Where are we gonna put them?

[Bexar Fan]

I understand that the US is trying to get the Brits and others to take the prisoners from Guantanamo. Most seem to be reluctant to take at least the worst hardcore terrorists.

This cartoon made me wonder where are we going to put the prisoners if we close Gitmo? Got any ideas?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon011409.gif

[The Banterer]

I've heard people talk about this as an issue, but I don't really get why it's a big deal. There are probably some much scarier guys in the United States' roughest prisons than there are in Gitmo. Sure, they have different motives, but I don't think that makes them any more dangerous as prisoners.

[ChipOC]

I've heard people talk about this as an issue, but I don't really get why it's a big deal. There are probably some much scarier guys in the United States' roughest prisons than there are in Gitmo. Sure, they have different motives, but I don't think that makes them any more dangerous as prisoners.
One of them masterminded 9/11. You still think they aren't as bad as the ones in our prisons?

[The Banterer]

One of them masterminded 9/11. You still think they aren't as bad as the ones in our prisons?

Yup. I just don't buy that they are more dangerous in a prison setting than the rough guys in San Quentin or the like. Outside of prison, sure they present more of a risk, but in prison, not so much. These guys aren't Jedis or something.

[Chief'sbear]

No death penalty for any?

I guess that would be too easy.

[Bexar Fan]

How do we legally put them in prison? Some haven't been tried and convicted of anything. Others have been before a military tribunal that only has authority on foreign soil.

[Volunteer]

How do we legally put them in prison? Some haven't been tried and convicted of anything. Others have been before a military tribunal that only has authority on foreign soil.


Bingo! That's the part of closing Gitmo that so few people really understand. We're going to end up running these people through the U.S. court system. It's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. How many do you think will make bail?

Personally I hope they send them all to California. Let them deal with them.

[Texas Golfer]

Yup. I just don't buy that they are more dangerous in a prison setting than the rough guys in San Quentin or the like. Outside of prison, sure they present more of a risk, but in prison, not so much. These guys aren't Jedis or something.

Most court sentenced prisoners don't have a martyr complex. They aren't willing to die just for the opportunity to kill their American guards. The terrorists would kill a guard at their first opportunity. The promise of martyrdom makes them much more dangerous.

[GigaBear]

Yup. I just don't buy that they are more dangerous in a prison setting than the rough guys in San Quentin or the like. Outside of prison, sure they present more of a risk, but in prison, not so much. These guys aren't Jedis or something.



IMO, it has more to do with the prospect of them being broken out than it does what they are like in prison. I could give two craps whether or not they are rougher in the shower than Billy Joe, but it would make the prison where they are held a prime target.


Let's face it---U.S. prisons are not equipped to repel any type of force. Gitmo is a different story.

[cowboycwr]

Why not send them to a remote island where we or someone else accidentally tests some new weapons while they are there?

But seriously I think the issue is that they have attacked guards before and like others have said will take any opportunity to kill their infidel guards, even though they would like to kill en masse. The outside attack is also an issue.

I say leave it alone Mr. President

[ChipOC]

They are prisoners of war, yet do not wear uniforms for a country and therefore are outside of the Geneva convention. If these guys were captured during WWII, they'd have been shot. They have it a lot better than they know. They will either have to be transfered to other military prisons or sent to other countries for them to hold them.

It may be cold, but they express their desire to be martyrs. Let them be. Shoot them.

[atxtraveler]

Why don't we just get them all in one room in Gitmo and have a investment banker with nothing to lose fly a plane into them? We have some volunteers from Indiana already, if he doesn't bail too early.

That would be irony.

[Limnos]

Why would any other country wish to receive these dirtbags? Send them to Israel and let their justice system have at it.

[HappyRebel]

Chip has a point....

[BearChick]

Why not send them to a remote island where we or someone else accidentally tests some new weapons while they are there?



Survivor: Gitmo. This time, when your torch gets snuffed out, it's for real.

[Chief'sbear]

Why would any other country wish to receive these dirtbags? Send them to Israel and let their justice system have at it.

I agree, but there would be too much outcry for sending them to Isreal who would try them, then execute them in short order.

Maybe Iraq should try them, they have been pretty good about dealing with their own.

[BU08_USC11]

I'd lay odds that Obama will attempt to 'create' a special 'court' (with a special judge, rules, etc...similar to military tribunals but with domestic authority) to try them which would allow them to be imprisoned on US soil as American criminals rather than as enemy combatants or POWs (however you choose to look at it).

Israel would be swift justice and I wouldn't disagree with that decision. I think the international courts for 'war crimes' are generally a joke (and not certain they rise to that level anyway). Iraq is a good option as well in terms of a trial. The only problem with that is that a good bunch probably don't come from Iraq in the first place (not certain though).

[BU08_USC11]

Survivor: Gitmo. This time, when your torch gets snuffed out, it's for real.

I've maintained for years this is how the death penalty should work. Pit 5-10 prisoners/week in a gladiator style match-up on Pay Per View (or just a subscription channel). Last one standing gets to keep living til next week. It would allow for the chance to live and would provide entertainment for the masses.

Why not carry this over to detainees?

[GigaBear]

I've maintained for years this is how the death penalty should work. Pit 5-10 prisoners/week in a gladiator style match-up on Pay Per View (or just a subscription channel). Last one standing gets to keep living til next week. It would allow for the chance to live and would provide entertainment for the masses.

Why not carry this over to detainees?



And there you have it, ladies and gentleman, the future of our justice system.

[ChipOC]

I'd lay odds that Obama will attempt to 'create' a special 'court' (with a special judge, rules, etc...similar to military tribunals but with domestic authority) to try them which would allow them to be imprisoned on US soil as American criminals rather than as enemy combatants or POWs (however you choose to look at it).

Israel would be swift justice and I wouldn't disagree with that decision. I think the international courts for 'war crimes' are generally a joke (and not certain they rise to that level anyway). Iraq is a good option as well in terms of a trial. The only problem with that is that a good bunch probably don't come from Iraq in the first place (not certain though).
I would guess the ones captured in Iraq are mostly still there. I'd further guess that most of these came from Afganistan or were captured in other countries and handed over to us.

While war crimes trials may seem to be a sham, they have their place and they should be conducted in this instance.

[BrooksBearLives]

I have a problem with the "joking" on this board.

I hate that we're holding these guys without sufficient proof. We don't have laws for citizens because they are citizens and more deserving of respect or decency but based of of self-evident truths of what is fair and unfair, right and wrong.

I hate the message that we're sending that these people are somehow less human or deserving of equal treatment. How far we have come from the fledgling government that was founded on freedom.

Shame on you all.

[Texas Golfer]

I have a problem with the "joking" on this board.

I hate that we're holding these guys without sufficient proof. We don't have laws for citizens because they are citizens and more deserving of respect or decency but based of of self-evident truths of what is fair and unfair, right and wrong.

I hate the message that we're sending that these people are somehow less human or deserving of equal treatment. How far we have come from the fledgling government that was founded on freedom.

Shame on you all.

And I hate their thinking that killing innocent American women and children is an acceptable method for expressing their displeasure.

[Wacoso]

I have a problem with the "joking" on this board.

I hate that we're holding these guys without sufficient proof. We don't have laws for citizens because they are citizens and more deserving of respect or decency but based of of self-evident truths of what is fair and unfair, right and wrong.

I hate the message that we're sending that these people are somehow less human or deserving of equal treatment. How far we have come from the fledgling government that was founded on freedom.

Shame on you all.

Can you tell me how you know they don't have sufficient proof? They didn't just round up every guy behind the local 7-11 counter and take them to Cuba. Don't cry about waterboarding or anything else done to them as that stopped long ago after the information we needed was gathered. I'm sure a couple on here would have had much worse done to them had they been captured.

They get fed every day. They get showers. They get a bed. They get more than some in our own prison system get and no other country wants them.

[ChipOC]

I have a problem with the "joking" on this board.

I hate that we're holding these guys without sufficient proof. We don't have laws for citizens because they are citizens and more deserving of respect or decency but based of of self-evident truths of what is fair and unfair, right and wrong.

I hate the message that we're sending that these people are somehow less human or deserving of equal treatment. How far we have come from the fledgling government that was founded on freedom.

Shame on you all.
I wasn't kidding and they are not citizens. They should be tried for war crimes.

[Texas Golfer]

I wasn't kidding and they are not citizens. They should be tried for war crimes.

Not American citizens anyway.

[cowboycwr]

I have a problem with the "joking" on this board.

I hate that we're holding these guys without sufficient proof. We don't have laws for citizens because they are citizens and more deserving of respect or decency but based of of self-evident truths of what is fair and unfair, right and wrong.

I hate the message that we're sending that these people are somehow less human or deserving of equal treatment. How far we have come from the fledgling government that was founded on freedom.

Shame on you all.

They aren't US citizens. We don't know if there is proof because that hasn't been released. They are enemy combatants. We don't know if torture is actually going on. OF course that is dependent on what/who is defining the torture. I don't consider waterboarding torture while some do. Soem would consider sleep deprivation as torture some would not.

They are being treated pretty fairly IMO. given food, Korans, prayer beads, prayer mats, shelter, medical care, etc.

[BU08_USC11]

And there you have it, ladies and gentleman, the future of our justice system.
Ah, but you don't disagree.

[cowboycwr]

I've maintained for years this is how the death penalty should work. Pit 5-10 prisoners/week in a gladiator style match-up on Pay Per View (or just a subscription channel). Last one standing gets to keep living til next week. It would allow for the chance to live and would provide entertainment for the masses.

Why not carry this over to detainees?

and probably create an even bigger problem as people get even more de sensatized to violence.

[The Banterer]

And I hate their thinking that killing innocent American women and children is an acceptable method for expressing their displeasure.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[BU08_USC11]

and probably create an even bigger problem as people get even more de sensatized to violence.

I wasn't aware this country could become more desensitized to violence than they already are.

[Texas Golfer]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not surprised that you'd equate holding terrorists without offering them the same rights as American citizens with the terrorist acts themselves in killing American citizens.

[Bexar Fan]

I wish I was smart enough to know the answer to this one. I don't.

But I am sure that our domestic justice system is not geared to their crimes.

What do you think we should we do with them? I particularly would like to hear BBL's and The Banterer's answers.

[BU08_USC11]

I particularly would like to hear BBL's and The Banterer's answers.

Set them free.

[Bexar Fan]

Set them free.
....and let them go back to their terror cells? These are not little boys who have been put in timeout for playing with themselves.

[BU08_USC11]

I guess we have a semi-answer to the question...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-closing-gitmo-year/

President Obama issued a draft document Wednesday calling for a 120-day suspension of military tribunals while the Defense Department reviews whether the Pentagon should continue to prosecute enemy combatants.

The draft also calls for the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be closed within the year.

Closing the facility "would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice," reads the draft prepared for the new president's signature.

It calls for a systematic review of each detainee's case to determine which cases can be released, and which cannot.

"It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how such individuals can and should be prosecuted," the document says.

A judge has already granted Obama's request to suspend the war crimes trial of a young Canadian for 120 days. Army Col. Stephen Henley issued the ruling Wednesday after a brief hearing at the Guantanamo base.

Other defendants say they oppose the delay because they want to plead guilty to charges that carry a potential death sentence. Execution would enable them to become martyrs.

Under a scenario foreshadowed in the draft document, some detainees being held at Guantanamo would be released, while others would be transferred elsewhere and later put on trial under terms to be determined. Closing Guantanamo could potentially mean moving the remaining detainees to federal prisons in the U.S., such as the Leavenworth prison in Kansas.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, vehemently opposes that idea. He introduced legislation almost immediately after the draft regulation was announced requiring Obama to provide Congress 90 days' notice as well as a study that answers specific questions relating to security, logistics and alternatives before taking any action to close the Guantanamo prison or move the detainees.

"We cannot afford to make snap decisions about detainee policy, and the American people should be able to judge any policy changes for themselves," Brownback said. "This legislation would require an open and comprehensive review of the factors related to moving the Guantanamo detainees."

Wednesday's draft may be as much an indictment of the Supreme Court's direction on how to prosecute detainees than on anything else.

The Supreme Court's decisions over the past few years -- most recently its June ruling on Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized U.S. citizen held at the prison who successfully claimed habeus corpus rights -- have produced legal contradictions in allowing detainees access to U.S. courts.

The facility at Guantanamo Bay has long been the target of Bush administration critics at home and some governments overseas. The Bush administration established the prison early in battling terrorism, contending that the people held there were not entitled to the customary rights of prisoners in the United States, or to the protections of the Geneva Conventions that cover war prisoners.

The draft order notes that some of the detainees at the site have there for more than six years, and most for at least four years.

At the Pentagon, military leaders were preparing for the order that spokesman Bryan Whitman said would begin a "comprehensive review of policies and procedures related to detainee activities."

"The president has clearly made his intentions well known," Whitman said. "And he has taken the first steps with respect to his direction to order a pause to military commission proceedings."

David Rivkin, a constitutional attorney, said he hoped the 120-day review to be undertaken by the Pentagon would lead to "responsible" results.

"You can, but that does not resolve the situation. You either have to detain them under the military justice/laws of war paradigm, you need to decide how you're going to prosecute the rest," he said.

Rivkin said that such a decision isn't just about moving the 245 detainees remaining at Guantanamo, which initially housed more than 800.

"This is about hundreds and thousands of people the United States is likely to capture in future wars .. ongoing wars frankly against Al Qaeda and Taliban. You cannot fight a war without retaining this vital legal architecture," Rivkin said.

He said he's less concerned about whether it's military commissions or tribunals or giving more due process to the detainees.

"They have to keep this architecture, they can not just keep or resort to a criminal justice model," he said.

[BU08_USC11]

....and let them go back to their terror cells? These are not little boys who have been put in timeout for playing with themselves.

I'm not advocating it. I was simply answering for them the two posters listed. ;)

[cowboycwr]

I wasn't aware this country could become more desensitized to violence than they already are.

yes. Look at the Romans. Their society became very desensitized to violence with the gladiators/christian killings.

The biggest reason is not every single person right now in this country is desensitized and therefore there is alway more that can be done.

[LIQRinPU]

Fun thread.

I suggest releasing them to people that feel sorry for them. Let them become wards of thosae that believe they are harmless.

[Texas Golfer]

Closing the facility "would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice," reads the draft prepared for the new president's signature.


I'm not sure how releasing known terrorists would further the national security of the United States.

[Wacoso]

I'm not sure how releasing known terrorists would further the national security of the United States.

We'll kill them with kindness while they kill us with weapons.

[The Banterer]

I'm not surprised that you'd equate holding terrorists without offering them the same rights as American citizens with the terrorist acts themselves in killing American citizens.

The rights to a fair and timely trial aren't American rights, they are the rights of all people. Just because someone does something terrible doesn't mean we should do something wrong (even if it isn't nearly as heinous) in response. Wrong is still wrong, regardless of magnitude.

[Chief'sbear]

The rights to a fair and timely trial aren't American rights, they are the rights of all people. Just because someone does something terrible doesn't mean we should do something wrong (even if it isn't nearly as heinous) in response. Wrong is still wrong, regardless of magnitude.

Wrong. A right to any trial is based on the country and the law. They are not afforded the same rights as US citizens. They are enemy combatants, not US citizens.

I was not aware you were a flaming liberal. Interesting.

[Volunteer]

With Obama's decision to close Gitmo, I feel much safer now. Let them all go. It's the nice thing to do.

Wacoso is right. We didn't grab these guys behind the local 7-11. They are enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are bad dudes. But, we should release them anyway.

[Volunteer]

The rights to a fair and timely trial aren't American rights, they are the rights of all people. Just because someone does something terrible doesn't mean we should do something wrong (even if it isn't nearly as heinous) in response. Wrong is still wrong, regardless of magnitude.

I wasn't aware that the there was a right to a timely and fair trial in places like North Korea, China, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Bangladesh, Congo, Vietnam, Cuba, and lots of other places around the world. Who knew?

[Wacoso]

Also, some of the people released from Gitmo will be killed instantly upon returning to the free world due to telling America secrets. Nobody likes a snitch, especially terrorists.

[The Banterer]

I wasn't aware that the there was a right to a timely and fair trial in places like North Korea, China, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Bangladesh, Congo, Vietnam, Cuba, and lots of other places around the world. Who knew?

Just because other countries infringe upon a person's natural rights does not mean that they don't exist. I'd prefer that we not have our legal system mentioned with the likes of the nations you posted.

[GigaBear]

Just because other countries infringe upon a person's natural rights does not mean that they don't exist. I'd prefer that we not have our legal system mentioned with the likes of the nation's you posted.




Ouch. While I agree with this.....I still don't know that I agree with you about Gitmo. Sorry, but that's a whole different ballgame down there.

[The Banterer]

Wrong. A right to any trial is based on the country and the law. They are not afforded the same rights as US citizens. They are enemy combatants, but US citizens.

I was not aware you were a flaming liberal. Interesting.

I guess I'm being an idealist that all people should have the rights to life and liberty. Sure, if people are guilty of terrorism, or any crime really, then they face the consequences of the laws of the land. My issue with Gitmo is that these people aren't being tried. They could be innocent for all we know (and don't pretend it's not possible, none of us really knows), but have been given no method to try to defend themselves.

I guess I'm a flaming liberal in the sense that I believe all humans should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their actions. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take appropriate security measures, because we most certainly should.

I try to not let the actions of others change my views of right and wrong. Maybe I'm naive because I've lived a pretty charmed life (never lived in poverty or suffered any sort of real tragedy), but I'd much rather that be the case than to be a cynic.

[Texas Golfer]

The rights to a fair and timely trial aren't American rights, they are the rights of all people. Just because someone does something terrible doesn't mean we should do something wrong (even if it isn't nearly as heinous) in response. Wrong is still wrong, regardless of magnitude.

Many of these terrorists were captured on the battlefield, not by local police. Prisoners of war or enemy combantants are not tried in civilian courts (at least, not in the past). Under a new administration, there's no telling what's going to happen.

But, in any case, merely releasing them is not a viable option.

[Texas Golfer]

Just because other countries infringe upon a person's natural rights does not mean that they don't exist. I'd prefer that we not have our legal system mentioned with the likes of the nations you posted.

Except that Americans captured in those countries wouldn't be treated as well.

[Bexar Fan]

I wish I was smart enough to know the answer to this one. I don't.

But I am sure that our domestic justice system is not geared to their crimes.

What do you think we should we do with them? I particularly would like to hear BBL's and The Banterer's answers.

The rights to a fair and timely trial aren't American rights, they are the rights of all people. Just because someone does something terrible doesn't mean we should do something wrong (even if it isn't nearly as heinous) in response. Wrong is still wrong, regardless of magnitude.
OK, I get it. You don't like what was done at GITMO. What would you do instead?

[BU08_USC11]

Except that Americans captured in those countries haven't been treated as well.

Fixed that for you.

[ChipOC]

Sure, if people are guilty of terrorism, or any crime really, then they face the consequences of the laws of the land. My issue with Gitmo is that these people aren't being tried. They could be innocent for all we know (and don't pretend it's not possible, none of us really knows), but have been given no method to try to defend themselves.

Finally something we can totally agree on. I think they should be tried. If, like we are led to believe, they were captured in battle with no uniform, the trial should be pretty short.

[BrooksBearLives]

Can you tell me how you know they don't have sufficient proof? They didn't just round up every guy behind the local 7-11 counter and take them to Cuba. Don't cry about waterboarding or anything else done to them as that stopped long ago after the information we needed was gathered. I'm sure a couple on here would have had much worse done to them had they been captured.

They get fed every day. They get showers. They get a bed. They get more than some in our own prison system get and no other country wants them.

This a GREAT question! And the exact reason our society has TRIALS to figure out. If we have sufficient proof, then it should be a slam-dunk. If we don't, then why do we have them?

I wasn't kidding and they are not citizens. They should be tried for war crimes.

I'm not sure you don't know what "War Crimes" mean. Here's a hint: it DOESN'T necessarily mean "crimes committed during war."

I wish I was smart enough to know the answer to this one. I don't.

But I am sure that our domestic justice system is not geared to their crimes.

What do you think we should we do with them? I particularly would like to hear BBL's and The Banterer's answers.

I think we should find a way to try them or set them free. I just don't see why we shouldn't treat them as we do a murderer or child molester here in the states. Those crimes are no better than what they've supposedly done.

Our country hasn't even defined "terrorism." What's the definition? No one can give us one good, solid one that encompasses what our mission is. You can't have a war against a tactic/strategy. This is ludicrous.

Set them free.

Shut. Up.

Wrong. A right to any trial is based on the country and the law. They are not afforded the same rights as US citizens. They are enemy combatants, but US citizens.

I was not aware you were a flaming liberal. Interesting.

Wrong. Our laws are based upon our definition of common good and decency. Our country was, quite literally, built upon the idea that ALL men are created EQUAL and that that truth is self-evident. We set ourselves up as the leaders of the free world, how things should be, then we should hold everyone to that standard when it comes to fairness and basic rights.

I wasn't aware that the there was a right to a timely and fair trial in places like North Korea, China, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Bangladesh, Congo, Vietnam, Cuba, and lots of other places around the world. Who knew?

You just listed the worst of the worst. We are better than them. Why should we sink to their level?

Finally something we can totally agree on. I think they should be tried. If, like we are led to believe, they were captured in battle with no uniform, the trial should be pretty short.

Amen. That actually made a bit of sense.

[BU08_USC11]

I think we should find a way to try them or set them free.

Set them free.

Shut. Up.

Are you saying that what I said you would say is wrong?

[cowboycwr]

I'm not sure you don't know what "War Crimes" mean. Here's a hint: it DOESN'T necessarily mean "crimes committed during war."


In a way you are correct and yet sort of not. Most definitions of War crimes do show it as being committed during war. It is even specifically listed in the Geneva Convention, and in court hearings in the Hague. However, it does also say that it doesn't have to be committed during a "declared" war.

So i guess basically I am just pointing out that it typically (or originally) means during a war but has been expanded to mean outside of war.

[ChipOC]

I'm not sure you don't know what "War Crimes" mean. Here's a hint: it DOESN'T necessarily mean "crimes committed during war."
War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war", including but not limited to "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_camp)", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war)", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#cite_note-black_book-0)


Care to expand on what your point was?

[The Banterer]

OK, I get it. You don't like what was done at GITMO. What would you do instead?

Either try them or ship them back to Afghanistan (or wherever we picked them up) and let them go. If we can't prove that they've done anything wrong (which as ChipOC says, shouldn't be too hard if we picked them up during battle), then we have no reason or right to hold them.

I'm not actually opposed to the GITMO facility in and of itself, but rather it's been used as a way to get around treating these people like humans.

[The Banterer]

In a way you are correct and yet sort of not. Most definitions of War crimes do show it as being committed during war. It is even specifically listed in the Geneva Convention, and in court hearings in the Hague. However, it does also say that it doesn't have to be committed during a "declared" war.

So i guess basically I am just pointing out that it typically (or originally) means during a war but has been expanded to mean outside of war.

If the Geneva convention applies to our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, then a case could be made that we have committed war crimes in our treatment of prisoners.

[ChipOC]

If the Geneva convention applies to our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, then a case could be made that we have committed war crimes in our treatment of prisoners.
It doesn't apply, but there probably needs to be another convention on how prisoners should be treated by an army fighting a militant group. Of course, it would likely be rejected because the libs would give too many rights to the scum.

[Bexar Fan]

If the Geneva convention applies to our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, then a case could be made that we have committed war crimes in our treatment of prisoners.
How? Please make the case.

[The Banterer]

How? Please make the case.

Torturing and humiliating POWs is explicitly condemned by the Geneva convention. If you're going to argue that the Geneva convention applies to our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, then you have to abide by the whole thing, not just the parts benefiial to your cause.

[Bexar Fan]

It seems to me that Torture and humiliation need to be defined then, in order to make the case.

[cowboycwr]

If the Geneva convention applies to our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, then a case could be made that we have committed war crimes in our treatment of prisoners.
Our side is under the Geneva convention as a military action. However, enemy fighters that are not part of a military are not

Torturing and humiliating POWs is explicitly condemned by the Geneva convention. If you're going to argue that the Geneva convention applies to our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, then you have to abide by the whole thing, not just the parts benefiial to your cause.

Except, we treated the Iraqi POW's under the Geneva convention (except a few at the one prison by a few soldiers who have thus been punished) but again enemy combatants not in a uniform do not apply.

[Texas Golfer]

If the Geneva convention applies to our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, then a case could be made that we have committed war crimes in our treatment of prisoners.

The Geneva Convention is suppose to apply to both sides. The terrorists don't adhere to it and behead their prisoners. Perhaps your contempt should be reserved for them.

"Being above it" has a nice ring to it but it's impractical. It's like putting our soldiers into a boxing ring with a terrorist but tying our soldier's hands behind his back and calling it a fair fight.

[Texas Golfer]

If the Geneva convention applies to our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, then a case could be made that we have committed war crimes in our treatment of prisoners.

According to the Geneva Convention, enemy soldiers caught in civilian attire may be executed as spies.

[ChipOC]

According to the Geneva Convention, enemy soldiers caught in civilian attire may be executed as spies.
EXACTLY my point!!! They should be tried and then punished accordingly. If they were found to be fighting without a uniform, let's follow the law.

[cowboycwr]

EXACTLY my point!!! They should be tried and then punished accordingly. If they were found to be fighting without a uniform, let's follow the law.

it says can be executed as spies. It does not say have to be. It also doesn't say they have to be tried as spies.

[Volunteer]

Just because other countries infringe upon a person's natural rights does not mean that they don't exist. I'd prefer that we not have our legal system mentioned with the likes of the nations you posted.

This a GREAT question! And the exact reason our society has TRIALS to figure out. If we have sufficient proof, then it should be a slam-dunk. If we don't, then why do we have them?

I think we should find a way to try them or set them free. I just don't see why we shouldn't treat them as we do a murderer or child molester here in the states. Those crimes are no better than what they've supposedly done.


BBL & Banterer, What you guys both miss is that these are not child molesters and they didn't hold-up the local Stop 'n Rob. These are enemy combatants, but they are unlike any other combatants we've ever faced. We held German and Japanese POW's without trials for years. At the end of the war we released them and they, in turn, went home and were peaceful. The Gitmo prisoners are a different sort. Do you really believe we can set them free and they will return home and never bother us again?

You probably know we've released some of the Gitmo prisoners. What you may not know is that at least 10 of them have already rejoined the fight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

And what are we going to put these guys on trial for? Fighting? Unfortunately the choice is difficult. If we release them we can be assured at least several of them will end up killing our people.... again. Trials? Why? We have never put enemy combatants on trial before.

Torturing and humiliating POWs is explicitly condemned by the Geneva convention. If you're going to argue that the Geneva convention applies to our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, then you have to abide by the whole thing, not just the parts benefiial to your cause.

The Geneva convention applies only to uniformed soldiers. It does not apply to guerillas - or terrorists. We haven't tortured anyone. No one died, or was even hurt, at Abu Ghrab (sp?). No one has been injured or killed at Gitmo.

We have obtained useful information through aggressive interrogation techniques. It has saved lives. Eliminating this procedure will cost American lives. You can count on it. Do you want one of those to be yours? I don't.

[The Banterer]

The Geneva Convention is suppose to apply to both sides. The terrorists don't adhere to it and behead their prisoners. Perhaps your contempt should be reserved for them.

"Being above it" has a nice ring to it but it's impractical. It's like putting our soldiers into a boxing ring with a terrorist but tying our soldier's hands behind his back and calling it a fair fight.

I get that the terrorists do really bad stuff, and it sucks, but there isn't really anything the US can do about that. Like I said with the issue of due process, I want my country to do things better than anyone else, especially terrorists. We shouldn't let bad people set an example for our behavior.

Doing the right thing with regard to GITMO would have a moot effect on our soldiers (in fact, I think an argument could be made that it would help them, but that's a different discussion). If we captured these people actively fighting against us, the trials should be cut and dry. If we picked them up for unclear reasons and can't prove their guilt, then we probably shouldn't be detaining them.

[atxtraveler]

How many years did McCain spend in the Hanoi Hilton?

Right. Let them rot.

[Garnett8791]

As I would assume the majority of this board that is severe right wing more than likely parades under the Christianity flag, so I wonder what jesus would do? I would guess it doesn't collaborate with the majority of what you guys are saying. That is what I find so ironic about rwnj, mon - sat, f em, sun, totally different story.

[Bexar Fan]

Garnett, it is easy to paint with a broad brush. It is also easy to lump disimilar situations. I don't recall Jesus dealing with captured terrorists and they hardly meet the criteria of money changers, ordinary petty criminals, gossips, or prostitutes, all of whom he dealt with differently.

My guess is, that under the circumstances, Jesus might even endorse humane imprisonment for the terrorists captured. That is our standard, even in Gitmo, and violations are dealt with by our laws. Political interpretation of the law is where the problems lie.

[Texas Golfer]

I get that the terrorists do really bad stuff, and it sucks, but there isn't really anything the US can do about that. Like I said with the issue of due process, I want my country to do things better than anyone else, especially terrorists. We shouldn't let bad people set an example for our behavior.

Doing the right thing with regard to GITMO would have a moot effect on our soldiers (in fact, I think an argument could be made that it would help them, but that's a different discussion). If we captured these people actively fighting against us, the trials should be cut and dry. If we picked them up for unclear reasons and can't prove their guilt, then we probably shouldn't be detaining them.

Vol's post clearly explained this. Apparently, you didn't read it.

I don't think there's a legitimate argument for your claim that, by releasing the GITMO prisoners, American soldiers would be safer. But I'm willing to listen to your attempt.

[cowboycwr]

As I would assume the majority of this board that is severe right wing more than likely parades under the Christianity flag, so I wonder what jesus would do? I would guess it doesn't collaborate with the majority of what you guys are saying. That is what I find so ironic about rwnj, mon - sat, f em, sun, totally different story.

nice way to lump all people supporting keeping the terrorists in jail into one. group. Not all people on this board supporting that are severe right wing, and not all are religous or even believers.

[Garnett8791]

nice way to lump all people supporting keeping the terrorists in jail into one. group. Not all people on this board supporting that are severe right wing, and not all are religous or even believers.
since when does majority = all?

[ChipOC]

it says can be executed as spies. It does not say have to be. It also doesn't say they have to be tried as spies.
If convicted they'd have two choices, kill them or lock them up for life. They need to be put on trial and either released or face their fate.
As I would assume the majority of this board that is severe right wing more than likely parades under the Christianity flag, so I wonder what jesus would do? I would guess it doesn't collaborate with the majority of what you guys are saying. That is what I find so ironic about rwnj, mon - sat, f em, sun, totally different story.
Jesus would have told them the truth, that He is the way and that they are following a false god. If they saw the truth, then they would no longer be a threat. Otherwise, I'm sure He'd have agreed that they should be locked up to keep them from hurting His sheep.

[ChipOC]

Vol's post clearly explained this. Apparently, you didn't read it.

I don't think there's a legitimate argument for your claim that, by releasing the GITMO prisoners, American soldiers would be safer. But I'm willing to listen to your attempt.
My guess would be that he believes that future terrorists are inspired to join the fight because of their perception put forth by the media that we are torturing them there.

[Garnett8791]

Jesus would have told them the truth, that He is the way and that they are following a false god. If they saw the truth, then they would no longer be a threat. Otherwise, I'm sure He'd have agreed that they should be locked up to keep them from hurting His sheep.

probably pretty accurate. solid post. thank goodness you happened to be born in the right area of the world where you got the "right" religion. suckers!

[ChipOC]

Oops!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481849,00.html
Al Qaeda Chief Was Released by U.S. From Gitmo

Friday, January 23, 2009

File: A U.S. soldier keeps watch from a guard tower overlooking Camp Delta detention center on Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba.

A Saudi man who was released from Guantanamo after spending six years inside the U.S. prison camp has joined Al Qaeda's branch in Yemen and is now the terror group's No. 2 in the country, according to a purported Internet statement from Al Qaeda.
The announcement, made this week on a Web site commonly used by militants, came as President Barack Obama ordered the detention facility closed within a year.
The Yemen branch — known as "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" — said the man, identified as Said Ali al-Shihri, returned to his home in Saudi Arabia after his release from Guantanamo about a year ago and from there went to Yemen. The Internet statement, which could not immediately be verified, said al-Shihri was the group's second-in-command in Yemen and his prisoner number at Guantanamo was 372.
"He managed to leave the land of the two shrines (Saudi Arabia) and join his brothers in Al Qaeda," the statement said.
Documents released by the U.S. Defense Department show that al-Shihri was released from the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in November 2007 and transferred to his homeland. The documents confirmed his prisoner number was 372.
"The lesson here is, whoever receives former Guantánamo detainees needs to keep a close eye on them," an American official told the New York Times.

Saudi Arabian authorities would not immediately comment on the statement. A Yemeni counterterrorism official would only say that Saudi Arabia had asked Yemen to turn over a number of wanted Saudi suspects who fled the kingdom last year for Yemen, and a man with the same name was among those wanted. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the press and would not provide more details.
Al-Shihri was stopped at a Pakistani border crossing in December 2001 with injuries from an airstrike and recuperated at a hospital in Quetta for a month and a half, according to the Defense Department. Within days of his release, he became one of the first detainees sent to Guantanamo.
A congresswoman says the reports should not slow the Obama administration's determination to quickly close the Guantanamo facility.
Rep. Jane Harman, a Democrat from California, said that President Obama has to "proceed extremely carefully" in closing the prison.
Al-Shihri allegedly traveled to Afghanistan two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, provided money to other fighters and trained at an urban warfare at a camp north of Kabul, according to a summary of the evidence against him from U.S. military review panels at Guantanamo Bay.
An alleged travel coordinator for Al Qaeda, he was also accused of meeting extremists in Mashad, Iran and briefing them on how to enter Afghanistan, according to the Defense Department documents.
Al-Shihri, however, said he traveled to Iran to buy carpets for his store in Riyadh. He said he felt Osama bin Laden had no business representing Islam, denied any links to terrorism and expressed interest in rejoining his family in Saudi Arabia.

[Texas Golfer]

There has been no verified documented reports of torture in GITMO but there's been visual evidence of beheading of Americans by the terrorists.

[LIQRinPU]

Really interesting thread and I appreciate the research some of you have done.

If they were fighting Americans without uniforms we should apply the Geneva conv. statuate that allows us to execute them as spies. Pretty simple to me.

[The Banterer]

Alright, I've fallen behind, so I'm going to just put everything in one post.

With regard to torture, Bush has admitted that we used waterboarding and has further admitted that we use "enhanced interrogation methods". If that isn't torture, then there's no reason he couldn't have been even modestly more upfront about it, or at least give a straightforward denial of torture.

The Geneva Convention's reference to "non-uniformed combatants" assumes that there is such a thing in the current conflict as uniformed combatants, which there isn't, because we aren't at war with a nation or an army.

I still find it astonishing that you guys are arguing in favor of torture and giving these people due process because they wouldn't do the same for us. This is astonishingly faulty reasoning, in my opinion, because the US should be acting as a force of good in the world, not embracing the behaviors of terrorists and totalitarian regimes.

On the topic of whether treating the prisoner's with basic human dignity is good or bad for our soldier's, I think it's bad. Someone earlier mentioned that "as many as 10" released prisoners have resumed the fight against us. Ten? While there is no data on it (I don't think Gallup has started polling Al Quaeda members yet), there is a strong argument that by acting in even modestly oppressive actions, we make recruitment easier for terrorist organizations. Before anyone tries to accuse me of being a "blame America dirty liberal commie pinko", I'm not. I just think that sometimes the best way to fight fire isn't with fire, but rather with water.

[LIQRinPU]

Maybe we could throw spitballs while interrogating terrorists.

"The Geneva Convention's reference to "non-uniformed combatants" assumes that there is such a thing in the current conflict as uniformed combatants, which there isn't, because we aren't at war with a nation or an army."

Maybe they are an army of terrorists? If they dont follow conventional rules then should we use conventional rules with them?

[The Banterer]

Maybe they are an army of terrorists? If they dont follow conventional rules then should we use conventional rules with them?

I should've said state-sponsored army. If you're trying to say that we should use torture and ignore their human rights because they do bad things, then my position should be evident by now.

[ChipOC]

I think our inability to deal with these guys is seen as a weakness by our enemies.

[GigaBear]

I think our inability to deal with these guys is seen as a weakness by our enemies.



What enemies? Are you referring to other nations? If so, I laugh at the thought of this being seen as weakness. If they choose to think of it that way, it will be to their detriment. We might not be suited to chase a bunch of morons in the mountains, but I guarantee we can bring down any country we see fit at any time.


That's the least of my worries right now.

[cowboycwr]

Actually it's at eleven. And that is only 11 that have been known to go back to their ways. There could be more. And to me that is 11 to many.

Waterboarding is not torture under the Genevea Convention so while some may think it is wrong, or is torture it is legal and a matter of personal opinion as to whether it is right or not. I say it is not torture and acceptable to use.

If there is a strong arguement that our actions are increasing membership in Al Qeada why are they harder to find, getting run out of Iraq, and not committing more terrorist attacks if their membership is up? There could be a strong arguement that what we are doing is reducing membership.

[ChipOC]

What enemies? Are you referring to other nations? If so, I laugh at the thought of this being seen as weakness. If they choose to think of it that way, it will be to their detriment. We might not be suited to chase a bunch of morons in the mountains, but I guarantee we can bring down any country we see fit at any time.


That's the least of my worries right now.
The religious extremests who regularly decapitate people they see as enemies.

[Bexar Fan]

It is depateable if waterboarding is a torture or just an interrogation technique. It doesn't seem to measure up to the most common of tortures, like beatings, electric shocks, sexual assaults, hanging by limbs, or mock executions.

[ChipOC]

It is depateable if waterboarding is a torture or just an interrogation technique. It doesn't seem to measure up to the most common of tortures, like beatings, electric shocks, sexual assaults, hanging by limbs, or mock executions.
I just realized I was tortured by my parents!

[The Banterer]

It is depateable if waterboarding is a torture or just an interrogation technique. It doesn't seem to measure up to the most common of tortures, like beatings, electric shocks, sexual assaults, hanging by limbs, or mock executions.

Waterboarding wouldn't work if the victim didn't really believe that they were going to die. They aren't shooting them with a supersoaker, they're simulating drowning.

[ChipOC]

Can someone find the definition of torture? Does it have to leave permanent damage?

[Bexar Fan]

Waterboarding wouldn't work if the victim didn't really believe that they were going to die. They aren't shooting them with a supersoaker, they're simulating drowning.
Waterboarding can take several forms. It can be strapping a person down to a board that is then tipped or dunked in water for various periods of time until they choke and sputter, then pulling them up again. It can be pumping water into a person's throat until they choke and sputter. It can be pouring water onto a person's face for the same purpose. It can also be dripping or dribbling water onto a person's forehead until they simply can't take it any longer. All methods are used until the person being interrogated presumably becomes more maleable to interrogation.

The first two involve some risk in that the person may actually drown, which ends the attempt to extract information forever. The last two involve less risk to the person interrogated and allows for repeated sessions to presumeably verify the information obtained.

Does anyone here really know which method has been used in Gitmo?

War is a nasty business, what with all the wounding, maiming and killing.

Aggressive interrogation is not pretty, either.

[Texas Golfer]

Alright, I've fallen behind, so I'm going to just put everything in one post.

With regard to torture, Bush has admitted that we used waterboarding and has further admitted that we use "enhanced interrogation methods". If that isn't torture, then there's no reason he couldn't have been even modestly more upfront about it, or at least give a straightforward denial of torture.

The Geneva Convention's reference to "non-uniformed combatants" assumes that there is such a thing in the current conflict as uniformed combatants, which there isn't, because we aren't at war with a nation or an army.

I still find it astonishing that you guys are arguing in favor of torture and giving these people due process because they wouldn't do the same for us. This is astonishingly faulty reasoning, in my opinion, because the US should be acting as a force of good in the world, not embracing the behaviors of terrorists and totalitarian regimes.

On the topic of whether treating the prisoner's with basic human dignity is good or bad for our soldier's, I think it's bad. Someone earlier mentioned that "as many as 10" released prisoners have resumed the fight against us. Ten? While there is no data on it (I don't think Gallup has started polling Al Quaeda members yet), there is a strong argument that by acting in even modestly oppressive actions, we make recruitment easier for terrorist organizations. Before anyone tries to accuse me of being a "blame America dirty liberal commie pinko", I'm not. I just think that sometimes the best way to fight fire isn't with fire, but rather with water.

If a Muslim student at Baylor calls you out for a fight after class, will you still be using your fists while he's hitting you with a 2X4, saying "I'm an American and I'm above using weapons in a fist fight"?

[Volunteer]

As I would assume the majority of this board that is severe right wing more than likely parades under the Christianity flag, so I wonder what jesus would do? I would guess it doesn't collaborate with the majority of what you guys are saying. That is what I find so ironic about rwnj, mon - sat, f em, sun, totally different story.

Jesus would say you are following a false God and have rejected me.

probably pretty accurate. solid post. thank goodness you happened to be born in the right area of the world where you got the "right" religion. suckers!

The "right" religion started in that other area.....didn't it. It's all over the world. Little to do where you live.


Alright, I've fallen behind, so I'm going to just put everything in one post.

With regard to torture, Bush has admitted that we used waterboarding and has further admitted that we use "enhanced interrogation methods". If that isn't torture, then there's no reason he couldn't have been even modestly more upfront about it, or at least give a straightforward denial of torture.

The Geneva Convention's reference to "non-uniformed combatants" assumes that there is such a thing in the current conflict as uniformed combatants, which there isn't, because we aren't at war with a nation or an army.

I still find it astonishing that you guys are arguing in favor of torture and giving these people due process because they wouldn't do the same for us. This is astonishingly faulty reasoning, in my opinion, because the US should be acting as a force of good in the world, not embracing the behaviors of terrorists and totalitarian regimes.

The argument has nothing to do with what the enemy would or would not do to/for American prisoners. They have no courts, no codes of justice and, frankly, could care less what we think about their treatment of our captured people. The problem is that there are no provisions in the penal code for trying enemy combatants. Are we supposed to grant them the rights of American citizens? IMO, the answer is no. Give the prisoners military tribunals and, if guilty, lock them up for life.


On the topic of whether treating the prisoner's with basic human dignity is good or bad for our soldier's, I think it's bad. Someone earlier mentioned that "as many as 10" released prisoners have resumed the fight against us. Ten? While there is no data on it (I don't think Gallup has started polling Al Quaeda members yet), there is a strong argument that by acting in even modestly oppressive actions, we make recruitment easier for terrorist organizations. You are correct in that there is absolutely zero data to suggest that this has any credence. Before anyone tries to accuse me of being a "blame America dirty liberal commie pinko", I'm not. I just think that sometimes the best way to fight fire isn't with fire, but rather with water.

All prisoners held by the U.S. are treated with dignity.

[Garnett8791]

[COLOR="red"]The "right" religion started in that other area.....didn't it. It's all over the world. Little to do where you live.




All prisoners held by the U.S. are treated with dignity.


So you are saying if you were born in India to a Hindu family(or in the middle east to a muslim, or in china to a buddhist, etc...) raised to follow Hindu that you would still be a Christian, I highly doubt it.

That is something I don't get in this thread, correct me if I am wrong but weren't there documented picture evidence of soldiers making them do crazy things naked on top of each other? That was Gitmo right?

[atxtraveler]

So you are saying if you were born in India to a Hindu family(or in the middle east to a muslim, or in china to a buddhist, etc...) raised to follow Hindu that you would still be a Christian, I highly doubt it.

That is something I don't get in this thread, correct me if I am wrong but weren't there documented picture evidence of soldiers making them do crazy things naked on top of each other? That was Gitmo right?

Garnett, that is not what he is saying. He is saying that Christianity started in the Middle East... so you can't think that Christian beliefs are just something Americans believe in.

You are thinking of Abu Gharaib, which is located in Iraq.

[Texas Golfer]

So you are saying if you were born in India to a Hindu family(or in the middle east to a muslim, or in china to a buddhist, etc...) raised to follow Hindu that you would still be a Christian, I highly doubt it.

Our president was raised as a Muslim in his youth and is now a Christian.

That is something I don't get in this thread, correct me if I am wrong but weren't there documented picture evidence of soldiers making them do crazy things naked on top of each other? That was Gitmo right?

No, that was Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Gitmo is in Cuba and there have been no evidence of torture there.

...

[Volunteer]

So you are saying if you were born in India to a Hindu family(or in the middle east to a muslim, or in china to a buddhist, etc...) raised to follow Hindu that you would still be a Christian, I highly doubt it.

That is something I don't get in this thread, correct me if I am wrong but weren't there documented picture evidence of soldiers making them do crazy things naked on top of each other? That was Gitmo right?

There are Christians all over the world. And that includes in India, China the Middle East and anywhere else you can think of. Being a Christian doesn't have anything to do with "luck".

[Garnett8791]

There are Christians all over the world. And that includes in India, China the Middle East and anywhere else you can think of. Being a Christian doesn't have anything to do with "luck".

thanks for the clarification on gitmo atxtraveler.

Really? So you are saying there are never people born into a family of strong believers (regardless of the religion) and just go with that b/c they don't know any better? Interesting.

Topics like this remind of the south park episode (looked for 10 minutes for the video couldn't find it) where there are a bunch of new people in "hell", made up of all different religions except mormons. They are all standing there in front of a big stage for their introduction to hell questioning why they are there b/c they all did what their book told them to. The guy gets up there and fields the question and states "i am sorry, the correct religion was the mormons, the mormons are the correct religion." Which is funny b/c in another episode south park explained mormonism and how ridiculous it is, etc...

I just have a hard time condemning one religion when it isn't too much more ridiculous than the one I believe in. I guess I will just do the best I can and let God sort it out, if he really is that superficial and needs "that", then so be it. At least all of you guys here are on the right team!!!

[Bexar Fan]

At least all of you guys here are on the right team!!!
Pretty big assumption........not that there is anything wrong with the "other" team.

[Texas Golfer]

So you are saying there are never people born into a family of strong believers (regardless of the religion) and just go with that b/c they don't know any better? Interesting.

I just have a hard time condemning one religion when it isn't too much more ridiculous than the one I believe in. I guess I will just do the best I can and let God sort it out, if he really is that superficial and needs "that", then so be it. At least all of you guys here are on the right team!!!

It's not so much about religion as it is about hate. And it's a hate that's taught by father to son, mother to daughter, etc.

[ChipOC]

thanks for the clarification on gitmo atxtraveler.

Really? So you are saying there are never people born into a family of strong believers (regardless of the religion) and just go with that b/c they don't know any better? Interesting.

Topics like this remind of the south park episode (looked for 10 minutes for the video couldn't find it) where there are a bunch of new people in "hell", made up of all different religions except mormons. They are all standing there in front of a big stage for their introduction to hell questioning why they are there b/c they all did what their book told them to. The guy gets up there and fields the question and states "i am sorry, the correct religion was the mormons, the mormons are the correct religion." Which is funny b/c in another episode south park explained mormonism and how ridiculous it is, etc...

I just have a hard time condemning one religion when it isn't too much more ridiculous than the one I believe in. I guess I will just do the best I can and let God sort it out, if he really is that superficial and needs "that", then so be it. At least all of you guys here are on the right team!!!
The bible states that each one of is chosen, so it wouldn't really matter where were born would it?

[KellerBear]

I've maintained for years this is how the death penalty should work. Pit 5-10 prisoners/week in a gladiator style match-up on Pay Per View (or just a subscription channel). Last one standing gets to keep living til next week. It would allow for the chance to live and would provide entertainment for the masses.

Why not carry this over to detainees?

My father used to always say that when you go to jail you should get a lottery number. Every day they would pull a number and if your number was pulled you were executed...no matter what you did. He truly believed that would make it to where noone wanted to go to jail.

I told him it sure as heck would make people slow their cars down a bit.

[Garnett8791]

The bible states that each one of is chosen, so it wouldn't really matter where were born would it?

oh well as long as the bible says it....if that were true, why would God create a creature in his/her own image only to know the whole time it was destined to suffer in hell for eternity? That doesn't sound like a loving God to me, that sounds like someone trying to scare others into their religion. Oh and by the way make sure you tithe or you are not going to heaven!!!


I have been fortunate enough to travel around the world quite a bit, and I can promise you there are people living holier, more just lives than you(and me) and are helping out WAY more people than you are, but b/c they don't believe Jesus died on a cross 2000 years ago for their sins they are burning in hell? i don't know if I can buy that right now. sometimes religion to me seems like man took it, *******ized it to their benefit, and here we are. just seems way too childish/sorority/fraternity(i remember pledging all too well) to me. believe in what we say, and you are in our club! I just don't see how an all knowing, all powerful God would need that, especially if what you say is true and he already knows what we are going to do before we even exist. my bad on the rant...

[GigaBear]

oh well as long as the bible says it....if that were true, why would God create a creature in his/her own image only to know the whole time it was destined to suffer in hell for eternity? That doesn't sound like a loving God to me, that sounds like someone trying to scare others into their religion. Oh and by the way make sure you tithe or you are not going to heaven!!!


I have been fortunate enough to travel around the world quite a bit, and I can promise you there are people living holier, more just lives than you(and me) and are helping out WAY more people than you are, but b/c they don't believe Jesus died on a cross 2000 years ago for their sins they are burning in hell? i don't know if I can buy that right now. sometimes religion to me seems like man took it, *******ized it to their benefit, and here we are. just seems way too childish/sorority/fraternity(i remember pledging all too well) to me. believe in what we say, and you are in our club! I just don't see how an all knowing, all powerful God would need that, especially if what you say is true and he already knows what we are going to do before we even exist. my bad on the rant...



Yours is a very common misunderstanding, and it's one that many people (including myself) struggle with on a regular basis. Some things simply don't make sense in the "human" sense---the one that you can logically reason through. Some things just have to be taken at faith, which is really what religion is all about.

[LIQRinPU]

Nice rant. If I could think like God I could sort it all out. Its hard to answer the question, "Why would a loving God send a human to hell?" Instead I just do the best I can. Most of the Bible is pretty easy to understand. The trick is believing it. Sometimes trying to think like God doesn't work.

[Yogi Barrister]

As I would assume the majority of this board that is severe right wing more than likely parades under the Christianity flag, so I wonder what jesus would do? I would guess it doesn't collaborate with the majority of what you guys are saying. That is what I find so ironic about rwnj, mon - sat, f em, sun, totally different story.

Way to trivialize a complex subject that you have failed to take the time to learn about.

No wonder guys like Obama get elected and the good people of society have to pay the price.

[Yogi Barrister]

I have a problem with the "joking" on this board.

I hate that we're holding these guys without sufficient proof. We don't have laws for citizens because they are citizens and more deserving of respect or decency but based of of self-evident truths of what is fair and unfair, right and wrong.

I hate the message that we're sending that these people are somehow less human or deserving of equal treatment. How far we have come from the fledgling government that was founded on freedom.

Shame on you all.

So, your solution is just to open the doors and let them go free.

That'll work for most of the combatants. However, there are 60 or so "hardcore terrorists" with nefarious links whose mother lands do not want them.

These are extremely dangerous men.

They have been very open in capitivity about how they will fulfill the destruction of the United States.

I'd just hand them a yellow ticket of leave and say, "When President Obama gets done with this nation, there isn't be anything left to destroy."

[Yogi Barrister]

oh well as long as the bible says it....if that were true, why would God create a creature in his/her own image only to know the whole time it was destined to suffer in hell for eternity? That doesn't sound like a loving God to me, that sounds like someone trying to scare others into their religion. Oh and by the way make sure you tithe or you are not going to heaven!!!


I have been fortunate enough to travel around the world quite a bit, and I can promise you there are people living holier, more just lives than you(and me) and are helping out WAY more people than you are, but b/c they don't believe Jesus died on a cross 2000 years ago for their sins they are burning in hell? i don't know if I can buy that right now. sometimes religion to me seems like man took it, *******ized it to their benefit, and here we are. just seems way too childish/sorority/fraternity(i remember pledging all too well) to me. believe in what we say, and you are in our club! I just don't see how an all knowing, all powerful God would need that, especially if what you say is true and he already knows what we are going to do before we even exist. my bad on the rant...


Dude, all I can say is God is God, you are you, and God loves you.

It seems that you want God to save people who have either voluntarily or involuntarily separated themselves from Him.

And while you admire the work of some of these people because they love their neighbor, which is laudable; you forget the other commandment by Jesus: you shall love the God your father.

So, it is like a cross: man has a love connection with God and a love connection with one another. Now, I find nothing trivial about stating that if one of those connections is broken, especially the connection with God, then you have also disconnected yourself from Heaven.

See, the reason the love of God is important in altruism is because it's not just about helping others; it's about helping others connect back to God. The love of neighbor is how you show others the love of God. If you do not love God, then no matter how you treat your brother, you are not doing it for the Glory of God, and that does nothing to advance the Kingdom of God or to help God reconnect to lost souls. Does that make any sense?

So, you do what a guy like me does: you pray every day for the souls on this planet that need to be reconnected with the Father, and you have faith that God will leave no one behind who loves Him and wants to be with Him.

[Volunteer]

thanks for the clarification on gitmo atxtraveler.

Really? So you are saying there are never people born into a family of strong believers (regardless of the religion) and just go with that b/c they don't know any better? Interesting.


No, I am saying that being a Christian doesn't involve being lucky. Even if you are born into a Christian family you still must make the decision for yourself. No one else can.

I just have a hard time condemning one religion when it isn't too much more ridiculous than the one I believe in.

I didn't know anyone was condemning any other religion.



I have been fortunate enough to travel around the world quite a bit, and I can promise you there are people living holier, more just lives than you(and me) and are helping out WAY more people than you are, but b/c they don't believe Jesus died on a cross 2000 years ago for their sins they are burning in hell? i don't know if I can buy that right now. sometimes religion to me seems like man took it, *******ized it to their benefit, and here we are. just seems way too childish/sorority/fraternity(i remember pledging all too well) to me. believe in what we say, and you are in our club! I just don't see how an all knowing, all powerful God would need that, especially if what you say is true and he already knows what we are going to do before we even exist. my bad on the rant...

I am truly sorry that this is what you believe. I hope that someday you will achieve understanding.

[The Banterer]

So, your solution is just to open the doors and let them go free.

That'll work for most of the combatants. However, there are 60 or so "hardcore terrorists" with nefarious links whose mother lands do not want them.

These are extremely dangerous men.

They have been very open in capitivity about how they will fulfill the destruction of the United States.

I'd just hand them a yellow ticket of leave and say, "When President Obama gets done with this nation, there isn't be anything left to destroy."

If we know that they are hardcore terrorists, then there should be no problem convicting them.

[ChipOC]

If we know that they are hardcore terrorists, then there should be no problem convicting them.
But under what court? I think that has been one of the biggest issues.

[cowboycwr]

But under what court? I think that has been one of the biggest issues.

your correct it has been one of the biggest issues. If we try them under the military as spies it follows the Genevea Convention. If we try them under our court civilian court system some claim it would not or that the manner in which they have been held prisoner would violate the consitution and therefore come into play under a civilian court. Others still argue that since they are not US citizens and were not captured/arrested in the US our court system should have no jurisdiction but it should be the country they are citizens from that should have jurisdiction. However, many of their "home" countries do not want them back.

It is alot of the same issue with the Somali pirates. No one knows where to try them, detain them, etc. and Somalia is not fit to try them, imprison them, etc since the government is not really a functioning government.

[ChipOC]

your correct it has been one of the biggest issues. If we try them under the military as spies it follows the Genevea Convention. If we try them under our court civilian court system some claim it would not or that the manner in which they have been held prisoner would violate the consitution and therefore come into play under a civilian court. Others still argue that since they are not US citizens and were not captured/arrested in the US our court system should have no jurisdiction but it should be the country they are citizens from that should have jurisdiction. However, many of their "home" countries do not want them back.

It is alot of the same issue with the Somali pirates. No one knows where to try them, detain them, etc. and Somalia is not fit to try them, imprison them, etc since the government is not really a functioning government.
Does anyone else think this is might turn into a call for an international court? I'm thinking that may happen. If they get the UN to run it we are screwed.

[cowboycwr]

Does anyone else think this is might turn into a call for an international court? I'm thinking that may happen. If they get the UN to run it we are screwed.

which the pirates or Gitmo? or both? I could see a call for it but don't see how enough nations would agree on it for it to be effective. Maybe a new treaty that deals specifically with non government sanctioned fighters (pirates, terrorists, mercenaries, foreign fighters in wars,e tc)

[ChipOC]

which the pirates or Gitmo? or both? I could see a call for it but don't see how enough nations would agree on it for it to be effective. Maybe a new treaty that deals specifically with non government sanctioned fighters (pirates, terrorists, mercenaries, foreign fighters in wars,e tc)
Both, but I like your idea better.