|
|
COMMENTS:
Tough choices. No easy answer in my opinion. Should they be detained for life then? I know this may make me less than popular but perhaps if the Bush folks had not allowed severe torture at Guantanamo Bay this would not be the hotly debated issue it is now. Seriously. Had that not gone on, I doubt there would even be a question about whether to close it or not.
Voted : Hmmm
If Bush & Co had actually prosecuted the detainees they had in Gitmo in a US court we would know who the terrorists were and who were picked up on spurious charges.
It matters not if people are presumed guilty, as the old adage goes, better that one hundred guilty persons go free, than one innocent man go to jail.
If we really stand for truth, democracy and freedom in the west, should we not show it.
Well that's my two cents
Steelhamster how is that for odd timing mate!
....... *keeps silent in case of inadvertently offending*
If I tied you down and tortured you for about 3 years, treated you worse than an animal, accusing you of killing Jimmy Kimmel, and after they find out that Jimmy Kimmel is not dead, they release you, wouldn't you seek to destroy those who tortured you?
by LCD on Fri Jan 23, 09 11:21am
[+]
"Steelhamster how is that for odd timing mate! "
It's important to remember that these guys were released under the Bush Admin. So how Obama goes about closing Gitmo and what he does with those inmates is really important.
"If I tied you down and tortured you for about 3 years, treated you worse than an animal, accusing you of killing Jimmy Kimmel, and after they find out that Jimmy Kimmel is not dead, they release you, wouldn't you seek to destroy those who tortured you?"
There's that argument and there's the argument that some maybe have actually been terrorists.
Bring them before a court... if they are guilty then imprison them if not release them, that's how the justice system should work, yes?
^absolutely. Yes, sometimes the system doesn't work (ala O.J Simpson) but it's the best/only system there is.
They said that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were terrorists. They said Nelson Mandella was a terrorist. Interesting how history judges the innocent and the guilty
According to the counterterrorism official, freed detainee Ali al-Shiri traveled to Yemen after being released to Saudi Arabia and may have been involved in recent al Qaeda attacks in Yemen, including a car bombing outside the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa last year that killed nearly a dozen people."
You're right. some may judge him as a freedom fighter. I won't.
How do you think people will judge those two that car bombed Glasgow Airport?
ClosetIguana I actually do see your point. This is a very difficult issue. I imagine that if a man were to burgle a home and whilst doing so roughed up the family that lived there and made off with thier money and jewels that he should go to jail. Absolutely. Upon his release, he may very well do the same to another family. I know it's totally different than compared to a terrorist held, but I'm working this out in my head. I truly believe that if the torture had not gone on this would not be the issue it is. Interested to see what other's feel.
Voted : Oh well
They should legally prosecute some (if there is valid evidence for doing so) and release the rest. This should have been done to begin with.
Voted : Hmmm
Put a RF chip in them and send them back to the Countries which they were born, hopefully to be dealt with by their Government(s).
"I truly believe that if the torture had not gone on this would not be the issue it is." So you don't believe that they wouldn't continue "his life's work". I guess that's possible but let's face it, they believe what they are doing is gods will or simply the right thing.
I don't know the answer. They should have been tried. Hell, Nazis got trails and they executed millions. The Bush legacy is so frustrating.
Voted : Doesn't surprise me in the least
If a government were to lock you up for years without just cause, based solely on their *suspicions* that you were a terrorist, then release you with little or no explanation or apology, I daresay that you might harbor some degree of ill will towards that government...
^There's that argument and there's the argument that some may have actually been terrorists.
CloseIguana, should clarify I meant that if the torture had not gone on the issue of closing the base would perhaps not be the hot issue it is. Guantanamo Bay could quite possibly remain as is until a better plan could be worked out. But I doubt these suspects could be detained for life, so at some point the issue would have to be addressed. I simply feel that had the torture issue been taken out of the equation it would give politico's less ammunition.
^sure, torture makes closing the base an easier pill to swallow. Surely it needs to happen. Gitmo is a shame to America and what I believe are Americans ideals (I'm not American BTW).
I think that sums it up nicely ClosetIguana. I think any rational person can accept that interrogation techniques can be a bit rough at times, but torture? From what I understand some of the torture methods utlised were absolutely brutal.
simply things like sleep deprivation (which apparently doesn't fall under torture) ... after five days I'd be admitting to anything, - which is the problem.
If we in the west hold ourselves to higher standards, ten we should not resort to torture. The enemy we fight may be barbarians, but we must be aware of not becoming barbarians ourselves, or what do we stand for?
|
|
