Advice and Support from Thousands of Users Just Like You

Politics Left? Right? Liberal? Conservative? How does politics and the social values you hold affect dating and relationships?

Reply
Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 Last »
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Kevin_in_TO Kevin_in_TO is offline
Kevin_in_TO's Avatar

Kevin_in_TO is looking forward to summer

Newbie

Join Date: Jan 2009

Posts: 48

See profile



Steve,





I am not suggesting that the U.S. "comply" with the concerns of your enemy. My comments are intended to point out that the U.S. cannot demand a certain level of treatment for its citizens by other countries if it does not afford the same level of treatment to foreign nationals.Double standards tend to get highlighted very quickly and very often.





If you would like to read about the human rights violations associated with Guantanamo Bay, then go to the sites of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Red Cross. There you will find, among other things, details of how the writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended or the fact that you are charging a child soldier with war crimes.





- January 22nd, 2009, 12:38 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#21   Reply With Quote
dwreese182 dwreese182 is offline
dwreese182's Avatar

dwreese182 Pag-ibig ng isla

Veteran

Join Date: Oct 2008

Posts: 2,018

See profile

Cyclist_Steve wrote :

dwreese182 wrote :


Apply for a Top Secret SCI security clearance. You might not be missing as much then.


no need or desire... apparently you have one?


still looking for an answer on how closing gitmo will make our country any safer. let's stay on topic here.
no need or desire


I believe you do have a desire. If you didn't you wouldn't be wanting to know "why" things are they way they are.


apparently you have one?


If I told you I would have to k1ll you. LoL


still looking for an answer on how closing gitmo will make our country any safer. let's stay on topic here.


again, go get that clearance and things will make more sense. However, you should be able to figure it out without one. Our double standards lead to ha te and resentment. Ha te and resentment brings on more enemies. More enemies means you are less safe. That is how you are safer with the closing of gitmo. I, however, don't believe it needs to be closed. Our constitution and laws need to apply to them as well. If they were to be treated like human beings and given the same rights as any other person that has been arrested, then the rest of the world could point their fingers at gitmo all they wanted and it would mean nothing. The amount of secrecy around gitmo is what gets people going.
- January 22nd, 2009, 12:39 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#22   Reply With Quote
landstar59 landstar59 is offline
landstar59's Avatar

landstar59 I am thankful for the fish before me.

Veteran

Join Date: Apr 2008

Posts: 1,547

See profile

Kevin_in_TO wrote :

Steve,





The U.S. will probably be neither safer or more at risk with the closurer of the detention camp. What it will do is remove a very obvious violation of human rights.





A hypothetical question (or possibly not): An group of U.S. citizens go to China and are accused of being anti-government agitators, being terrorists and plotting to blow up buildings. Would the U.S. sit back and allow the Chinese to keep them in isolation for years on end; use "enhanced interrogation techniques"; and then have a military tribunal assess their guilt?

Is it a violation of human rights to detain enemies who threaten our existance? I don't think so. There is a war going on and it is one of us against the terrorists who threaten our security everyday. I personally want to thank those who staff Guatanamo Bayand keep the inhuman locked up to secure my safety.


Your hypothetical question made me think of Vietnam and all of our POW's. For the ones who did return, we have heard of their inhuman treatment. I didn't see Jane Fonda getting them freed from their prisons.As old as that topic is, it isstill not forgotten today. I hate to say but I don't have much faith in the justice system.Everything comes with a price and if you threaten our national security that is the price you must pay. We need to show the world we will not stand for another day like 9/11 or even the threat of it. I am into peace but not to the point I feel like I have to appease my enemies by doing what the world wants so I can look politically correct.
- January 22nd, 2009, 12:48 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#23   Reply With Quote
Cyclist_Steve Cyclist_Steve is offline
Cyclist_Steve's Avatar

Cyclist_Steve considered it - and decided not to

Veteran

Join Date: Feb 2008

Posts: 1,164

See profile

Kevin_in_TO wrote :

U.S. cannot demand a certain level of treatment for its citizens by other countries if it does not afford the same level of treatment to foreign nationals.Double standards tend to get highlighted very quickly and very often.





If you would like to read about the human rights violations associated with Guantanamo Bay, then go to the sites of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Red Cross. There you will find, among other things, details of how the writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended or the fact that you are charging a child soldier with war crimes.




hmmm.. for the first paragraph - i seem to remember a kid that got caught painting graffiti or something.... they 'caned' him.... remember that? i seem to remember that we adopted the position of "you go to their country - you should comply with their laws".. right? how is this different?


2nd paragraph - uh... we're talking about terrorists and soldiers. no kids swapping a mars bar from the grocery. ... amnesty international? from where do they get their money (and their information?)


still not seeing how this is of vital importance to our national security to do this on day 2.... and without a plan.. it must be really important, though.
- January 22nd, 2009, 12:49 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#24   Reply With Quote
neardc neardc is offline
neardc's Avatar

Volunteer Community Leader

Join Date: Jun 2008

Posts: 5,044

See profile

Cyclist_Steve wrote :

neardc wrote :


Cyclist_Steve wrote :


neardc wrote :


Each case will be reviewed and determinations made for whether and how to try the individual


who reviews these cases? who makes the determination?


aren't those things already being done?


Not really; that's part of the problem.


The specifics of the process have not yet been determined; that will happen over the next several months. There are a lot of decisions yet to be made.


gotcha... so we're closing gitmo, but we don't have a plan yet? makes sense to me.. uh.... no, not really.
No; no "gotcha" there at all. He is not closing Gitmo today; it is to be closed within a year. Developing the process for doing that is simply part of the plan.


If your purpose for posting the question is to yell "gotcha!," though, instead of provoking thoughtful discussion, I'm not really interested in responding again...
- January 22nd, 2009, 12:57 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#25   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Cyclist_Steve Cyclist_Steve is offline
Cyclist_Steve's Avatar

Cyclist_Steve considered it - and decided not to

Veteran

Join Date: Feb 2008

Posts: 1,164

See profile

dwreese182 wrote :

again, go get that clearance and things will make more sense. However, you should be able to figure it out without one. Our double standards lead to ha te and resentment. Ha te and resentment brings on more enemies. More enemies means you are less safe. That is how you are safer with the closing of gitmo. I, however, don't believe it needs to be closed. Our constitution and laws need to apply to them as well. If they were to be treated like human beings and given the same rights as any other person that has been arrested, then the rest of the world could point their fingers at gitmo all they wanted and it would mean nothing. The amount of secrecy around gitmo is what gets people going.
really not trying to be difficult, but your argument isn't resonating much.


i need top secret clearance to validate your point that we are closing gitmo to appease our enemies and those other countries that don't like what we're doing with terrorists and those that brought arms to bear against our country???


you're saying that we're doing this to improve image? that's it?
- January 22nd, 2009, 12:59 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#26   Reply With Quote
Cyclist_Steve Cyclist_Steve is offline
Cyclist_Steve's Avatar

Cyclist_Steve considered it - and decided not to

Veteran

Join Date: Feb 2008

Posts: 1,164

See profile

neardc wrote :

Cyclist_Steve wrote :


neardc wrote :


Cyclist_Steve wrote :


neardc wrote :


Each case will be reviewed and determinations made for whether and how to try the individual


who reviews these cases? who makes the determination?


aren't those things already being done?


Not really; that's part of the problem.


The specifics of the process have not yet been determined; that will happen over the next several months. There are a lot of decisions yet to be made.


gotcha... so we're closing gitmo, but we don't have a plan yet? makes sense to me.. uh.... no, not really.


No; no "gotcha" there at all. He is not closing Gitmo today; it is to be closed within a year. Developing the process for doing that is simply part of the plan.


If your purpose for posting the question is to yell "gotcha!," though, instead of provoking thoughtful discussion, I'm not really interested in responding again...
i've not called a single name here.. easy now... we are having a thoughtful discussion, i thought.. ful.


so far, i've gleaned from the posts that we're closing gitmo because:


we want to improve our image


it will make US citizens safer when traveling amongst our enemies and folks that just don't like us.


the possibility exists that we are using some harsh interrogation techniques


is this fair?
- January 22nd, 2009, 01:03 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#27   Reply With Quote
Kevin_in_TO Kevin_in_TO is offline
Kevin_in_TO's Avatar

Kevin_in_TO is looking forward to summer

Newbie

Join Date: Jan 2009

Posts: 48

See profile



"you go to their country - you should comply with their laws".. right? how is this different?"





Well, if you applied the laws of the U.S. to the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, there would be no argument. The problem is that the Bush government suspended those laws. Plus, most (if not all) of those detainees were not picked up in the U.S.





"we're talking about terrorists and soldiers."





"Is it a violation of human rights to detain enemies who threaten our existance?"





No it is not a violation of human rights to detain them. It is however a violation to torture them, keep them locked up for 6 or 7 years plus, deny them the opportunity to know the charges and evidence against them, let alone challenge them.





I am not saying that the all of the people in Guatanamo Bay are innocent. I am saying that the U.S. has to hold true to its principles and laws, otherwise the other side wins.


If some are soldiers, then the Geneva Conventions should be applied.
- January 22nd, 2009, 01:14 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#28   Reply With Quote
Cyclist_Steve Cyclist_Steve is offline
Cyclist_Steve's Avatar

Cyclist_Steve considered it - and decided not to

Veteran

Join Date: Feb 2008

Posts: 1,164

See profile

Kevin_in_TO wrote :

"you go to their country - you should comply with their laws".. right? how is this different?"





Well, if you applied the laws of the U.S. to the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, there would be no argument. The problem is that the Bush government suspended those laws. Plus, most (if not all) of those detainees were not picked up in the U.S.





"we're talking about terrorists and soldiers."





"Is it a violation of human rights to detain enemies who threaten our existance?"





No it is not a violation of human rights to detain them. It is however a violation to torture them, keep them locked up for 6 or 7 years plus, deny them the opportunity to know the charges and evidence against them, let alone challenge them.





I am not saying that the all of the people in Guatanamo Bay are innocent. I am saying that the U.S. has to hold true to its principles and laws, otherwise the other side wins.


If some are soldiers, then the Geneva Conventions should be applied.
sounds like you want them to enjoy the rights of a US Citizen in a militiary prison.. is that right?
- January 22nd, 2009, 01:17 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#29   Reply With Quote
dwreese182 dwreese182 is offline
dwreese182's Avatar

dwreese182 Pag-ibig ng isla

Veteran

Join Date: Oct 2008

Posts: 2,018

See profile

neardc wrote :

No; no "gotcha" there at all. He is not closing Gitmo today; it is to be closed within a year. Developing the process for doing that is simply part of the plan.


If your purpose for posting the question is to yell "gotcha!," though, instead of provoking thoughtful discussion, I'm not really interested in responding again...
No; no "gotcha" there at all. He is not closing Gitmo today; it is to be closed within a year. Developing the process for doing that is simply part of the plan.


He is aware of that also. I don't believe that he is stoopid.


If your purpose for posting the question is to yell "gotcha!," though, instead of provoking thoughtful discussion, I'm not really interested in responding again...


That is exactly what he is doing. I am bumping the "Troll Security Advisory Threat Level" from Yellow to Red. Recommended actions for real board members.
    [*]Complete all recommended actions at lower levels.
    [*]Listen to local troll emergency management officials (that's me).[*]Be prepared to shelter-in-place or evacuate forums as instructed.
    [*]Expect posts that lead to emotional responses that are detrimental to the conversation.
    [*]Provide volunteer services only as requested.
    [/list]
- January 22nd, 2009, 01:17 pm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Share on Facebook

#30   Reply With Quote

ADVERTISEMENT

Reply
Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 Last »

Bookmarks

« Why issues cause Libs and Cons to react so strongly against each other? | Array | Really interesting -- iReport: political opposites see eye-to-eye »
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“It appears the OP hasn't participated in EhA since she login and posed her question initially. We all come to these advise boards with so many different backgrounds...in fact I wrote another post ... ” – scarlet13

Join the “Frustrated & Confused: Is He A Sexual Addict???” discussion

“Disclaimer first - before everyone goes ballistic on me, read the words and don't read some meaning that I did not put there!!! Now the answer: You are wondering if you are incompatible in some way ... ” – Gr8Guyn2008

Join the “what to do... second guessing myself” discussion

“Yup talk=nothing. Seems like she was into you then she wasn't for some reason. I do not think it is because of work, I think that is an excuse I knew plenty of busy people who can pull of ... ” – indigirl1975

Join the “A big change suddenly” discussion

“ But he was so wise....” – Can_I_just_be_Jo

Join the “Is there a difference between weekday and weekend dates?” discussion

“Scott, I don't think eH likes the freeloaders to sneak in their alternate e-mail addresses as a way of getting around paying for their service so they deleted her profile. A lot of people probably ... ” – tweet37

Join the “FCW - Interesting Problem” discussion

“ When I was 1st married I made 10% more than my husband. He complained about it constantly and wanted me to quit my job. I told him to get a better job.” – churumbeque

Join the “where men are financially now” discussion

“Nutella.” – nightling

Join the “Great pleasure.” discussion

“To the OP... I am only an expert at dating women. Sorry I can't help you.” – tweet37

Join the “Confused?” discussion



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:23 am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0