trust those that have been trained in these areas to make the determination of good and evil, although, I am sure they make mistakes from time to time.

 

I might be more willing to trust them if it wasn't for the fact that they've already shown themselves to be untrustworthy with some of these very determinations (Guantanamo Detainees). There have just been too many cases of erroneous, ill-considered detentions. I have no way to know that those remaining are there for valid reasons.

 

I will say that the fact that Obama's people think they are there for good reason lends credibility to that claim.

 

 

Obama may have said we are no longer at war, but IMO, that is being intellectually dishonest. If not, then why are we still sending troops to Afghanistan?

 

I respect your opinion on it, but just to try and give you some kind of answer, I think it's that he's done exactly the same thing that you've done -- interpret the word "war". You think it should be broadly interpreted to mean that, for example, people should be detainable if elected officials deem it appropriate, regardless of the law. He feels it should be narrowly interpreted and that since none has been legally declared, extralegal actions should be curtailed (though he seems to be having trouble following through with that promise).

 

You're certainly right to point out, by the way, that this closing Guantanamo is about politics. But that's a two-way street. The GOP would be more than happy to be handed another Willie Horton on a silver platter.

[navigator]

This is obviously where you and I differ tremendously.

 

 

Is the story linked by Pangloss not the exception?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I might be more willing to trust them if it wasn't for the fact that they've already shown themselves to be untrustworthy with some of these very determinations (Guantanamo Detainees). There have just been too many cases of erroneous, ill-considered detentions. I have no way to know that those remaining are there for valid reasons.

 

I will say that the fact that Obama's people think they are there for good reason lends credibility to that claim.

 

I guess I was unaware of all the erronous, ill-considered detentions.

 

On the contrary,

 

ABC News' Luis Martinez reports: A Pentagon report released today confirms that 14 percent of the 540 detainees -- or one in seven -- who were released from the detainee center Guantanamo Bay have been known or suspected of returning to terrorist activities.

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/pentagon-releas.html

 

 

I guess I am happy with that number, although I wish it were zero. It would be interesting to know how close they keep tabs on them.

 

 

I respect your opinion on it, but just to try and give you some kind of answer, I think it's that he's done exactly the same thing that you've done -- interpret the word "war". You think it should be broadly interpreted to mean that, for example, people should be detainable if elected officials deem it appropriate, regardless of the law. He feels it should be narrowly interpreted and that since none has been legally declared, extralegal actions should be curtailed (though he seems to be having trouble following through with that promise).

 

I understand what your saying, I am just not under the impression that there is some covert operation within our government to take away our rights. I believe the Presidents #1 responsibilty is national security.

 

You're certainly right to point out, by the way, that this closing Guantanamo is about politics. But that's a two-way street. The GOP would be more than happy to be handed another Willie Horton on a silver platter.

 

Given the vote, it doesn't appear to be a partisan opinion.

[The Bear's Key]

It seems some are either proposing a shift in the handling of prisoners of war or they are confusing them with criminals.

No government sent them. It's an underground cult with shadowy members bent on killing and causing destruction.

 

What else might you call them?

 

Regardless, why so little trust in the justice system? Or maybe...it's that the relevant politicians fear a run through our courts would likely expose their sham for what it is.

 

All nations in wartime have held prisoners of war until the threat they pose is gone.

Congress never declared war. It only authorized military action. WW2 is an example of actual war being declared.

 

Also, if a politician habitually says "war on terror", it doesn't change the fact.

 

 

Call it what you want, Iraq war, war on terrorism, regardless, these people were captured on the battlefield...

In any war, there's a battlefield. Imagine we had gone to into WW2 but our leaders declined to tell us which nation(s).

 

So if you buy into the hype of recent leaders, the entire world is a battlefield. Do you see a problem with that?

 

 

As long as there are organized groups intent on our destruction...

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q="intent+on+our+destruction"

 

Maybe there are organized groups intent on spreading catch-phrases.

 

and these people are unrepentant members

How shall this be proven? Like in Salem?

 

More than three centuries after they were accused, tried and hanged as unrepentant witches...

 

and in support of these groups...

That'd be quite a round-up. Maybe we should just leave it to those who have actually planned something.

 

Elaborate more? I can only think of two quotes.

 

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" Abraham Lincoln

So you'd be fine with Obama suspending habeas corpus after declaring that people spreading harmful rumors of government and exaggerated terror have been undermining national security, and therefore are to be collected and held until they no longer pose an imminent threat to democracy?

 

"The War on Government Enemies"

 

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" -- Bertrand Russel.

Kind of like the consistency to brand all terror suspects prisoners of war, is it not?

 

 

On the contrary, Mokele, I believe several members, myself included, advocate their release.

Perhaps only if being held without charges (or no evidence is forthcoming) as a qualifier.

 

 

What does my definition matter anyway, they are enemies of this country and our freedoms.

Evidence for the bolded?

 

 

You are speaking as if this whole situation is a grey area.

No, it's speaking as if it's a judgment and experience area interlaced with respect for the Constitution.

 

Which invariably leads us to full oversight and painstaking steps to ensure none of the measures slipped into law can one day be wielded against our constitutional rights.

 

Obama may have said we are no longer at war

That didn't happen, except if you mean the Iraq withdrawal. And obviously that's not a declaration to ignore terrorists worldwide.

 

 

ABC News'

Luis Martinez reports: A Pentagon report released today confirms that 14 percent of the 540 detainees -- or one in seven -- who were released from the detainee center Guantanamo Bay have been known or suspected of returning to terrorist activities.

Here's some comedy to offer a bit of perpsective. It's by one of Stephen Colbert's most formidable opponents.

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/70789/june-15-2006/formidable-opponent---guantanamo-bay

 

I understand what your saying, I am just not under the impression that there is some covert operation within our government to take away our rights. I believe the Presidents #1 responsibilty is national security.

It doesn't matter what impression you're under. The Founders didn't set up our Constitutional safeguards to be abandoned for leaders who gain -- or swindle -- our trust.

[navigator]

No government sent them. It's an underground cult with shadowy members bent on killing and causing destruction.

 

What else might you call them?

 

True, a valid argument can be made that calling them prisoners of war is lending them rights under the Geneva convention, many believe they don't deserve.

 

Regardless, why so little trust in the justice system? Or maybe...it's that the relevant politicians fear a run through our courts would likely expose their sham for what it is.

 

Isn't this what military tribunals are for?

 

Congress never declared war. It only authorized military action. WW2 is an example of actual war being declared.

 

Also, if a politician habitually says "war on terror", it doesn't change the fact.

 

Good point.

 

So if you buy into the hype of recent leaders, the entire world is a battlefield. Do you see a problem with that?

 

Austrailia, Japan, Canada?

 

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q="intent+on+our+destruction"

 

Maybe there are organized groups intent on spreading catch-phrases.

 

 

How shall this be proven? Like in Salem?

 

More than three centuries after they were accused, tried and hanged as unrepentant witches...

 

Do you believe there is a government conspiracy brewing?

 

That'd be quite a round-up. Maybe we should just leave it to those who have actually planned something.

 

If I implied anything different it was unintentional

 

So you'd be fine with Obama suspending habeas corpus after declaring that people spreading harmful rumors of government and exaggerated terror have been undermining national security, and therefore are to be collected and held until they no longer pose an imminent threat to democracy?

 

"The War on Government Enemies"

 

Habeas corpus applies to criminals.

 

Perhaps only if being held without charges (or no evidence is forthcoming) as a qualifier.

 

IMO this is the where military tribunals should be used.

 

 

Evidence for the bolded?

 

Look up sharia law.

 

No, it's speaking as if it's a judgment and experience area interlaced with respect for the Constitution.

 

Not following you here when you say "its".

 

Which invariably leads us to full oversight and painstaking steps to ensure none of the measures slipped into law can one day be wielded against our constitutional rights.

 

What did I say to give the impression I felt any different? Freedom doesn't come without a price though....

 

That didn't happen, except if you mean the Iraq withdrawal. And obviously that's not a declaration to ignore terrorists worldwide.

 

Ok, I wasn't sure, what he says really depends on whos listening.

 

 

Here's some comedy to offer a bit of perpsective. It's by one of Stephen Colbert's most formidable opponents.

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/70789/june-15-2006/formidable-opponent---guantanamo-bay

 

My knee-jerk response...Nothing like comedy to legitamize an otherwise illogical opinion.

 

To be honest, I haven't watched it yet.

 

It doesn't matter what impression you're under. The Founders didn't set up our Constitutional safeguards to be abandoned for leaders who gain -- or swindle -- our trust.

 

Very true, I guess thats why Im not so worried about this slippery slope many are presenting here.

[Pangloss]

Who presented a slippery slope argument? I try to catch those (when they're fallacies) but maybe I missed it.

 

(For that matter, I also have a long-standing beef with opinion bias in thread-reading (i.e. only reading and replying to posts one disagrees with), but I still succumb to it myself on occasion.)

[The Bear's Key]

Isn't this what military tribunals are for?

By the way, welcome to the politics section

 

Military tribunals are for war prisoners I'd think.

 

So if you buy into the hype of recent leaders, the entire world is a battlefield. Do you see a problem with that?

Austrailia, Japan, Canada?

Not sure where you're going.

 

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q="intent+on+our+destruction"

 

Maybe there are organized groups intent on spreading catch-phrases.

 

 

How shall this be proven? Like in Salem?

Do you believe there is a government conspiracy brewing?

No, just political survival by dirty means on the first point. But in my view, government conspiracy doesn't actually exist. For a conspirer to me isn't really a legitimate part of government...which I believe is far and large a decent entity -- in a free nation of course (and the more it's open).

 

The second point about witches is how we can't prove someone is unrelentant.

 

 

Look up sharia law.

Restrictive, but doesn't anywhere mention hatred of U.S. (or even Western nations') freedoms. But it does reinforce the argument for separation of religion from government.

 

iNow -- You are speaking as if this whole situation is somehow black and white... as if there really are these clear categories into which people neatly fit called "good" and "evil."

You -- You are speaking as if this whole situation is a grey area.

Me -- No, it's speaking as if it's a judgment and experience area interlaced with respect for the Constitution.

You -- Not following you here when you say "its".

Replace "its" with "such reasoning"

 

 

To be honest, I haven't watched it yet.

Goes pretty quick. And it's funny to boot.