Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

God bless america

profile picture
squeakywaffle
Posts: 1800 - Karma: 13
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4720962.stm

I know this has been done to death already, but I was reading some stuff and I just got really pissed off.

Gitmo is in Cuba because it would be technically illegal to run it on US soil. Does that seem totally fucking crooked to anyone else? People are getting tortured there- and I'm not saying some of them aren't bad people, but doesn't this whole thing just go against everything america is supposed to stand for?

For fuck's sake, the motherfucking Nazis treated their POWs better than we treat these "enemy combatants."

If it's not legal to run it on our own soil, we probably shouldn't be doing it at all. I don't think that one's too hard to figure out. If anyone can convince me that gitmo is a good idea, I will drink a gallon of bleach, because you'd have to be a total fucking idiot to support that kind of bullshit.

And don't get me started on the wiretapping stuff... we live in a time where technology is sufficient to record and scrutinize every phone call we make and every email we send, and a lot of people apparently still think it's a good idea to take our first baby steps down that slippery slope that can only lead to a fascist police state.

Don't take me for an extreme-left liberal, because I'm not... I just decided to try and imagine I'm seeing these news stories for the first time and holy shit, is this some kind of bad dream?
Mar 3 2006 6:14AM
0 0
profile picture
skisebski
Posts: 5970 - Karma: 21
i like cookies.
Mar 3 2006 6:16AM
0 0
profile picture
squeakywaffle
Posts: 1800 - Karma: 13
hey so do I, but only chocolate chip ones and warm sugar cookies... the rest taste like shit.
Mar 3 2006 6:21AM
0 0
profile picture
EC-Tom
Posts: 2572 - Karma: 12
why the fuck do you think those prisoners are there in the first place? If they are crooked enough to be sent there, then they should deal with the punishment.
Mar 3 2006 6:23AM
0 0
profile picture
swTroyanchick
Posts: 2616 - Karma: 9
u should try swiss cookies..u would luv em
Mar 3 2006 7:02AM
0 0
profile picture
fappy
Posts: 2960 - Karma: 15
so you're in favor of tortue?
Mar 3 2006 7:05AM
0 0
profile picture
weenox
Posts: 1568 - Karma: 19
"Its allegations include the force-feeding of hunger strikers through nasal tubes and the simultaneous use of interrogation techniques such as prolonged solitary confinement and exposure to extreme temperatures, noise and light"


DAMN, if only the terrorists would do shit like that to us instead of flying planes into buildings and blowing our asses up with roadside bombs......

wipe your pussies off.....i guarantee you the minute anyone in that prison gets out of it they're going to be fuckin plotting how to attack us again. so they've chosen to be terrorists/enemy combatants - people in the world need to fuckin start taking responsibility for shit. "oh no, the guys that would kill me an my family without blinking an eye are being exposed to loud noises, and extreme lighting conditions." someone call the fuckin wambulance....
Mar 3 2006 7:41AM
0 0
profile picture
RedbAss
Posts: 352 - Karma: 10
^Alrught them, why arn't they being executed then, if their soo fucking evil
Mar 3 2006 8:35AM
0 0
profile picture
squeakywaffle
Posts: 1800 - Karma: 13
So what gives us the right to do it? Is it because we're bigger? Is it because our methods of torture are more civilized?

Let me give you a little bit of a news flash here. 90% of the guys we put in Gitmo aren't even thinking about coming over to the US and bombing us. In fact, despite the huge numbers of crazy motherfuckers that live in the middle east, I think more terrorist attacks have probably been planned and executed by american citizens than muslim extremists.

The guys we put in Gitmo are there because they fought against us when we invaded their homeland. They are "enemy combatants." This is another word for POW, because we started the war, they fought against us for their country, and we took them prisoner. And, like I said, the Nazis treated their POWs better than we do. Do you think that's good? Do you agree with that?

It all boils down to the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right." We clearly need to be the bigger man here, or we are just as bad as those crazy shithead muslims who start riots over a fucking newspaper cartoon. Is revenge a suitable motive for the most powerful nation in the world to invade countries, fuck up their governments, torture their people, and leave? I'm not necessarily against the Iraq war, but we just did such a fucking horrible job cleaning up after ourselves. (case in point: Abu Ghraib)

Hell, if two wrongs do make a right, we should just nuke the entire fucking middle east. Would you support that course of action?
Mar 3 2006 6:57PM
0 0
profile picture
will987654321
Posts: 2092 - Karma: 15
^ you are exactly right. i want to remind people who think torture is necessary that many of these people are being held without trial. innocent until proven guilty? i guess that's only in the US, so the US is allowed to do whatever the fuck they want outside the boarders.
Mar 3 2006 7:14PM
0 0
profile picture
wilkesyachtingco
Posts: 4425 - Karma: 41
two things... in your first post on wire tapping and that kind of thing, you use the phrase slippery slope... and thats hardly a good thing to base an argument on. if youre into slippery slope arguments, there are probably a good handfull of issues that im pretty sure you would not agree with that could be effectivly argued on slippery slope grounds. im not saying the domestic surveilance is good or bad, as its never really bothered me any, only that you need to have a better reasoning than the fear that it could lead to worse things. theres nothing that points to that really happening, at least in the info youve provided.

secondly, about your contiual refernce to the treatment of POWs by the Nazis... im sure they were a lot nicer, as long as your werent a russian, polish, slavic, jewish, black, southern european etc. prisoner of war. in those cases, im guessing they would have prefered cuba.
Mar 3 2006 7:49PM
0 0
profile picture
ColonelKurtz
Posts: 49 - Karma: 10
God Bless America Indeed, and kill those who disagree
Mar 3 2006 8:02PM
0 0
profile picture
Eazy_Eags
Posts: 2227 - Karma: 14
america, FUCK YEAH
coming again to save the motherfucking day yeah
america, FUCK YEAH
freedom is the only way yeah
terrorist your game is through, cuz now u have to answer to
america, FUCK YEAH
Mar 3 2006 8:58PM
0 0
profile picture
traer
Posts: 690 - Karma: 12
Not sure I agree with Nazi's treating POW's better, you might want to look into that more.

I know alot of stuff has gone down in guantanamo bay but Im going to step out on a limb and say that there is tons of people watching it now and I believe it is alot harder to get away with "torture" than it may have been in the beginning. Also not every prisoner there is from fighting in their own country. The majority yes but as an example one was a 9/11 hijacker who didn't get through security.

Guantanamo Bay is actually a US Naval Base first and foremost, just like any other US international Naval Base which have also housed prisoners, although not as long and for not as controversial reasons. But have no fear some of our government is working long hard hours on trying to get them released. And maybe just maybe you will run into one of the x-prisoners walking on US soil.


Just some thoughts
Mar 4 2006 12:28AM
0 0
profile picture
traer
Posts: 690 - Karma: 12
Some additional info:

None of them are actual POW's because al Qaeda is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

A majority, not all, at being held according to laws of war (which is international, determined by the UN and Geneva Convention) the majority were part of an international armed conflict and the detainees picked up there were participants, therefore, the appropriate legal procedure is to hold them until the end of the conflict. Or until they are cleared, or no longer a threat (which has happened).

In the Convention Against Torture, the convention says that torture is a activity that is specifically intended to cause severe medical pain or suffering. I think that on its face, that no one would accept that our doctors, by giving someone food and nourishment, are intending to inflict severe physical pain or suffering on them. The feeding tubes are the same procedure used in our hospitals. The prisoners are even asked if they want a pain pill before hand.

Activities at Guantanamo are transparent and that more than 1,000 members of the media, numerous members of the U.S. Congress, and representatives from the International Committee for the Red Cross have repeatedly visited the facility.

Alot of the bad reports are based on prisoners who have been set free and the current prisoners lawyers.

I'm not saying everything there is ok, you just have to see both sides of the story.

Alot of this was taken from http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2006/20060215_4217.html
by Steven Donald Smith if you want to check it our yourself.
Mar 4 2006 12:47AM
0 0
profile picture
whattheshit
Posts: 6562 - Karma: 107
they chop off the heads of our pow's.


fuck em.
Mar 4 2006 2:15AM
0 0
profile picture
squeakywaffle
Posts: 1800 - Karma: 13
You guys are still missing the point.

Better or worse than the nazis, whatever, that's not the point. I was talking out of my ass there. Signatory to the Geneva Convention or not- does it fucking matter? We are fighting a war against them and taking them prisoner.

I hear these arguments all the time- we aren't as bad as this or that. Great, conditions in our internment camps are better than those in camps run by batshit insane dictators and muslim nut-jobs who start killing people over a fucking newspaper cartoon. Get the sand out of your vagina, man! Gitmo is waaaay better than Auschwitz, where the Nazis vivisected pregnant women for fun! What's the big deal?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4716280.stm

Put simply, torture of any kind is not acceptable. I know some people in the US seem to think otherwise- these people are what I like to call "bad people." If you want to argue against me (essentially, to take the position that torture is either acceptable or desirable), maybe you should think less about the sketchy 3 AM argument I present and more about the fact that our country tortures people.

As for your whole slippery slope thing, what other issues are you talking about? Stem cells, maybe? Please elaborate...
Mar 4 2006 6:11AM
0 0
profile picture
Rosbif
Posts: 2543 - Karma: 930
You guarantee that the minute anyone gets out they'll be plotting a new attack?

Read this, it's about a British man who was in Guantanamo. Ok, he was pretty foolish to be going to training camps and stuff, but he never actually attacked anyone. The U.S. treated him appallingly, he's just happy to be out and to have a life again. Guantanamo is a total disgrace to the entire western world.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,1717386,00.html
Mar 4 2006 6:58AM
0 0
profile picture
wilkesyachtingco
Posts: 4425 - Karma: 41
firstly, im not for the torture thing. just to get that out of the way...

but yeah, the most prevailant slippery slope argument that ive encountered is in dealing with same sex marrige. simply saying that if we allow same sex marrige, that would lead down the road to legalized polygamy, bestiality, and other unusualy relationships that are currently not deemed legitimate in the eyes of society. of course the legalization of same sex marrige isnt going to lead directly to those things, unless you subscribe to the slippery slope argument, which is at best a logical fallacy.

stem cell research could also have some like arguments involved, as could affirmitive action, free speach, and pretty much any other type of civil liberty that one person may enjoy at the expense of another citizen or group of citizens.
Mar 4 2006 8:51AM
0 0
profile picture
traer
Posts: 690 - Karma: 12
I hear where you are coming from, and I dont agree with torture either, but my only issue is that with a majority of these facts we have to be aware of where its coming from. Such as with the British man, I'm sure he hates american because of what he was doing but even if we treated him like a king at GITMO Bay he would still come out bashing on America and saying we treated him so badely, and tortured him.

This can go both ways too, Maybe everything he says is true maybe not. Maybe everything the US says is true maybe not. I just think its dangerous to take everything a prisoner (ei. someone who hates america) as true.
Mar 4 2006 1:52PM
0 0
profile picture
traer
Posts: 690 - Karma: 12
^ I know you didnt write about the british man but it was just an example.
Mar 4 2006 1:53PM
0 0
profile picture
whattheshit
Posts: 6562 - Karma: 107
new jack city.


same quote that was used in peruvian cocaine.
Mar 4 2006 2:57PM
0 0
profile picture
pwallstreet
Posts: 1627 - Karma: 41
haha that movie was so wierd
Mar 4 2006 3:12PM
0 0
profile picture
squeakywaffle
Posts: 1800 - Karma: 13
In the case of the same sex marriage slippery-slope argument, there is a huge amount of separation between gay marriage and bestiality or polygamy. In addition, gay marriage is more of a civil issue while bestiality and polygamy probably fall under sodomy laws. Wiretapping, on the other hand, could happen on a sliding scale.

But back to the issue at hand...

I agree that we have to be careful taking what these guys say as fact, but I think most of it is reasonably credible given the number of reports and similar incidents elsewhere (abu ghraib, for example).

Anyway, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here... I've said what I wanted to say, now I'm probably going to let this thread die.
Mar 4 2006 5:03PM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
Argument based on slippery slope reasoning = argument lost before it was even started. It's rhetoric, not logic. Why are wiretaps bad? Because it entails that law enforcement breaks the law. Scary thought, the law not binding its own enforcers. Because it offers those in charge of running the country information they have no legal right to. No right to -> Violation of rights -> Wrong. It's not that hard to reason at a basic level. And if you want to try to offer a persuasive argument that not all violations of rights are wrong (not easy to begin with), go ahead, but given the intuitive conclusion in this case, you'd better have a pretty compelling, non-consequentialist reason why we should say that it isn't wrong in THIS case.
Mar 4 2006 5:40PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)