|
Post by brandon on Jan 25, 2009 21:29:29 GMT -8
barack shmarack flarack gaflock. whatever. ill spell his name however i want.
about guantanamo, im torn about that whole thing. it sucks that people need to be tortured. but on the other hand, i dont really see a problem with torturing war criminals. im not saying we should torture everyone, but heck, if they know where the nuke is buried underneath LA, let it drip man. thats what they get for being douchebags. also, it does seem pretty hasty to shut it down so soon. we dont even know where were going to put all those prisoners, and we had better as frick not send them home, that would be so idiotic.
and yeah, i also found bush's slip ups endearing! hes the kinda guy that id wanna have a beer with. you ever watch a press conference with him? he was so funny with those reporters.
republican party: indeed. there needs to be a change. i can only hope that this whole butt whooping they got this year is going to wake them up.
back to barry. cautiously optimistic is right max... lets see how it goes eh?
|
|
|
Post by emily on Jan 26, 2009 17:09:48 GMT -8
about guantanamo, im torn about that whole thing. it sucks that people need to be tortured. but on the other hand, i dont really see a problem with torturing war criminals. im not saying we should torture everyone, but heck, if they know where the nuke is buried underneath LA, let it drip man. thats what they get for being douchebags. Okay, I have to disagree entirely. I mean, we live in America, and our Constitution clearly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It's either every prisoner has the possibility to get tortured, or no one, there's no picking and choosing. And part of the controversy with Guantanamo is not only the torture aspect but also the fact that a lot of the prisoners there may be innocent. I know that sometimes, especially in America, (and I'm not saying this is how you feel) people fear terrorism so much that they're willing to accept the false presumption that everyone being held in custody for terrorism is guilty. However, even if guilty, I still don't think torture is the answer. That's not to say things like water boarding don't go on every day though in the institution (it was admitted publicly by US officials). But if that's okay, then why do we even have a Constitution? If the government is free to break the rules and laws that our entire country is supposedly sitting on, then how can any democracy be expected to exist? Anyways, that's my bit. But i do agree that it's too hasty of a call.
|
|
|
Post by tyler on Jan 26, 2009 17:32:46 GMT -8
and yeah, i also found bush's slip ups endearing! hes the kinda guy that id wanna have a beer with. you ever watch a press conference with him? he was so funny with those reporters. Yeah but as much as he is the guy you'd like to hang out and have a beer with, that's not the kind of guy I want running a country.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Jan 27, 2009 5:41:19 GMT -8
about guantanamo, im torn about that whole thing. it sucks that people need to be tortured. but on the other hand, i dont really see a problem with torturing war criminals. im not saying we should torture everyone, but heck, if they know where the nuke is buried underneath LA, let it drip man. thats what they get for being douchebags. Okay, I have to disagree entirely. I mean, we live in America, and our Constitution clearly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It's either every prisoner has the possibility to get tortured, or no one, there's no picking and choosing. And part of the controversy with Guantanamo is not only the torture aspect but also the fact that a lot of the prisoners there may be innocent. I know that sometimes, especially in America, (and I'm not saying this is how you feel) people fear terrorism so much that they're willing to accept the false presumption that everyone being held in custody for terrorism is guilty. However, even if guilty, I still don't think torture is the answer. That's not to say things like water boarding don't go on every day though in the institution (it was admitted publicly by US officials). But if that's okay, then why do we even have a Constitution? If the government is free to break the rules and laws that our entire country is supposedly sitting on, then how can any democracy be expected to exist? Anyways, that's my bit. But i do agree that it's too hasty of a call. The problem is that these aren't American citizens. I understand your sentiments but that little difference makes the entire dealing go from pitch black to very,very gray. under the Geneva convention any torture of POW's is strictly prohibited. However the administration up till now never called them POW's instead calling them enemy combatants. Since this is basically a war against civilians it has turned this entire thing into a big fat gray zone. Personally I feel that torture in the physical sense is just stupid. Not wrong, just stupid. It has been proven (and it's just plain common sense) that torture does nothing. It is very hard to get the truth from torture. there are other interrogation techniques that are much more effective and other forms of torture which are also more effective and never runs the risk of killing or causing permanent damage to the prisoners. Ideally it would be nice if there was a full investigation of each inmate and each inmate got a fair trial, but what do you do then? You still have a bunch of prisoners and now a bunch of innocent people who you obviously can't let go. Why cant we let them go? Recent studies have shown that hostility from the Iraqis has go up significantly due to the recent torturing of "enemy combatants. Now I don't know about you but I have NO desire to bolster the ranks of our enemies, but that's what would happen if we let people go. So it all comes down to: what do we do now? Well, given all the gray areas above, and the fact that none of the European nations will take them I can honestly say: I don't know. And yes, I agree that closing Guantanamo was a little hasty.
|
|
|
Post by milofultz on Jan 27, 2009 8:33:37 GMT -8
This is what I think of you, Sean:
|
|
|
Post by emily on Jan 27, 2009 21:10:46 GMT -8
Okay, I have to disagree entirely. I mean, we live in America, and our Constitution clearly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It's either every prisoner has the possibility to get tortured, or no one, there's no picking and choosing. And part of the controversy with Guantanamo is not only the torture aspect but also the fact that a lot of the prisoners there may be innocent. I know that sometimes, especially in America, (and I'm not saying this is how you feel) people fear terrorism so much that they're willing to accept the false presumption that everyone being held in custody for terrorism is guilty. However, even if guilty, I still don't think torture is the answer. That's not to say things like water boarding don't go on every day though in the institution (it was admitted publicly by US officials). But if that's okay, then why do we even have a Constitution? If the government is free to break the rules and laws that our entire country is supposedly sitting on, then how can any democracy be expected to exist? Anyways, that's my bit. But i do agree that it's too hasty of a call. The problem is that these aren't American citizens. I understand your sentiments but that little difference makes the entire dealing go from pitch black to very,very gray. under the Geneva convention any torture of POW's is strictly prohibited. However the administration up till now never called them POW's instead calling them enemy combatants. Since this is basically a war against civilians it has turned this entire thing into a big fat gray zone. Personally I feel that torture in the physical sense is just stupid. Not wrong, just stupid. It has been proven (and it's just plain common sense) that torture does nothing. It is very hard to get the truth from torture. there are other interrogation techniques that are much more effective and other forms of torture which are also more effective and never runs the risk of killing or causing permanent damage to the prisoners. Ideally it would be nice if there was a full investigation of each inmate and each inmate got a fair trial, but what do you do then? You still have a bunch of prisoners and now a bunch of innocent people who you obviously can't let go. Why cant we let them go? Recent studies have shown that hostility from the Iraqis has go up significantly due to the recent torturing of "enemy combatants. Now I don't know about you but I have NO desire to bolster the ranks of our enemies, but that's what would happen if we let people go. So it all comes down to: what do we do now? Well, given all the gray areas above, and the fact that none of the European nations will take them I can honestly say: I don't know. And yes, I agree that closing Guantanamo was a little hasty. Hmm. Okay, I can see the argument you are making but I'm urging you to consider this : if your argument is that these are NOT American citizens (which obviously, they are not) then you also have to be agreeing that any vacationer or visitor in the United States can be subjected to torture if put in prison and also have zero rights while in the country. I mean, I know that's not what you're saying in this case, but like I said, you can't pick and choose and you have to make sure the views you are suggesting are all encompassing - they have to be. With that said, there's a reason ANYONE and EVERYONE in the country is protected under the Constitution. If they weren't then we could do whatever the hell we wanted to anyone on vacation or visiting from other areas of the world. And I am also aware that hostility has been on the increase but that's no reason, AT ALL to keep innocent people in prison. Hostility Americans have towards the Middle East is also on the rise, but would you opt for keeping innocent Americans in prison over there? I really could care less if these people are considered "enemy combatants", it seems anyone from the Middle East has automatically been labeled such these days. And I'm sorry for being a traitor to my country and I don't exactly want to get into this but maybe the Middle East has a right to be pissed off at America. Maybe the bombs we drop multiple times a week (wiping out innocent civilians) is just as bad. I just feel like keeping innocent people in prison is so hypocritical, regardless of who they are. Trust me, I understand your argument/feelings, I've heard them many times before. But I guess I just again have to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Jan 28, 2009 17:42:04 GMT -8
The problem is that these aren't American citizens. I understand your sentiments but that little difference makes the entire dealing go from pitch black to very,very gray. under the Geneva convention any torture of POW's is strictly prohibited. However the administration up till now never called them POW's instead calling them enemy combatants. Since this is basically a war against civilians it has turned this entire thing into a big fat gray zone. Personally I feel that torture in the physical sense is just stupid. Not wrong, just stupid. It has been proven (and it's just plain common sense) that torture does nothing. It is very hard to get the truth from torture. there are other interrogation techniques that are much more effective and other forms of torture which are also more effective and never runs the risk of killing or causing permanent damage to the prisoners. Ideally it would be nice if there was a full investigation of each inmate and each inmate got a fair trial, but what do you do then? You still have a bunch of prisoners and now a bunch of innocent people who you obviously can't let go. Why cant we let them go? Recent studies have shown that hostility from the Iraqis has go up significantly due to the recent torturing of "enemy combatants. Now I don't know about you but I have NO desire to bolster the ranks of our enemies, but that's what would happen if we let people go. So it all comes down to: what do we do now? Well, given all the gray areas above, and the fact that none of the European nations will take them I can honestly say: I don't know. And yes, I agree that closing Guantanamo was a little hasty. Hmm. Okay, I can see the argument you are making but I'm urging you to consider this : if your argument is that these are NOT American citizens (which obviously, they are not) then you also have to be agreeing that any vacationer or visitor in the United States can be subjected to torture if put in prison and also have zero rights while in the country. I mean, I know that's not what you're saying in this case, but like I said, you can't pick and choose and you have to make sure the views you are suggesting are all encompassing - they have to be. With that said, there's a reason ANYONE and EVERYONE in the country is protected under the Constitution. If they weren't then we could do whatever the hell we wanted to anyone on vacation or visiting from other areas of the world. And I am also aware that hostility has been on the increase but that's no reason, AT ALL to keep innocent people in prison. Hostility Americans have towards the Middle East is also on the rise, but would you opt for keeping innocent Americans in prison over there? I really could care less if these people are considered "enemy combatants", it seems anyone from the Middle East has automatically been labeled such these days. And I'm sorry for being a traitor to my country and I don't exactly want to get into this but maybe the Middle East has a right to be pissed off at America. Maybe the bombs we drop multiple times a week (wiping out innocent civilians) is just as bad. I just feel like keeping innocent people in prison is so hypocritical, regardless of who they are. Trust me, I understand your argument/feelings, I've heard them many times before. But I guess I just again have to disagree. No I don't think that you do actually get what I'm saying. You see, for the most part, I agree with everything that you said. Yes it goes against my personal views to torture prisoners especially if there is a ghost of a chance that they are innocent, and yes, I agree that keeping innocent people in jail is wrong, and yes I agree more than anyone that Middle Easterners have every right to be pissed at Americans. But it's important for us to look at this in a more objective view, and that's what I do. You see, if we don't attack this using logic and we mainly use the moral arguments that we are ingrained with we will lose, or we make problems worse (like with the whole "what do we do with our prisoners now that Guantanamo is gone"). Now I'm going to start this by correcting some factual errors. Not anyone and everyone in the country is protected under the Constitution, only Americans. The Government can provide asylum for foreigners but that's the only exception. So, in essence, yeah; if a foreigner is put into prison (and if we are only going by the Constitution) we can pretty much do what ever the hell to them that we want. When their in our jails...we own their ass. The reason that we can't do what ever we want to vacationers is essentially because we are a market economy. That is, an economic system based on buyers and sellers but most importantly, consumers. Essentially, that means that we can't do anything we want to people because it might effect our economy and...well...it's usually fragile enough without the whole recession/depression thingy. That, and the fact that if the UN or NATO ever REALLY got pissed at us we'd be toast. So no, everyone in America is not protected by the Constitution so it has no jurisdiction but under international law, everyone is protected from other countries (but not their own, which is an entirely different discussion). Also, it is perfectly understandable for our enemies to imprison or torture American citizens innocent or not. Is it wrong? Yes. Does it happen? All the time. Ok, enough with the corrections, time for the meat of the argument. Your argument is that it is wrong to imprison innocent people. I agree. There are some who would say that it is better to imprison a hundred innocent people than to let ONE guilty person go free. I am not one of them (we call these people District Attorneys). However, there is always the chance that who we imprison might be innocent. It happens all the time in our own court system, and though I detest knowing that we might have a single innocent person in jail, it is no better to let ten guilty persons go free lest a single innocent person be in jail, especially during war. I said in my last quote that I don't know the right answer and I was serious. This is not a black and white issue, it is very grey and to be honest, it bugs me that people are so sure about the whole thing whether you believe yes or no. The reason is that this is not a yes or no question and if you answer that way than you are WRONG (by the way, if you hadn't caught on yet, I'm speaking in metaphor. My mind switches gears pretty quickly). You can believe one way or another, I don't care, just be a little skeptical is all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Jan 29, 2009 5:16:36 GMT -8
This is what I think of you, Sean: Milo
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jan 29, 2009 8:34:11 GMT -8
and yeah, i also found bush's slip ups endearing! hes the kinda guy that id wanna have a beer with. you ever watch a press conference with him? he was so funny with those reporters. Yeah but as much as he is the guy you'd like to hang out and have a beer with, that's not the kind of guy I want running a country. agreed to the fullest extent.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jan 29, 2009 8:36:41 GMT -8
yeah what you guys are talking about is exactly why guantanamo was made...
|
|
|
Post by Sean Sultan on Jan 29, 2009 19:04:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by emily on Jan 29, 2009 19:56:24 GMT -8
Hmm. Okay, I can see the argument you are making but I'm urging you to consider this : if your argument is that these are NOT American citizens (which obviously, they are not) then you also have to be agreeing that any vacationer or visitor in the United States can be subjected to torture if put in prison and also have zero rights while in the country. I mean, I know that's not what you're saying in this case, but like I said, you can't pick and choose and you have to make sure the views you are suggesting are all encompassing - they have to be. With that said, there's a reason ANYONE and EVERYONE in the country is protected under the Constitution. If they weren't then we could do whatever the hell we wanted to anyone on vacation or visiting from other areas of the world. And I am also aware that hostility has been on the increase but that's no reason, AT ALL to keep innocent people in prison. Hostility Americans have towards the Middle East is also on the rise, but would you opt for keeping innocent Americans in prison over there? I really could care less if these people are considered "enemy combatants", it seems anyone from the Middle East has automatically been labeled such these days. And I'm sorry for being a traitor to my country and I don't exactly want to get into this but maybe the Middle East has a right to be pissed off at America. Maybe the bombs we drop multiple times a week (wiping out innocent civilians) is just as bad. I just feel like keeping innocent people in prison is so hypocritical, regardless of who they are. Trust me, I understand your argument/feelings, I've heard them many times before. But I guess I just again have to disagree. No I don't think that you do actually get what I'm saying. You see, for the most part, I agree with everything that you said. Yes it goes against my personal views to torture prisoners especially if there is a ghost of a chance that they are innocent, and yes, I agree that keeping innocent people in jail is wrong, and yes I agree more than anyone that Middle Easterners have every right to be pissed at Americans. But it's important for us to look at this in a more objective view, and that's what I do. You see, if we don't attack this using logic and we mainly use the moral arguments that we are ingrained with we will lose, or we make problems worse (like with the whole "what do we do with our prisoners now that Guantanamo is gone"). Now I'm going to start this by correcting some factual errors. Not anyone and everyone in the country is protected under the Constitution, only Americans. The Government can provide asylum for foreigners but that's the only exception. So, in essence, yeah; if a foreigner is put into prison (and if we are only going by the Constitution) we can pretty much do what ever the hell to them that we want. When their in our jails...we own their ass. The reason that we can't do what ever we want to vacationers is essentially because we are a market economy. That is, an economic system based on buyers and sellers but most importantly, consumers. Essentially, that means that we can't do anything we want to people because it might effect our economy and...well...it's usually fragile enough without the whole recession/depression thingy. That, and the fact that if the UN or NATO ever REALLY got pissed at us we'd be toast. So no, everyone in America is not protected by the Constitution so it has no jurisdiction but under international law, everyone is protected from other countries (but not their own, which is an entirely different discussion). Also, it is perfectly understandable for our enemies to imprison or torture American citizens innocent or not. Is it wrong? Yes. Does it happen? All the time. Ok, enough with the corrections, time for the meat of the argument. Your argument is that it is wrong to imprison innocent people. I agree. There are some who would say that it is better to imprison a hundred innocent people than to let ONE guilty person go free. I am not one of them (we call these people District Attorneys). However, there is always the chance that who we imprison might be innocent. It happens all the time in our own court system, and though I detest knowing that we might have a single innocent person in jail, it is no better to let ten guilty persons go free lest a single innocent person be in jail, especially during war. I said in my last quote that I don't know the right answer and I was serious. This is not a black and white issue, it is very grey and to be honest, it bugs me that people are so sure about the whole thing whether you believe yes or no. The reason is that this is not a yes or no question and if you answer that way than you are WRONG (by the way, if you hadn't caught on yet, I'm speaking in metaphor. My mind switches gears pretty quickly). You can believe one way or another, I don't care, just be a little skeptical is all I'm saying. Okay, technically, you are right. So, I am glad you agree that it is immoral and are not advocating the torture and imprisonment of innocent people. You see, I was under the impression that everyone was completely protected under the Constitution upon entering the country. But, after I read your argument, I realized that, hey, I haven't taken government for a couple years, and since I am giving my argument based off something that I believe I learned in that class, I decided to look it up. And you're right. So, with that being said, I definitely am skeptical about the way it will all end - where the prisoners will end up. But I can definitely say with confidence that I believe Guantanamo needs to go.
|
|
|
Post by xenochrist on Jan 30, 2009 0:53:09 GMT -8
i think its funny that baracks is president now cause all the racist white people are super angry now, and all the black people are gettin all crazy and partying and shit.
hahahahha, old white racist people.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jan 31, 2009 15:56:51 GMT -8
this guy... ^
so this new stimulous bill is all full of crap that isnt going to help bring our economy back to a healthy stage. discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Jil on Jan 31, 2009 19:10:29 GMT -8
1: I'm down with Torture.
[Okay. That's all I'm gonna put for that, because you guys have covered just about all of it. They're not US citizens. Hell, if I knew something life threatening to a whole entire country... I wouldn't put it past them at all to torture me. I'd expect it and think they were total pussies (That's right Danny.) if they didn't.]
2: What's wrong with old white racist people? Total base of this nation.
3: Ron Paul 2012.
|
|