• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

So has anyone changed their thinking on Gitmo

Les Grossman said:
Again, thanks for proving the point. By saying one crime can get five years and another can get life, you are directly saying one crime is worse than the other.

Why cant you just admit it was ridiculous to compare waterboarding to beheading? I get you think both are wrong. But, to not admit one is far worse than the other is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It's not me who thinks they are both wrong The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA signed a treaty saying they are illegal actions.

You support breaking international law if it's convenient ot you.
 
Show me where any terrorist group signed this treaty. Why should we follow an outdated treaty if the people we are up against wouldn't even begin to recognize its existence.


RJKarl said:
It's not me who thinks they are both wrong The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA signed a treaty saying they are illegal actions.

You support breaking international law if it's convenient ot you.
Click to expand...
 
DodgerDeac said:
Show me where any terrorist group signed this treaty. Why should we follow an outdated treaty if the people we are up against wouldn't even begin to recognize its existence.
Click to expand...

We SIGNED it. We arrested Milsovic under it. We supported the arrest of the guy from Sierra Leone under it after 9/11.

We agreed NOT to do those things PERIOD. There are no exceptions.

We are still on that document stating these are the laws fo the world and we broke the law.
 
Les Grossman said:
Way to avoid the question.
Click to expand...

I didn't avoid anything. What we did was systemic war crimes.

You are trying to justify a bank robbery by saying,"Don't punish me for the bank robbery, becuase it's not as bad as rape and contract killing."

It's you who are trying to justify constant lawbreaking.
 
What's really bad are the pussies who neg rep people for diasgreeing with them and aren't man enough to sign them.

If I neg repped everyone who disagreed with me, well.....
 
RJKarl said:
What's really bad are the pussies who neg rep people for diasgreeing with them and aren't man enough to sign them.

If I neg repped everyone who disagreed with me, well.....
Click to expand...

Agreed. I started "Neg Rep is the Red Badge of Courage" thread. Don't hide behind those meat curtains.
 
Jesus fucking Christ, are we still having another debate on the GCs? Look, it was not the most absurd conclusion in the world to say, as the GWB administration did, that the GCs did not apply to the AQ terrorist network. As people have pointed out in this thread, they did not meet the definition of combatant as set forth in the GC. It was NOT a settled legal issue. Once the SCOTUS settled it with some rather convoluted reasoning, the administration had long-since ended its enhanced interrogations and complied with the SCOTUS directive. The issue was never cut and dry, no matter how the partisans want to spin it.
 
RJKarl said:
What's really bad are the pussies who neg rep people for diasgreeing with them and aren't man enough to sign them.

If I neg repped everyone who disagreed with me, well.....
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that. Heck, I dont even know how to "rep" or "neg rep" on this board.
 
RJKarl said:
I didn't avoid anything. What we did was systemic war crimes.

You are trying to justify a bank robbery by saying,"Don't punish me for the bank robbery, becuase it's not as bad as rape and contract killing."

It's you who are trying to justify constant lawbreaking.
Click to expand...


No. I'm saying the U.S. got caught smoking pot under the school bleachers and AQ cut off people's heads.

You are saying they are one and the same.

Regardless, it's pointless to keep arguing in circles like this.
 
No I'm saying they both serious felonies.

The US government has executed for waterboarding our people. But that's immaterial to you.
 
RJKarl said:
No I'm saying they both serious felonies.

The US government has executed for waterboarding our people. But that's immaterial to you.
Click to expand...

It's immaterial because it's false. No matter how many times you reiterate that falsehood, it will never be true. We didn't execute any Japs for waterboarding. We executed some Japs for an overriding pattern of douchebaggery and evil.
 
Nice link, RJ :rulz:

This has been discussed a zillion times on the other board. Waterboarding was chickenfeed to what those guys did. It's like saying a prisoner was executed for kidnapping because he kidnapped and raped a girl before killing her.
 
So we'll unilaterally obey some outdated protocol and follow it while at war against a group that plays by no rules and wants to eliminate our society. Makes perfect sense. Milosevic headed up a distinguishable country that perpetrated ethnic cleansing. Not at all the same.


RJKarl said:
We SIGNED it. We arrested Milsovic under it. We supported the arrest of the guy from Sierra Leone under it after 9/11.

We agreed NOT to do those things PERIOD. There are no exceptions.

We are still on that document stating these are the laws fo the world and we broke the law.
Click to expand...
 
DodgerDeac said:
So we'll unilaterally obey some outdated protocol and follow it while at war against a group that plays by no rules and wants to eliminate our society. Makes perfect sense. Milosevic headed up a distinguishable country that perpetrated ethnic cleansing. Not at all the same.
Click to expand...

The next people we fight can say, "The US tortured people in their last wars. We can torutre their people now."

We have NO defense and NO position to be outraged about anyone else in the world torturing our citiznes or military people.

Why won't you deal with the fact that two high ranking generals were so outraged by our systemic torture than they retired rather being part of it?

Why don't deal with all the events i've mentioned like the kidnapping and months of torture of the totally innocent Mr. al Masri from Germany?

How about the torture of two Brits whom their government told us were totally innocent, but we kept thme and kept torturing them at GITMO for eight more months?

There is no justification and we did torture innocent people.
 
vindication.jpg
 
W shut down the OBL office in 2005. he has no real ties to this.

Well other than letting OBL go at Tora Bora.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Jesus fucking Christ, are we still having another debate on the GCs? Look, it was not the most absurd conclusion in the world to say, as the GWB administration did, that the GCs did not apply to the AQ terrorist network. As people have pointed out in this thread, they did not meet the definition of combatant as set forth in the GC. It was NOT a settled legal issue. Once the SCOTUS settled it with some rather convoluted reasoning, the administration had long-since ended its enhanced interrogations and complied with the SCOTUS directive. The issue was never cut and dry, no matter how the partisans want to spin it.
Click to expand...

To the douche who negative repped me for this comment saying "so you only apply the law when it's convenient," where do you see that said here? You apply the law when it applies. You don't charge a guy with murder if nobody died. You don't charge somebody with grand theft auto if they stole a pencil. The Bush admin's approach to dealing with terrorists was exactly what it needed to be. We treated 99.9% of the people we got in accordance with the GC and the 0.1% that we may have subjected to enhanced interrogations were all high value guys who were in a position to have knowledge which, if divulged, could save lives.

You pantywaste do-gooders just want to ream Bush for the sake of reaming Bush, much as people here now want to ream Obama for the sake of reaming Obama. If you all were put in a similar position where you are responsible for the safety of 300 million people and you did NOT consider and find the legal justification for dousing a couple fools with water if it potentially save lives, then you would be negligent at your job. Criminally negligent, actually. If we're going to talk about criminality, at least attempt to apply it to your own POV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top