#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Do you think it was a good idea to make the "mini Gitmo" in Illinois?
I'm not asking if it should have been somewhere else, I'm asking if you thnk they made the right choice in moving the prisoners.
YAAaaaaaa.
Side Score: 102
|
 |
NO WAY!
Side Score: 97
|
|
Agreed. Guantanamo is a dark stain on the honor of the US. It needs to be closed down. And we need to do something with the detainees. I mean come on people, it's not like we're buying them a home in the suburbs. They're gonna be kept in maximum security prisons. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
1
point
"CNSNews" is just another Right-wing sock puppet, and torture is NOT allowed under ANY circumstances, period. Also, the waterboarding of KSM was so "effectual" that they needed to do it 183 times in one month! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/ BTW, KSM was captured & waterboarded in March 2003, and the LA plot was foiled in February 2002, moron...lol... http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/ Once again, you're dead WRONG on everything that you claim...just like always apparently...ugh... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
""CNSNews" is just another Right-wing sock puppet"- anything or anyone that you disagree with has some kind of right-wing radical ideas. "torture is NOT allowed under ANY circumstances"- you wouldn't torture someone to save a thousand people? "they needed to do it 183 times in one month!"- yeah it really is so horrible to torture the man who is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Americans. Its insane that you are actually defending him. Could he not have had more information? "KSM was captured & waterboarded in March 2003, and the LA plot was foiled in February 2002"- sorry i made a mistake, it was Abu Zubaydah that we got the information from, not KSM. "you're dead WRONG on everything that you claim...just like always apparently...ugh..."- if i am always dead wrong then why do even bother talking to me? If you were completely sure that I am wrong no matter the circumstances, shouldn't be sure that there is no point in debating with me? Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"anything or anyone that you disagree with has some kind of right-wing radical ideas" ...which is something that I've never said, period. Nice try at dodging the real issue here...it's not working BTW. "you wouldn't torture someone to save a thousand people?" No, since torturing someone is against both U.S. AND International Law...there are NO exceptions under the law! "yeah it really is so horrible to torture the man who is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Americans." LOL...nice feeble attempt to justify violating both U.S. and International law, wing-nut. "Could he not have had more information?" Sure, and there are completely legal and much more effective ways at getting that info. Waterboarding someone for hundreds of times is obviously not effective. "sorry i made a mistake" No, you & your Right-wing cohorts have intentionally LIED about this issue over & over again. "it was Abu Zubaydah that we got the information from" LOL...nice try again liar, but that isn't true at all either. "President George W. Bush described Abu Zubaida in 2002 as 'al-Qaeda's chief of operations.' Intelligence, military and law enforcement sources told The Washington Post this year that officials later concluded he was a Pakistan-based 'fixer' for radical Islamist ideologues, but not a formal member of al-Qaeda, much less one of its leaders." Zubaida knew NOTHING about the previously mentioned LA plot, and he was tortured at least 83 times for absolutely, positively nothing, period end of story. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061503045.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ "if i am always dead wrong then why do even bother talking to me?" Because pwning you is just so much fun, moron...lol...you lose, again... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"which is something that I've never said"- you didn't have to say it. Its just that you say something about me being a republican when you disagree with me. "Nice try at dodging the real issue here"- im obviously not dodging the issue, i commented on all of your comments. "No, since torturing someone is against both U.S. AND International Law...there are NO exceptions under the law!"- you wouldn't torture someone to save your family because its against the law? "nice feeble attempt to justify violating both U.S. and International law"- he killed thousands of innocent people, why do you care what happens to him? "there are completely legal and much more effective ways at getting that info. "- i doubt it. Inflicting pain and fear on someone is definitely the best way to get something you want from them. He would never be scared of some kind of legal procedure because he would know that we couldn't do anything bad to him. "Waterboarding someone for hundreds of times is obviously not effective."- that is another issue. "No, you & your Right-wing cohorts"- thats what i was talking about. "have intentionally LIED about this issue over & over again."- there is no reason for me to lie here. "he was a Pakistan-based 'fixer' for radical Islamist ideologues, but not a formal member of al-Qaeda, much less one of its leaders."- he still had crucial information. He was also helping members of Al-Qaeda, it doesn't matter as much that he was a member. "Zubaida knew NOTHING about the previously mentioned LA plot"- nobody said he knew nothing on that. "Because pwning you is just so much fun"- you must be a really cool guy. Maybe you should go pwn some more noobs. lol "moron...lol...you lose, again..."- i never lost in the first place. You are going to have to do more than tell me im a stupid republican in order to actually "win" against me. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"you didn't have to say it. Its just that you say something about me being a republican when you disagree with me." Not always I don't. It's just completely & totally obvious that you are willing to shill for your beloved GOP no matter what the facts are. "you wouldn't torture someone to save your family because its against the law?" No, it's called following the law...you should try it sometime, moron. "why do you care what happens to him?" Because what happens to him can happen to you or I or anyone else. When our govt. willfully violates both U.S. and International Law, no one is really safe. "i doubt it." LOL...of course you do, since you've demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about this entire issue! "Inflicting pain and fear on someone is definitely the best way to get something you want from them." No, it really isn't. Experts are in basically universal agreement that torturing people just causes people to try & give the answers that they think their torturers want, period. "that is another issue." No, it's EXACTLY the issue that we're talking about! What we were originally told about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" (AKA completely illegal torture) was that as soon as someone was waterboarded that they spilled all their beans. However, the TRUTH is that this was a complete & total lie. You don't use a failed torture technique literally dozens & dozens of time on the exact same person because it "works", moron. "there is no reason for me to lie here." Of course there is, moron. You are trying, unsuccessfully BTW, to spin the Right-wing tale that torturing people "saved lives", which has been completely & totally disproven, period end of story. "he still had crucial information." No, he had NO useful information, and this is according the officials records of what the Bush Regime has already said about him! "nobody said he knew nothing on that." LOL...liar...what does this mean then: "it was Abu Zubaydah that we got the information from" You really are a BOLD-FACED LIAR sirius...I dunno how you think that you're going to get away with that nonsense here either. The gig is up moron. "i never lost in the first place. You are going to have to do more than tell me im a stupid republican in order to actually 'win' against me" ...which is exactly what I've already done, moron, since I've successfully refuted ever, single lie that you've told in this thread, period end of story. The continued fact that you can't even realize it is all that more satisfying at this end...lol! Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"Not always I don't."- it doesnt matter as much how many times you have done it, just that you have done it at all. "It's just completely & totally obvious that you are willing to shill for your beloved GOP no matter what the facts are."- when you set forth proven facts, come back to me with this comment. "No, it's called following the law...you should try it sometime, moron."- that is such a stupid thing to say. You know you would torture the person. Any rational person knows that one life, in this case a bad life, is worth less than than two or more. "Because what happens to him can happen to you or I or anyone else."- its funny, you care about what happens to him, but you don't care about what happens to your family. That is very strange. "When our govt. willfully violates both U.S. and International Law, no one is really safe."- now you are just jumping to conclusions. That is a very extreme way of looking at it. We torture one person who has helped Al Qaeda and suddenly everyones life is in jeopardy? I don't think so. "Experts are in basically universal agreement"- experts are basically not in universal agreement, i dont know where you got that idea from. You're an idiot. " that torturing people just causes people to try & give the answers that they think their torturers want, period."- after a certain amount of time that's probably the case. In the beginning, however, im sure that it is very effective. btw, why do you put "period" at the end of some of your sentences. Isn't the "." meant to do that for you? "You don't use a failed torture technique literally dozens & dozens of time on the exact same person because it "works", moron."- i have never said that it works. I am fine having them tortured at the beginning, but eventually it gets excessive. How can you blame these people, wouldn't you want to inflict pain onto the people who help kill innocent civilians around the globe? "You are trying, unsuccessfully BTW, to spin the Right-wing tale that torturing people "saved lives", which has been completely & totally disproven"- disproved by who? You obviously haven't accomplished that yet. "No, he had NO useful information, and this is according the officials records of what the Bush Regime has already said about him!"- wrong, this comes from former CIA director George Tenet: Abu Zubaydah had been at the crossroads of many al-Qa'ida operations and was in position to - and did - share critical information with his interrogators. "You really are a BOLD-FACED LIAR sirius"- i dont understand how you think that i am lying or how you even came to the conclusion that i am lying. First i said that nobody said Zubaydah knew nothing and then i said we got information from him. Where is the lie or did you just make a mistake? You're an idiot. "since I've successfully refuted ever, single lie that you've told in this thread, period end of story. The continued fact that you can't even realize it is all that more satisfying at this end...lol!"- i havent told any lies so i dont know how you came to that conclusion. I dont realize things that have never happened. lol, im surprised you didnt tell me you "pwned" me again. Are you in like eighth grade or something? Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"when you set forth proven facts, come back to me with this comment." You don't have ANY facts to bring to table, moron. All you apparently have is Right-wing spin from far Right-wing websites. "You know you would torture the person." No, I simply don't...it's called following the law!! "its funny, you care about what happens to him, but you don't care about what happens to your family." LOL...you are setting of a HUGE strawman argument here, and, BTW, it's not working...lol... I've already clearly stated why our govt. illegally torturing anyone is NOT a sound long-term strategy at all. The fact that you want to continue to try to defend the indefensible is just a stain on you, not me. "now you are just jumping to conclusions." No, I'm simply taking your position out to its logical conclusion, and you don't like it, which is tough, moron. "experts are basically not in universal agreement" OF COURSE there are, that's one of the main reasons why torture was banned Internationally in the first place...because it doesn't work!! "after a certain amount of time that's probably the case." No, it's been show again & again that it's true in almost ALL cases...that's why it's not a recommended interrogation technique in the Army Field Manual, moron. "i have never said that it works." LOL...you just finished saying that it works...LIAR! "this comes from former CIA director George Tenet: Abu Zubaydah had been at the crossroads of many al-Qa'ida operations and was in position to - and did - share critical information with his interrogators." LMAO! George Tenet is a proven liar my friend...remember the "slam dunk" intelligence that Iraq had WMDs & links to Al-Qaeda?? Of course you don't...I'll even bet that you'll argue in response that Iraq "did" have WMDs before we invaded in 2003 (which has been proven false) and that they did have links to 9/11 & Al-Qaeda (which has also been proven false). What you are "quoting" from is the misinterpretation that the Bush Regime had about Zubaydah originally. What I have quoted from is their final analysis of him, which is that he didn't have anywhere near the knowledge that they originally thought that he had, period. "i dont understand how you think that i am lying or how you even came to the conclusion that i am lying." Obfuscating the issues will NOT help you out here sirius...you are a PROVEN LIAR right here in this (and other) thread, period end of story. "Are you in like eighth grade or something?" You wish, moron. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"You don't have ANY facts to bring to table, moron. All you apparently have is Right-wing spin from far Right-wing websites."- if thats what you want to call facts, then go right ahead. It just shows that you can't believe the truth that contradicts you. "No, I simply don't...it's called following the law!!"- dont be an idiot. You would have to have no heart and no brain to not torture someone to save your family. Its pathetic to even try to argue about this. No rationally thinking person would ever say no to this. "LOL...you are setting of a HUGE strawman argument here"- if you care about your family, why would you let them die? "I've already clearly stated why our govt. illegally torturing anyone is NOT a sound long-term strategy at all."- obviously its not a good long-term strategy, but the government hasn't been torturing people for that long of a period of time. "The fact that you want to continue to try to defend the indefensible is just a stain on you, not me."- you are the one thats defending the terrorists! Im defending the people who torture the terrorists. What sounds more rational? "No, I'm simply taking your position out to its logical conclusion, and you don't like it, which is tough, moron."- of course you are jumping to conclusions. If the government tortures a very select amount of people with ties to a terrorist organization, it doesnt mean that everybody is not safe. Its not anywhere near that and you somehow came to the conclusion that it was the case. "one of the main reasons why torture was banned Internationally in the first place"- it was banned because its inhumane, not because its not effective. "because it doesn't work!!"- obviously it does work. That was a stupid thing to say. Im not surprised since it came from you. "LOL...you just finished saying that it works...LIAR!"- i just finished saying that using torture dozens upon dozens of times works? lol, you're so dumb. "remember the "slam dunk" intelligence that Iraq had WMDs & links to Al-Qaeda??"- it was a mistake. They weren't lying. Any government will make some kind of mistakes. "What I have quoted from is their final analysis of him"- you never quoted a report filed by the Bush Administration relating to this. All you have done was talk about some kind of file. "period."- a little redundant, don't you think? "Obfuscating the issues will NOT help you out here sirius...you are a PROVEN LIAR right here in this (and other) thread"- when did you prove that i lied? You cant prove something that never happened. "period end of story."- you have said period end of story like fifteen times now. When can i expect the actual end of the story? You still haven't answer this question: why would we detain people who we know are innocent? "You wish, moron."- no.....Why would i wish that you were in eighth grade? If you were in eighth grade, this would have been a much larger waste of time for me............. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"It just shows that you can't believe the truth that contradicts you." LMAO! Kettle, meet pot...pot, kettle...LOL...too funny...that irnony will, of course, go right over your head... "You would have to have no heart and no brain to not torture someone to save your family" ...in your own warped mind that is. "if you care about your family, why would you let them die?" My family is not about to "die", moron. Try, just for once, to not make your political decisions from a position of fear, and you'll understand what I am talking about. The entire "ticking bomb scenario" that's going to kill you, your family, and millions of others is based on a LIE from a novel from the 1960s...wake the hell up... http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/ "obviously its not a good long-term strategy, but the government hasn't been torturing people for that long of a period of time" ...as far as you know. I'm not at all naive enough to think that torture hasn't been done by members of the U.S. govt. (or our govt. hasn't spirited people away to countries that allow torture to take place) just in recent memory. Those incidents don't make torture any less illegal, and, as you've already said, it's not an effective long-term strategy, period end of story. Thanks for proving my point, moron. "you are the one thats defending the terrorists! Im defending the people who torture the terrorists." LOL...once again, thanks for proving my point. You are defending completely ILLEGAL acts. I am defending the human rights of everyone, period. "If the government tortures a very select amount of people with ties to a terrorist organization, it doesnt mean that everybody is not safe." And who, praytell, gets to decide who has "ties to a terrorist organization" or who doesn't?? The government that is doing the torturing in the first place, which is in blatant violation of it's OWN laws, that's who. The entire concept of the rule of law is not something to be tossed away just because a select few people, like you apparently, are afraid of the "boogeyman". "it was banned because its inhumane, not because its not effective." LOL...once again, thanks for proving my point, torture IS inhumane, as it goes against the very core of the meaning of human rights. Also, as I've shown you & others in this very thread, it's NOT an effective means of interrogation, hence the reason why the U.S. Army has banned its use long ago. "obviously it does work" ...despite, of course, all the direct evidence that's been presented to the contrary, win-nut. Ramble on moron...your words truly have no meaning. "i just finished saying that using torture dozens upon dozens of times works?" LOL...no, you just finished saying over & over (including above!) that "obviously torture works"...don't try running away from the FACT, liar! "it was a mistake. They weren't lying." Sure, sure, and the fact that they were many, many people saying at the time that Iraq had no WMDs & that they had no ties at all with Al-Qaeda or 9/11 was just a coincidence...MORON! "you never quoted a report filed by the Bush Administration relating to this." Of course I did, and I even quoted Bush Regime officials that have said the same thing. The fact that you can't bring yourself to admit that you're wrong on this issue means nothing to me. "when did you prove that i lied?" LOL...run away liar...run away...it's not working... "When can i expect the actual end of the story?" Right now, since you've been completely & thoroughly schooled on this issue, once again, moron. We're DONE talking about it now. You can ramble on & on, but you'll be wasting your time, not mine. "why would we detain people who we know are innocent?" That question was answered by me days & days ago, but you'll never admit to that, liar. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"...in your own warped mind that is."- not really. Im pretty sure that its accepted knowledge that if you refuse to torture someone, one person, to save your family, a group of people, then you are stupid and cold-hearted. "My family is not about to "die", moron."- i never said that they are currently in a situation where they would die. I'm not sure how you interpreted it that way. Im talking about a hypothetical situation in which you would have to torture someone to save your family. You said that you wouldnt torture someone and therefore would let your family die. "I'm not at all naive enough to think that torture hasn't been done by members of the U.S. govt. (or our govt. hasn't spirited people away to countries that allow torture to take place) just in recent memory."- i guess if there is speculation that something happened, then it must have happened, right? "Thanks for proving my point, moron."- why do you always say this? I said the exact opposite of your point and somehow i proved your point? It doesnt make sense. "once again, thanks for proving my point"- once again, i didnt. Your concept of proving something is completely skewed. "You are defending completely ILLEGAL acts."- defending innocent people is not illegal. You are defending people who are defending terrorists. "And who, praytell, gets to decide who has "ties to a terrorist organization" or who doesn't??"- wow, really? How about people who have connections to the organization or who are in contact with the organization? I guess that puts every American in danger, right? "which is in blatant violation of it's OWN laws"- its not violating its laws if its protecting its people. "torture IS inhumane, as it goes against the very core of the meaning of human rights"- shooting people with guns is inhumane, but the police do it everyday. Just because its inhumane it doesnt mean that it goes against the meaning of human rights. "Also, as I've shown you & others in this very thread, it's NOT an effective means of interrogation"- you have never shown this. All you have said that other means may work too. "hence the reason why the U.S. Army has banned its use long ago."- the US army banned its use because if it wasnt banned, it could be used regularly. "all the direct evidence that's been presented to the contrary"- i think you forgot to give me that. "that "obviously torture works"...don't try running away from the FACT, liar!"- im not trying to run away from it, i think that torture works. Your constant misinterpretations are starting to get annoying. "were many, many people saying at the time that Iraq had no WMDs & that they had no ties at all with Al-Qaeda or 9/11 was just a coincidence...MORON!"- there were definitely not many people saying that. The majority supported going to Iraq. Evidence: we are in Iraq right now. Obviously a lot of people would have to agree to start a war. "Of course I did, and I even quoted Bush Regime officials that have said the same thing."- why do you go through the trouble of typing all of this when you could just quote yourself? There obviously isnt a quote that you have said. " The fact that you can't bring yourself to admit that you're wrong on this issue means nothing to me."- then why mention it? "LOL...run away liar...run away...it's not working..."- just keep saying this kind of stuff. Maybe somebody will believe you. Your lack of evidence is astounding. "since you've been completely & thoroughly schooled on this issue"- when was that again? "That question was answered by me days & days ago, but you'll never admit to that, liar."- then quote yourself. You literally dont have evidence for anything your saying. So once again ill ask you: why would we detain people who we know are innocent? Side: YAAaaaaaa.
I think you're mentally retarded. "Not always I don't. It's just completely & totally obvious that you are willing to shill for your beloved GOP no matter what the facts are."- Obviously so. You posted NY Times and Washington Post links. Liberal papers. What facts has the GOP messed with? They've been reported what you're beloved CNN and NBC have been reporting, most of the time, with MORE detail. Once again, you contradict yourself. "No, it's called following the law...you should try it sometime, moron." -He can't defend his family? Wow, you must be LONELY. Also, self-defense, is defined as "Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances." So, torture, as long as you are defending yourself or another, i.e. the COUNTRY, its perfectly legal, if you want to go in a techincality(yeah, i know its spelled wrong), Gitmo torture was perfectly legal, because we were defending our country. "Because what happens to him can happen to you or I or anyone else. When our govt. willfully violates both U.S. and International Law, no one is really safe."- Explain, because that was just ad hodiem(nonsense). "LOL...of course you do, since you've demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about this entire issue!"- Neither do you, Mr. LOL. "No, it really isn't. Experts are in basically universal agreement that torturing people just causes people to try & give the answers that they think their torturers want, period."- With your improper grammer, I can't see what you are trying to convey. Toture does work, the Iraqi's would know, Operation Desert Storm, the British were tortured. And got some answers. They still lost, but it proves that toture CAN work. (Source: Military Channel)Not that it always does. Also, Camp Douglas, torture was used to get info and soldiers, meaning torture WORKS. "No, it's EXACTLY the issue that we're talking about! What we were originally told about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" (AKA completely illegal torture) was that as soon as someone was waterboarded that they spilled all their beans. However, the TRUTH is that this was a complete & total lie. You don't use a failed torture technique literally dozens & dozens of time on the exact same person because it "works", moron."- You have no un-biased proof of that. I proved my point in the paragraph above. Camp Douglas. Tis all. "Of course there is, moron. You are trying, unsuccessfully BTW, to spin the Right-wing tale that torturing people "saved lives", which has been completely & totally disproven, period end of story."- You have no un-biased proof of that. It DOES save lives, it gets info about military operations, ending wars quicker, example, I've said it multiple times, Camp Douglas. Oh yeah, quit use shortened terms such as "BTW", say the full thing. "No, he had NO useful information, and this is according the officials records of what the Bush Regime has already said about him!"-BUSH REGIME????? Still blaming Bush for everything, huh? Typical liberal idiot. There are some SMART liberals you know. You disgrace the democrats. "You really are a BOLD-FACED LIAR sirius...I dunno how you think that you're going to get away with that nonsense here either. The gig is up moron."- I say the same to you. "...which is exactly what I've already done, moron, since I've successfully refuted ever, single lie that you've told in this thread, period end of story. The continued fact that you can't even realize it is all that more satisfying at this end...lol!"- God, your repitive use of unitelligent terms such as "lol" and "dunno" make use sound like an idiot. What lies have you refuted? Without biased news, of course. By the way, this isn't a thread, it's a debating site. Hehehehehe. Side: No way!
"You posted NY Times and Washington Post links. Liberal papers" ...with actual, verifiable FACTS in them, wing-nut. Try & refute them...hint: You can't! LMAO! "He can't defend his family?" LOL...strawman argument... "So, torture, as long as you are defending yourself or another, i.e. the COUNTRY, its perfectly legal, if you want to go in a techincality(yeah, i know its spelled wrong), Gitmo torture was perfectly legal, because we were defending our country." Wrong again wing-nut. There are ZERO exceptions to when torture can be used both according to U.S. AND International Law, period. "Toture does work, the Iraqi's would know, Operation Desert Storm, the British were tortured." "Also, Camp Douglas, torture was used to get info and soldiers" You have exactly ZERO sources for these lies my friend. Whether people were tortured or not is the REAL issue here. Torture is illegal & there are NO exceptions. Torture is NOT recommended as a viable way to interrogate people under the Army Field Manual because it has be proven again & again that torturing someone gives you the WRONG answers in the long-run, period. "You have no un-biased proof of that." Of course I do, and I've already cited it in this very thread! We got ZERO useful information from Zubaydah even though he was tortured! "You have no un-biased proof of that." LOL...once again, I've already posted my evidence of this...lol...try reading it, moron. "Still blaming Bush for everything, huh?" LOL...what a moron you really are..."personal responsibility"...those words are just that, meaningless words to GOPers like you...lol... "You disgrace the democrats" ...and YOU disgrace America with your blatant support for ILLEGAL torture! Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"...with actual, verifiable FACTS in them, wing-nut. Try & refute them...hint: You can't! LMAO!"- Then verify them. Use another source SAYING THE SAME THING. You sound so stupid, by the way. "LOL...what a moron you really are..."personal responsibility"...those words are just that, meaningless words to GOPers like you...lol..."- You assume I am GOP.... and other than that... just pure stupidity. "LOL...once again, I've already posted my evidence of this...lol...try reading it, moron."- Umm.. no. "and YOU disgrace America with your blatant support for ILLEGAL torture"- I don't live in America. Germany. Boohoo. Side: No way!
"Then verify them. Use another source SAYING THE SAME THING." What a moron you really are...you just don't like being schooled with the FACTS of the matter, so you feebly try to claim "bias" in the actual factual reporting, where there is none...lol...what a joke... "I don't live in America. Germany." Then you disgrace Germany with your support of illegal torture, period. Run along now... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"What a moron you really are...you just don't like being schooled with the FACTS of the matter, so you feebly try to claim "bias" in the actual factual reporting, where there is none...lol...what a joke..."- Total steer away from the argument. All media is opionated whether you like it or not. The leave things out and put things in. Simple as that. "Then you disgrace Germany with your support of illegal torture, period. Run along now..." Another steer away, debate, don't hate. Side: No way!
"Because pwning you is just so much fun"- Oh God, this is a debate site. Not 4chan. Also, cool story. ""moron...lol...you lose, again..."- Protip: Don't use lol. Makes you sound very unintelligent. ---- Responses to what you said, Sirius. "you must be a really cool guy. Maybe you should go pwn some more noobs. lol "- He's an idiot. I can tell you're the troll in this situation, and he's the "n00b". Only ""noobs" respond to trolls. (Quoted from knowyourmeme) "i never lost in the first place. You are going to have to do more than tell me im a stupid republican in order to actually "win" against me."- He's what he would call, "butthurt and pwned". Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"You have no proof of that." Of course I do...the falsehoods that you stated here again & again are right here in black & white for all to see. BTW, don't like being laughed at eh?? Well, know that when others read your utter nonsense here that they'll be doing the same thing...lol... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"Of course I do...the falsehoods that you stated here again & again are right here in black & white for all to see."- Then why hasn't anyone else responded to it? Hmm? "BTW, don't like being laughed at eh?? Well, know that when others read your utter nonsense here that they'll be doing the same thing...lol..."- It's been for three days. Someone would say smething. "BTW, don't like being laughed at eh??"-People don't laugh in debates, last time I heard, I thought this was a debate site, not YouTube. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
There is no quarrel without initial conflict. The terrorists would not attack without reason. It has been my opinion that open communication would always be the best option. If we can find their reason for attack, we can find a peaceful resolve. Torture should never be a method. Side: No way!
"There is no quarrel without initial conflict."- there will always be a group of people who want more than they can have. They will go to extreme measures to get what they want and therefore extreme measures must be taken to stop them. "The terrorists would not attack without reason"- they would attack for insane reasons. Yes lets open communication with people who believe that it is religiously justified to kill innocent civilians. We'll go far with that. "If we can find their reason for attack, we can find a peaceful resolve"- they are radicals. There will never be peace while they are still around. "Torture should never be a method."- killing innocent people should never be a method. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
With, without And who'll deny it's what the fightings all about. Of course there will always be people who want more than they have. Who can blame them when they look to the west and somewhere between truth and fable see streets lined with gold. If at the root of the issue is inequality, then we should offer trade, and not in military goods. But we will not know until we talk with them and hear what is trying to be said. - Speaking of those who use religion to justify mudering innocent civilians, what do we say about our military-religion complex here in America? It is in no way hidden. "God is on our side". Really? Are we really harking back to manifest destiny? - Sorry about that rant... Side: No way!
"If at the root of the issue is inequality, then we should offer trade, and not in military goods. But we will not know until we talk with them and hear what is trying to be said."- they say their goal is to get all outside influences out of islam. In every area of the world there are outside influences acting in. Their wish is unreasonable and they are unwilling to compromise. Talking to them will do no good. They will never be satisfied by a negotiation and therefore there is no reason to work things out with them. The United States has never murdered innocent civilians, in modern times, in response to religion. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
If they prove unwilling to compromise and want us gone, we leave. I find that a better option than trying to kill them all. If they kill themselves, so be it. We will be standing by willing to help at request. - And who determines innocence? The government? I do not think so. All governments play their game with the world and when something goes wrong, they send off the poor to die for their mistakes. Why not send the rich? Because that's where the best taxes come in from. I find it all very folly. Side: No way!
"If they prove unwilling to compromise and want us gone, we leave."- so you would just plan on leaving that entire sector of the world to be controlled by radicals? "I find that a better option than trying to kill them all."- if they are willing to kill people who get in their way, they obviously need to be killed. "All governments play their game with the world and when something goes wrong, they send off the poor to die for their mistakes. Why not send the rich? Because that's where the best taxes come in from."- the poor and lower classes are sent to war because there are a lot more of them than there are rich people. It has nothing to do with the taxes they pay. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
|
It's kind of bullshit to be bringing a bunch of Prisoners of War to our country. If you're an American, you deserve the rights of an American. If you're a Prisoner of War, you deserve the rights of jack shit. As Americans, we don't lop your head off or set you on fire. The worse shit that can happen to you would be water boarding. Now, you receive military tribunals. Holy shit, and to think only seconds ago you were stuffing bombs into babies and throwing them at soldiers. To think, whenever you and your terrorist ass fucks captured an American, your idea of trial was "He's an American, cut off his hands and execute him on television". And now the absolute worse thing that can happen to you is college hazing. Holy shit, America is nice as fuck. Side: No way!
7
points
Let's ignore for a second the fact that there are likely innocents in the prisons that don't deserve to be there: In America we believe that we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights. Is this because of something as arbitrary as location of birth, or is it because we are human? I would argue the latter is what the founding fathers had in mind. Yes some of the people who were in gitmo are terrible, terrible people and yes they deserve to be punished, but the fact that we treat them better than they treat us is what makes us better than them. They would slit our throats, but we give them trials. They would blow us up, but we keep them in prisons that are reasonably humane. Is this because we are dumb, or because we are a nation that recognizes people's humanity, even when they decide to behave like animals? No one wants to pay money to take care of prisoners, but damnit we're the best fucking nation in the world, and this is because we believe in fundamental human rights for everyone. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
that wasn't what I was disputing when I made that comment. Obviously the argument over water boarding being torture will never end if it's between you and I. What I was merely saying was that we have treated them MUCH MUCH MUCH better than they've treated us. Our captured soldiers come back in pieces, their forces come back wet. Side: No way!
"come back wet"...lol...nice try at minimizing the complete & total illegality of the torture that was perpetrated on some of our detainees. What the enemy chooses to do in conflicts is completely irrelevant with respect to what both U.S. AND International Law requires the USA to do, period. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"I'm not debating on whether water boarding was torture or not." Of course you are...you're just trying to do it through the backdoor by intentionally trying to minimize it. If you were REALLY not in favor of the USA illegally torturing people, you would never be doing that. We're not stupid yanno... "What they did to us was A HOLY SHIT LOAD WORSE than what we did to them. that was the only point I was making in that response" ...which does NOT, in any way, shape, or form justify torturing anyone. There are ZERO exceptions for when someone should be tortured under BOTH U.S. AND International Law, period. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
Ah, I see, you're just TRYING to start a debate that I wasn't making because you just caught yourself. Either way, what I said is what I said. You can construe it any way you wish, but the fact (well, opinion technically, but most would agree) remains the same. The terrorists treat our soldiers a shit load worse than how the CIA treats captured terrorists. I wouldn't have even said that if it wasn't for andsoccer saying "we're showing that we treat their prisoners better". Technically, with gitmo, we did. Side: No way!
"Ah, I see, you're just TRYING to start a debate that I wasn't making because you just caught yourself." LOL...keep right on spinning there. What you are obviously doing is defending the torture that USA illegally did, period end of story. "The terrorists treat our soldiers a shit load worse than how the CIA treats captured terrorists." LOL...thanks once again for proving my point! Side: YAAaaaaaa.
where in my argument did I say "Waterboarding should not be stopped"? If you can find that, than you're right. If not, you are merely trying to create a debate that is off topic. All I was debating is the severity of how we treat Al-Qaeda prisoners vs. the severity of how Al-Qaeda treats American prisoners. Since you can't come up with a proper rebuttal to that, you keep on trying to change the subject so that you can focus on this argument that you've been planning since the issue arose. I don't want to debate whether it should be allowed or not. Obviously it all comes down to what you think is truly torture. Maybe for another topic. But right now, what we have here, is very different and you're acting like a child by constantly trying to put words in my mouth. Side: No way!
"All I was debating is the severity of how we treat Al-Qaeda prisoners vs. the severity of how Al-Qaeda treats American prisoners" ...which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. All you are really trying to do here is make an obvious yet lame justification for the torture that the USA has perpetrated on others, period. "I don't want to debate whether it should be allowed or not" ...because you know that you'd LOSE that debate. "Obviously it all comes down to what you think is truly torture." No, it comes down to what both U.S. AND International Law clearly states is torture, period. Run along now... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
I was responding to a statement that andsoccer (i think it was him) made. So it was TOTALLY relevant. If you want, you can argue that HE was being irrelevant, but I stayed on topic, making a direct response to his statement, unlike you who is just trying to change the subject because you know that my argument can't be touched. Side: No way!
"So it was TOTALLY relevant." No, it really wasn't, but keep trying to feebly claim that it was...ugh... "because you know that my argument can't be touched." LOL...you mean the argument that is basically just a thinly-veiled attempt to justify the ILLEGAL torture that the USA carried out?? LOL...sure, sure...your "argument" is "iron-clad"...not... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
2
points
"It's kind of bullshit to be bringing a bunch of Prisoners of War to our country." Riiiight, because it's not like it's ever happened before in other wars. Seriously dude, learn some history. "If you're a Prisoner of War, you deserve the rights of jack shit." LOL...thank you, oh-wise-arbiter-of-International- "Holy shit, and to think only seconds ago you were stuffing bombs into babies and throwing them at soldiers." Really?? Who at Gitmo has been accused of doing specifically that?? Side: YAAaaaaaa.
1. In WW2 it was already settled that Uniform personal were subject to decent treatment. And that's how it has always been. Unfortunately, terrorists are not uniformed and do not abide by these rules. If we try and fight them using Geneva rules, it's basically like sticking a stake into our heart. Soldiers are discharged for firing a gun into the ground in order to intimate a captured enemy combatant. Ah, good ol' international law. No one remembers what War is, I guess. 2. You didn't know that terrorists kill innocent women and children? damn. Side: No way!
"In WW2 it was already settled that Uniform personal were subject to decent treatment. And that's how it has always been. Unfortunately, terrorists are not uniformed and do not abide by these rules. If we try and fight them using Geneva rules, it's basically like sticking a stake into our heart." No, it's merely following the rules of war as established by BOTH U.S. AND International Law. We're the good guys, remember?? "You didn't know that terrorists kill innocent women and children?" Thanks for NOT answering my challenge, just like I knew you would...liar...lol... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
1
point
"Why do we have to follow our rules of war?" Because we've signed numerous agreements & treaties and passed numerous laws that say so! Either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't. It's pretty simple. The Bush Regime didn't believe in the rule of law at all. NO ONE is above the law. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"Thanks for NOT answering my challenge, just like I knew you would...liar...lol..." You must be a terrorist, this isnt a laughing matter. "No, it's merely following the rules of war as established by BOTH U.S. AND International Law. We're the good guys, remember??"- Good is relative. it was the UN that established INTERNATIONAL LAW. That no one follows, August, 2001, an American spy plane crashes with a chinese fighter, killing a Chinese crewman, resulting in the arrest and beating of 10 American crewman. So much for international law. Side: No way!
"You must be a terrorist, this isnt a laughing matter." No, I'm not "a terrorist", and I do think that the lame-ass Right-wing blather that tries to justify illegally torturing people is a complete & total joke. "it was the UN that established INTERNATIONAL LAW" ...and who belongs to the UN?? Please...nothing officially happens in the UN without the explicit support of the USA, period. "August, 2001, an American spy plane crashes with a chinese fighter, killing a Chinese crewman, resulting in the arrest and beating of 10 American crewman." No such "beatings" occurred at all in this incident. In fact, the U.S. prisoners were treated well in general, with the exception of being interrogated at all hours...which led to some lack of sleep. The disassembled EP-3 was released by China on July 3, 2001, and was returned to the USA, where it was eventually reassembled & returned to duty. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/ You simply do not know what you're talking about, period end of story. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"No, I'm not "a terrorist", and I do think that the lame-ass Right-wing blather that tries to justify illegally torturing people is a complete & total joke."- So, killing innocent Americans results in American rights? You must be on crack. "...and who belongs to the UN?? Please...nothing officially happens in the UN without the explicit support of the USA, period."- COUGH IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM COUGH If you respond to this and nothing else, you're retarded and don't know the subject os this debate. "No such "beatings" occurred at all in this incident. In fact, the U.S. prisoners were treated well in general, with the exception of being interrogated at all hours...which led to some lack of sleep. The disassembled EP-3 was released by China on July 3, 2001, and was returned to the USA, where it was eventually reassembled & returned to duty." Quit saying "period", it's not helping you. But on another note, don't you know Chinese interrogation methods? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/ But on to GITMO, the true subject of this debate. Waterboarding is indeed torture, I never said it wasn't, but torture in this case, is rational, according to SIMPLE laws. Self Defense, we defend the country with it. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/ :O GOP DIDN'T LIE, ZOMG!!!! CNN SAID IT WAS RATIONAL! HA! http://www.democraticunderground.com/ http://www.democraticunderground.com/ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/ http://www.debate.org/debates/ I can post links too. Links that prove you wrong, by the way. Other people think different than typical liberal idiots(like yourself), even other liberals do. Also, torture isn't the first method of interrogation. And thats what you kept blindly posting about before you changed the subject. Side: No way!
"So, killing innocent Americans results in American rights?" LOL...the concept is, moron, guilty until proven innocent. It's one of the basis of the founding our our nation BTW. "COUGH IRAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM COUGH If you respond to this and nothing else" LOL...you mean the completely & totally inflated uranium enrichment program in Iran?? That red herring?? LOL...please... "But on another note, don't you know Chinese interrogation methods?" Yes, I do know of them, and the North Koreans as well, since that's what the failed torture program down at the Gitmo torture prison was based on, moron. "http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/ From your very own link: "What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners." "The 1957 article from which the chart was copied was entitled 'Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War' and written by Albert D. Biderman, a sociologist then working for the Air Force, who died in 2003." "In 2002, the training program, known as SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, became a source of interrogation methods both for the C.I.A. and the military. In what critics describe as a remarkable case of historical amnesia, officials who drew on the SERE program appear to have been unaware that it had been created as a result of concern about false confessions by American prisoners." "'What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions,' Mr. Levin said. 'People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don’t need false intelligence.'" You've successfully proven my point very nicely...that torture is NOT an effective way of interrogating people, period end of story. "Waterboarding is indeed torture, I never said it wasn't, but torture in this case, is rational, according to SIMPLE laws. Self Defense, we defend the country with it." Wrong again wing-nut. As I've pointed out to you numerous times now, torture is illegal under both U.S. AND International Law, and there are NO exceptions to this prohibition. "http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/ Alan Dershowitz is a well-known appologist for the Right-wing. His opinions mean nothing to me. However, from that link as well: "The prohibition on torture is one of the basic, absolute prohibitions that exists in international law. It exists in time of peace as well as in time of war. It exists regardless of the severity of a security threat." "there is no moral or legal difference between torturing yourself and subcontracting torture to somebody else. They're equally absolutely prohibited." Once again, you back up my point that there are ZERO, legal exceptions to when someone can be tortured, period. "http://www.democraticunderground.com/ http://www.democraticunderground.com/ These links don't exist. "http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/ Naomi Klien is simply stating that torture's true purpose is "to terrorize--not only the people in Guantánamo's cages and Syria's isolation cells but also, and more important, the broader community that hears about these abuses." She simply states that it's a means not to get information from people, but to scare people into submission. This is NOT the American way! Also from the same link: "No one claims that torture is an effective interrogation tool--least of all the people who practice it. Torture 'doesn't work. There are better ways to deal with captives,' CIA director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16. And a recently declassified memo written by an FBI official in Guantánamo states that extreme coercion produced 'nothing more than what FBI got using simple investigative techniques.' The Army's own interrogation field manual states that force 'can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.'" Again, thanks so much for proving all of my points, moron. "http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/ Another Right-wing opinion piece being passed off as "fact"...ugh...learn to know the difference between stating FACTS & merely unsupported opinions, moron. "Links that prove you wrong, by the way." No, they really don't, moron. Your links support my claims! As a result, we are now DONE talking about this issue. You've done an EXCELLENT job showing how righteous my positions on torture have been. Thank you! :) Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"LOL...the concept is, moron, guilty until proven innocent. It's one of the basis of the founding our our nation BTW."- facepalm American CITIZENS, CITIZENS! Not insurgents. "You've successfully proven my point very nicely...that torture is NOT an effective way of interrogating people, period end of story."- So? Do you think we honestly use it for info? Hehehehe. If you noticed, I googled that, hee. I wouldn't use something that I found on google as an argument. Don't believe me? Google "torture is effective" "Wrong again wing-nut. As I've pointed out to you numerous times now, torture is illegal under both U.S. AND International Law, and there are NO exceptions to this prohibition."- You must be stupid, which is something I can't fix. SELF DEFENSE! Google it if you have to. Man. "Once again, you back up my point that there are ZERO, legal exceptions to when someone can be tortured, period.'- I said it earlier, self defense. You said nothing against it. "Another Right-wing opinion piece being passed off as "fact"...ugh...learn to know the difference between stating FACTS & merely unsupported opinions, moron."- I've never laughed so hard in real life. All right wing opinions are wrong? So much for un-biased! And these "facts" you get, I've noticed, from the same sources, left-wing papers and news. When you get BOTH sides of the stories, I'll listen and take this seriously. "Alan Dershowitz is a well-known appologist for the Right-wing. His opinions mean nothing to me."- Right Wing is always wrong? The all powerful left wing is always correct? Pfff. You've only gone to CNN and BBC sources, both KNOWN for left-wing biased opinions. Fox News is also biased, conservatively. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/ Timesonline is somewhat biased. But media research is FACT. I do wish they did something on Fox News, though. But I digress. Bring terrorists into the US isn't right. For the safety of us,and them. I think Copenhagen proved when people have probelms, they get angry. Also, it may not be effective(you got me there, pretty good) but the US and everyone will use it. As you know laws, not matter how serious, are always going to be abused. No matter how "immoral" it may be, it will always be abused. And torture is EFFECTIVE in small cases, like if you're protecting your family. But internationally it is not. I never said it was justified national, actually, I never specified. Your smarter than I thought. :) Side: No way!
"Riiiight, because it's not like it's ever happened before in other wars. Seriously dude, learn some history." Civil War, Camp Douglas, blacks were often shot on SIGHT. Thats what happens when you let them in. Guards hate 'em, so they kill 'em.(Source History Channel.) "LOL...thank you, oh-wise-arbiter-of-International- Protip: Don't use lol. Genova was load of bull and you know it. Nobody really wanted it. "Really?? Who at Gitmo has been accused of doing specifically that??" Hmmm..... 911, quite a few babies, children, and pregnant women died, so.... close enough. Hmm... funny. At least I offer proof. Side: No way!
"Civil War, Camp Douglas, blacks were often shot on SIGHT." What does that have to do with this discussion?? You are quoting points of history where the law was explicitly violated! "Genova was load of bull and you know it. Nobody really wanted it." This is sheer & utter nonsense, period. "Hmmm..... 911, quite a few babies, children, and pregnant women died" LOL...thanks for admitting that no one at Gitmo has been accused of "stuffing bombs into babies and throwing them at soldiers", period end of story. "At least I offer proof." No, you really don't. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
LOL...thanks for admitting that no one at Gitmo has been accused of "stuffing bombs into babies and throwing them at soldiers", period end of story." Killing babies is basically the same. Don't use lol if you're trying to sound intelligent. "What does that have to do with this discussion?? You are quoting points of history where the law was explicitly violated!" Actually a lot. I was saying its not smart to put prisoners in America, becuase the guards would want to kill them, like they did in Gitmo, so thats why the mini gitmo wont work. "This is sheer & utter nonsense, period." explain. Cool story, by the way. "No, you really don't."- Where's yours? Side: No way!
"Killing babies is basically the same." No, it isn't, period. "I was saying its not smart to put prisoners in America, becuase the guards would want to kill them, like they did in Gitmo" First of all, as I've already pointed out to you moron, the USA already has many, many terrorists in its prison system. Secondly, who ever said that guards were killing Gitmo detanees?? "Where's yours?" It's in the many responses that I've already given in this very thread, moron. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"No, it isn't, period." Pure fallacies. Explain. "First of all, as I've already pointed out to you moron, the USA already has many, many terrorists in its prison system. Secondly, who ever said that guards were killing Gitmo detanees??"- I meant to say Camp Douglas, that was my bad. "It's in the many responses that I've already given in this very thread, moron."- Biased news is not proof. Just biased bullshit. Side: No way!
"Blah, blah, blah...what's your next "argument" going to be Nazi-boy?? "And so's your mother!" Please, you've run out of mildly coherent things to say in this thread...therefore, I'm DONE responding to you here...so ramble on moron..." I never said that. You are really stupid. Your lack of any knowledge is disgusting. Stay in school to get smart. "Nazi-boy"- Not all Germans are nazis. Stereotypical bastard, my grandfather was sent to Concentration Camps. "Please, you've run out of mildly coherent things to say in this thread"- What gives you the idea this is a thread? This isn't a *chan. Side: No way!
""LOL...the concept is, moron, guilty until proven innocent. It's one of the basis of the founding our our nation BTW."- facepalm American CITIZENS, CITIZENS! Not insurgents. "You've successfully proven my point very nicely...that torture is NOT an effective way of interrogating people, period end of story."- So? Do you think we honestly use it for info? Hehehehe. If you noticed, I googled that, hee. I wouldn't use something that I found on google as an argument. Don't believe me? Google "torture is effective" "Wrong again wing-nut. As I've pointed out to you numerous times now, torture is illegal under both U.S. AND International Law, and there are NO exceptions to this prohibition."- You must be stupid, which is something I can't fix. SELF DEFENSE! Google it if you have to. Man. "Once again, you back up my point that there are ZERO, legal exceptions to when someone can be tortured, period.'- I said it earlier, self defense. You said nothing against it. "Another Right-wing opinion piece being passed off as "fact"...ugh...learn to know the difference between stating FACTS & merely unsupported opinions, moron."- I've never laughed so hard in real life. All right wing opinions are wrong? So much for un-biased! And these "facts" you get, I've noticed, from the same sources, left-wing papers and news. When you get BOTH sides of the stories, I'll listen and take this seriously. "Alan Dershowitz is a well-known appologist for the Right-wing. His opinions mean nothing to me."- Right Wing is always wrong? The all powerful left wing is always correct? Pfff. You've only gone to CNN and BBC sources, both KNOWN for left-wing biased opinions. Fox News is also biased, conservatively. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/ biasbasics2admissions.asp Timesonline is somewhat biased. But media research is FACT. I do wish they did something on Fox News, though. But I digress. Bring terrorists into the US isn't right. For the safety of us,and them. I think Copenhagen proved when people have probelms, they get angry. Also, it may not be effective(you got me there, pretty good) but the US and everyone will use it. As you know laws, not matter how serious, are always going to be abused. No matter how "immoral" it may be, it will always be abused. And torture is EFFECTIVE in small cases, like if you're protecting your family. But internationally it is not. I never said it was justified national, actually, I never specified. Your smarter than I thought. :)" Finish the arguments you steered away from. Side: No way!
2
points
4
points
"We wouldn't just detain them because we feel like it." Sure we would, and we already have. Heck, there were numerous Gitmo detainees that were released by the Bush Regime without ANY official reason given. Some of them were obviously dangerous people as well. "They've probably done something to get transported to Gitmo." Guilty until proven innocent again eh?? I don't think so... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"there were numerous Gitmo detainees that were released by the Bush Regime without ANY official reason given."- how convenient, no records or evidence of anything that could contradict you. "Guilty until proven innocent again eh?? I don't think so..."- why would the US transport people that they know aren't guilty? I doesn't make sense to say that we would transport people across an ocean even though there is no evidence that they are guilty. Side: No way!
"how convenient, no records or evidence of anything that could contradict you." Please...if you don't know what I am talking about, then you haven't been paying any attention to this issue. A large number of the former Gitmo detainees that then "returned to the fight" after being released were released by the Bush Regime for unknown reasons. Some of them even had rulings against them that said that they posed a continuing threat to the USA & it's allies! Thanks Bush Regime! "why would the US transport people that they know aren't guilty?" Thanks for proving my point...lol...has every person that's ever been arrested in the USA been convicted of something?? Nope, the FACT is that the vast majority of the Gitmo detainees were released later by the Bush Regime, period. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"Please...if you don't know what I am talking about, then you haven't been paying any attention to this issue."- how could I pay attention to something that hasn't happened? "A large number of the former Gitmo detainees that then "returned to the fight" after being released were released by the Bush Regime"- so we just released terrorists for no reason? Nice story. "Thanks for proving my point...lol...has every person that's ever been arrested in the USA been convicted of something??"- lol, I really didn't prove your point. There is no evidence in that excerpt that suggests any information that is in your favor. It doesn't even make sense to say that I proved your point. You need to understand that we don't just arrest people for fun. If we have ever arrested someone who was never convicted, then it was probably by mistake. It would have to be a HUGE mistake, which doesn't occur very often, for us to actually go through all the procedures to send him to Gitmo. "Nope, the FACT is that the vast majority of the Gitmo detainees were released later by the Bush Regime, period."- its not a fact if it has never been proven. There is no evidence to say that it is a fact. There is nothing to prove what you are saying. You just want to believe what you are saying. Just accept that none of it is true. Side: No way!
"how could I pay attention to something that hasn't happened?" My goodness...your ignorance knows no bounds eh?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Approximately 775 suspects have been held at Gitmo. Well over 400 have been released or transferred to the custody of their native countries so far. Many of these were then quickly released, since there was NO evidence of involvement in ANY crimes. As of November 2009, only 215 prisoners remain at Gitmo. Only three Gitmo detainees have been convicted of anything yet...David Hicks was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001, Salim Hamdan accepted a position on bin Laden's personal staff only as a chauffeur, and Ali al-Bahlul made a video celebrating the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67). A very, very small number of Gitmo detainees have caused trouble after the Bush Regime released them for unknown reasons. Some of them include: Mullah Shahzada, who was a kid while at Gitmo, was killed on May 7, 2004 fighting U.S. forces. Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar was killed on September 25, 2004 while planning an attack against Afghan police by Afghan security forces. Mohammed Yusif Yaqub died fighting U.S. forces on May 7, 2004. Mohammed Ismail, who was another kid while at Gitmo, was recaptured in May 2004 participating in an attack on U.S. forces near Kandahar. Abdul Rahman Noorani, after being identified on October 7, 2001 as being the “deputy defense minister of the Taliban”, was released by the Bush Regime on July 16, 2003! Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, who acknowledged that he was with a Taliban leader when he originally surrendered & that he had a rifle when he surrendered, was transferred back to Afghanistan on December 12, 2007 for NO stated reason! "so we just released terrorists for no reason?" No, we released Gitmo detainees for no public reasons. Learn to read. "I really didn't prove your point." Of course you did...this phrase of yours: "why would the US transport people that they know aren't guilty" ...indicates that you are taking the indefensible position that because the USA sent people to Gitmo that they MUST be guilty. "You need to understand that we don't just arrest people for fun. If we have ever arrested someone who was never convicted, then it was probably by mistake. It would have to be a HUGE mistake, which doesn't occur very often" LMAO! Hundreds of thousands of people have been arrested (or convicted) for crimes that they NEVER committed in the USA, period. "its not a fact if it has never been proven. There is no evidence to say that it is a fact." See above. You simply do not know what you are talking about, period end of story. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"My goodness...your ignorance knows no bounds eh?? "- LOL, are you kidding me? You tell me that my ignorance knows no bounds and then you proceed to back up your statements with WIKIPEDIA. Are you that stupid? Wikipedia could say anything that anybody wants it to say. Does that seem like an accurate website to use for credible information? Not at all. You could have made all of that information up if you wanted to. Its pathetic that you would even try to use that as a source. "No, we released Gitmo detainees for no public reasons. Learn to read."- don't worry, I know how to read. Its just difficult for me to find credibility on your part. You are just making wild accusations. You don't know anything for sure. There is no evidence to prove anything you are saying. What kind of reasons would we detain innocent people? "indicates that you are taking the indefensible position that because the USA sent people to Gitmo that they MUST be guilty."- so I guess by what you are saying, I proved your point by saying exactly opposite to what you were claiming. You're an idiot. This is the point: we have no reason to detain people who are not guilty. "LMAO! Hundreds of thousands of people have been arrested (or convicted) for crimes that they NEVER committed in the USA, period."- its not because police just feel like arresting people, its because there are mistakes in the legal process you fucking idiot. LOL, how could you be so ignorant? "See above. You simply do not know what you are talking about, period end of story."- LOL, that is so funny considering that you don't have any evidence. Side: No way!
"You tell me that my ignorance knows no bounds and then you proceed to back up your statements with WIKIPEDIA." Ah, yet another Right-wing, Wikipedia denialist...lol...there are well over 100 independent sources for ALL of the info that I posted above. Deny all you want to...you are simply willfully ignorant of the issues that we are discussing, period. "Does that seem like an accurate website to use for credible information?" Why...yes it did, since it has dozens & dozens of independent sources, which you never bothered to look at...of course. "You are just making wild accusations. You don't know anything for sure. There is no evidence to prove anything you are saying." You're projecting your own obvious faults onto me, and it's not working. "we have no reason to detain people who are not guilty" ...except for the FACT that we already have, period end of story. We're done here...you can flail around all that you want to from now on, but you've been completely schooled...whether you realize it or not! LOL... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"Ah, yet another Right-wing, Wikipedia denialist...lol...there are well over 100 independent sources for ALL of the info that I posted above. Deny all you want to...you are simply willfully ignorant of the issues that we are discussing, period."- I guess all the people who say that Wikipedia is a bad site to use for reliable information, about 95% of the population, are republican? I looked at the sources, all they had were names of detainees, they said nothing about them not being guilty. I can't not deny something that has no evidence. "yes it did, since it has dozens & dozens of independent sources"- then why didn't you give me the sources that said they were not guilty? Why did you use wikipedia? Because there is no such source. You had to use wikipedia so you could use the other sources, the sources that cannot prove your insane claims, as "proof" of what you were saying. People could write thing and attach a source to it that completely contradicts their point on wikipedia. You really don't know what you are talking about. "You're projecting your own obvious faults onto me, and it's not working."- how are they my own faults? I am not the one that is claiming that we detain innocent people. All I said is that we do not do that. "except for the FACT that we already have, period end of story."- use a website other than wikipedia and maybe someone will believe you. Its pathetic that I am even talking about this. I cannot believe that I have actually found someone who thinks using wikipedia is alright. "but you've been completely schooled...whether you realize it or not"- lol, was I really schooled? Who says that? Did you school me with zero evidence and absolutely no facts? You actually need information to prove someone wrong. Something that you obviously haven't learned is that when you want to prove something to someone, do not use wikipedia as a source for your information. Its pathetic. Im surprised that you have actually made yourself believe that wikipedia, the website where anyone can say whatever they want, is credible. If you want to prove something, use a website that actually has proof. Obviously in this case, for you, that website doesn't exist and I don't expect you to find it. Side: No way!
"I guess all the people who say that Wikipedia is a bad site to use for reliable information, about 95% of the population, are republican?" First of all, you offered absolutely ZERO evidence that "95% of the population" think that "Wikipedia is a bad site". Second of all, you are OBVIOUSLY a GOPer...why won't you freely admit that?? Got something to hide?? "I looked at the sources" No, you really didn't, because if you did...you'd see that I have more than enough valid, independent sources (as listed at the bottom of each Wikipedia page) to back my claims, which are 100% true, period. "then why didn't you give me the sources that said they were not guilty?" Well, gee whiz, I'm so sorry that you lack the apparent ability to read & follow links beyond one site...excuse me...moron... "I am not the one that is claiming that we detain innocent people. All I said is that we do not do that" ...and, as I've shown quite nicely again & again...you are simply WRONG about that, period end of story! "Im surprised that you have actually made yourself believe that wikipedia, the website where anyone can say whatever they want, is credible." LOL...Wikipedia is merely a free online encyclopedia that has strict rules about backing up claims that are made in their pages with actual links to actual facts. My argument here has been completely & totally factual, and anyone that's read this thread knows that by now for sure. Continue your Right-wing, revisionist spin for as long as you want to moron...you've been schooled & the fact that you don't even know it makes it all the more satisfying at this end! Score one for the good guys!! Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"you offered absolutely ZERO evidence that "95% of the population" think that "Wikipedia is a bad site""- you would have to be an idiot to not know that wikipedia is a bad site to use. In fact, I don't know anyone who is unaware that Wikipedia is bad. Its even blocked on my schools computers for its inaccuracy. I just gave you evidence that its a bad site: anyone can post whatever they want on it. "Second of all, you are OBVIOUSLY a GOPer...why won't you freely admit that?? Got something to hide??"- lol, um, I didn't know we were talking about that? When did you ever ask me before? Why are you acting like I wont admit it? "No, you really didn't, because if you did...you'd see that I have more than enough valid, independent sources (as listed at the bottom of each Wikipedia page) to back my claims, which are 100% true, period."- why? Just because they are there? I could write an article about cats on Wikipedia and list dog information as a source. I asked you to find a source that proved the data. You have failed to do so, and therefore have no information for support. Unless you stop arguing about the accuracy of Wikipedia and find a credible source, there is no reason to act like you have supportive evidence. "Well, gee whiz, I'm so sorry that you lack the apparent ability to read & follow links beyond one site...excuse me...moron..."- lol, i want you to give me one of the sources on wikipedia that specifically explains that the detainees are not guilty. "and, as I've shown quite nicely again & again...you are simply WRONG about that"- you haven't shown it until it is proven. "LOL...Wikipedia is merely a free online encyclopedia that has strict rules about backing up claims that are made in their pages with actual links to actual facts. My argument here has been completely & totally factual, and anyone that's read this thread knows that by now for sure."- LOL, "strict" that is funny. Try this, go on Wikipedia to that article you sent me and change anything you want. Does that seem strict to you? Its not factual if there are no facts to prove it. "you've been schooled & the fact that you don't even know it makes it all the more satisfying at this end! Score one for the good guys!!"- could throwing wild accusations supported by inconclusive evidence at a person be considered schooling them? You must do that so much. Btw, you actually have to prove your point to score. Side: No way!
"you would have to be an idiot to not know that wikipedia is a bad site to use. In fact, I don't know anyone who is unaware that Wikipedia is bad." Nice lack of an argument or ANY relevant facts there. The FACT is that Wikipedia is constantly being checked for accuracy by the moderators & members of the site, so you can't just post "whatever you want to on it", period. "I didn't know we were talking about that?" Of course you did...liar. "I could write an article about cats on Wikipedia and list dog information as a source" ...and then it would be deleted. "i want you to give me one of the sources on wikipedia that specifically explains that the detainees are not guilty." Just one...how about a whole lot more than that, moron?? Detainees that have been cleared for release due to innocence: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/ "Some 146 detainees have been released from Guantanamo, but only after U.S. officials had determined the prisoners no longer posed threats": http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ and http://www.boston.com/news/world/ "roughly 520 prisoners who have been released from the Guantanamo facility": http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/24/ List of former Gitmo detainees that were released for unknown reasons: http://www.reuters.com/article/ "Afghans pressed to explain release of Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ I could go on & on...you lose moron! "Try this, go on Wikipedia to that article you sent me and change anything you want" ...which, of course, you can't do at all, period. You must do that so much." No, just with you, moron. LOL... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"The FACT is that Wikipedia is constantly being checked for accuracy by the moderators & members of the site, so you can't just post "whatever you want to on it", period."- first you tell me that i lack evidence and then you call something a fact without any evidence to support it? Isn't that a little hypocritical? Btw, There are not enough people working for Wikipedia to check all of it for accuracy. "Of course you did...liar."- you didn't say anything about being a republican. We obviously werent talking about that. "...and then it would be deleted."- no it wouldnt because it wouldnt be detected. There are just too many articles and too many new entries to check for accuracy. Sources: "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7781019.stm"- there was nothing said in this article to explain that the detainees were innocent. "http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/24/terror/main645493.shtml "- this one actually says that some released prisoners are returning to acts of terrorism. As for the quote that you took from it, that doesn't have anything to do with them being innocent. All it means is that they no longer pose a threat to us. "http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/18/7_ex_detainees_return_to_fighting/ "- this one also doesn't say anything about the detainees being declared innocent. The Guantanamo Bay facility is being closed down, why wouldn't we be releasing the detainees to other places? We can't hold them there anymore. "http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/24/ "http://www.reuters.com/article/ "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ "I could go on & on...you lose moron!"- lol, you really couldn't since none of those sources says anything about the detainees being guilty. Are you sure that you read the articles? "which, of course, you can't do at all, period."- you actually can do it. "No, just with you, moron. LOL..."- so you're saying that you give wild accusations supported by inconclusive evidence just with me? lol you're an idiot. Nice try I guess. Side: No way!
"first you tell me that i lack evidence" ...because you do...and you completely failed to respond with ANY facts BTW. "There are not enough people working for Wikipedia to check all of it for accuracy" ...in your own, heavily-biased opinion that is. "you didn't say anything about being a republican." This doesn't ring any bells??: "Ah, yet another Right-wing, Wikipedia denialist." That's you...moron. "no it wouldnt because it wouldnt be detected." Wrong again moron. "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/ Riiiight...the Bush Regime released them because they weren't innocent...not, moron. "As for the quote that you took from it, that doesn't have anything to do with them being innocent. All it means is that they no longer pose a threat to us." Riiiiight...because detaining someone for no reason in the first place for many years & then releasing them is the best way to make sure that someone "no longer poses a threat to us"...not, moron. "The Guantanamo Bay facility is being closed down, why wouldn't we be releasing the detainees to other places? We can't hold them there anymore." LOL...are ALL of the Gitmo detainees being released moron?? Nope, but I wouldn't expect you to know that, moron. "What does it matter if 520 prisoners have been released?" LOL...wow...you deny in the first place that the vast majority of the Gitmo detainees were released by the Bush Regime (just like I originally said that they were!), then you try & brush off that FACT with a stupid question like this. The point is that your original, moronic assumption that: "I think the chances of them being guilty are much higher than being not guilty" was completely & totally WRONG...moron. "You must be assuming that we would have kept all of the detainees in the prison forever." Never heard of the completely valid concept of POWs eh?? What a surprise, moron. "http://www.reuters.com/article/ LOL...but yet, these former Gitmo detainees WERE released for completely unknown reasons, just like I originally said...moron. "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ ...for completely unknown reasons...again, just like I originally said, moron. "you really couldn't since none of those sources says anything about the detainees being guilty." My goodness, I've already pointed out the FACT that "only three Gitmo detainees have been convicted of anything yet"...moron. For the feeble-minded that can't keep score...that's 3 out of a possible 775 Gitmo detainees so far (with a few more to come soon)!! "you actually can do it." No, you really can't, moron, and you have ZERO evidence that you can, period. "so you're saying that you give wild accusations supported by inconclusive evidence just with me?" Nice try at putting words in my mouth, moron, but it's not working. I've pwned you several times on this website already (which is what I was talking about, moron), whether you realize it or not! LOL...we really are DONE here now moron. I'm done wasting my time on the likes of a Right-wing denailist of history like yourself. Run along now kiddo...you lose, again... Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"because you do...and you completely failed to respond with ANY facts BTW."- I have been responding with facts. Wikipedia, a site that can easily be edited, is obviously not a good site to use for reliable information. The point of that statement was that you were being a hypocrite because you were asking me for facts when you didn't have them yourself. "...in your own, heavily-biased opinion that is."- this really is common sense. It isn't an opinion. All you have to do is think about it. There are over 3.12 million articles on English Wikipedia that are constantly being edited. Do you really think that they have enough people to check all the new information that is coming in? "That's you...moron."- i wasn't aware that that was relevant at all. We aren't having a conversation on my political affiliations. "Wrong again moron."- saying wrong doesn't do anything. This is what I was talking about when I told you that you don't provide any evidence. You just call me a moron, tell me im wrong, and act like your right. It doesn't mean anything. "the Bush Regime released them because they weren't innocent"- the Bush Administration released them because they were never sent to Guantanamo Bay to necessarily stay for life. We detained most of them for information they might have possessed, not to imprison them forever. "because detaining someone for no reason in the first place for many years & then releasing them is the best way to make sure that someone "no longer poses a threat to us"...not"- first, we didn't detain them for no reason. We have no reason to do that, and you obviously cannot figure out why we would detain innocent people. Second, getting the information that they have would be a way to consider if they pose a threat to the US. Also, why do we detain our own criminals if it doesn't take the threat of them harming anyone at least partly away? "are ALL of the Gitmo detainees being released"- yes. The facility is being closed, but the process has been halted because there is no exact location to move the detainees. I wouldn't expect you to know that. "you deny in the first place that the vast majority of the Gitmo detainees were released by the Bush Regime"- i never denied that the majority of detainees were released under the Bush Administration. "then you try & brush off that FACT with a stupid question like this"- nice job answering the questioning by the way. "was completely & totally WRONG"- prove it, if you can't, don't say anything. "Never heard of the completely valid concept of POWs"- i have heard the term POW's but that doesn't mean that every detainee in the facility at Guantanamo Bay is a prisoner of war. Some of them may be POW's, but that doesn't mean they all are. "but yet, these former Gitmo detainees WERE released for completely unknown reasons, just like I originally said"- they were released because we had no need to have them detained anymore. Even if there was no reason, which im not suggesting there was, does that mean they were innocent? Of course, not. You are just assuming everything and calling evidence. "for completely unknown reasons...again, just like I originally said"- you really are an idiot. You did not even read the sources that you sent me. The terrorist was released by the Afghans, not the United States you idiot. You have no right to call me a moron if your intelligence is this low. "I've already pointed out the FACT that "only three Gitmo detainees have been convicted of anything yet"...moron"- only three have been convicted in military commissions. "No, you really can't, moron, and you have ZERO evidence that you can, period."- actually i do. Here is the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ "Nice try at putting words in my mouth, moron"- i didnt put words in your mouth. First i said "you give wild accusations supported by inconclusive evidence" and then said "You must do that so much". Next, you being the retard that you are, you respond with this: "No, just with you, moron. LOL"- so obviously you agreed that you give wild accusations with zero evidence. You are just an idiot and couldnt see that. "I've pwned you several times on this website already"- wow, really? You "pwned" me? What kind of a loser says "pwned", especially when in terms of a debate? "Run along now kiddo"- thats kind of ironic since you are the one that is acting like a juvenile. Side: No way!
"Why?? NYC is one of the scenes of the crime!" They don't deserve this country if they want to destroy it. "This is just blind fear-mongering. No terrorist has ever escaped from U.S. custody, period."- Because they were in.....guess what.....ANOTHER COUNTRY. Any idiot would know that. Side: No way!
"They don't deserve this country if they want to destroy it." This makes no sense whatsoever. These people apparently perpetrated crimes against the USA, and they should be tried in the USA as a result. 'Because they were in.....guess what.....ANOTHER COUNTRY." Wrong again moron. The USA has had dozens & dozens of terrorists safely in custody in prisons right here in the USA with ZERO escapes, period. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"This makes no sense whatsoever. These people apparently perpetrated crimes against the USA, and they should be tried in the USA as a result." No.They shouldn't. Especially if they get citzens rights. Why do they deserve them? "Wrong again moron. The USA has had dozens & dozens of terrorists safely in custody in prisons right here in the USA with ZERO escapes, period." You have no proof of that, "moron". But, prisoners have escaped from prison! I thought we were the US. Never lax, which is what you seem to be. Side: No way!
"No.They shouldn't. Especially if they get citzens rights. Why do they deserve them?" They deserve HUMAN rights...just like all humans get...simply because they are human. Why are you Right-wing morons afraid of actual terrorists being actually, legally held responsible for their terrorist acts?? "You have no proof of that, 'moron'." LOL...it time to get schooled again, moron: "Supermax Prisons in U.S. Already Hold Terrorists" "Detained in the supermax facility in Colorado are Ramzi Yousef, who headed the group that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993; Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Ahmed Ressam, of the Dec. 31, 1999, Los Angeles airport millennium attack plots; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, conspirator in several plots, including one to assassinate President George W. Bush; and Wadih el-Hage, convicted of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ Also held at ADX Florence: -Abdul Hakim Murad, of al-Qaeda's Operation Bojinka -Mahmud Abouhalima, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Ahmed Ajaj, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Nidal Ayyad, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Iyman Faris, also of the NYC landmark plot, sentenced to 20 years in 2003 -Matthew F. Hale, 15177-424, white supremacist for soliciting the murder of federal judge Joan Lefkow -Clement Rodney Hampton-El, a.k.a. Dr. Rashid, convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Eyad Ismail, 37802-054, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a Canadian convicted of terrorism-related offences -Theodore Kaczynski, 04475-046, the "Unabomber" -John Walker Lindh, dubbed "The American Taliban" -Tom Manning, political serial bomber, has been transferred to USP Hazelton -Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, participant in the 1998 United States embassy bombings -Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings -Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad, would-be financier of al-Qaeda and Hamas, serving 75 years -Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera, chief assassin for Pablo Escobar, responsible for the bombing of Avianca Flight 203 -Terry Nichols, 08157-031, Oklahoma City bombing conspirator -El Sayyid Nosair, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. -Mohammed Odeh is one of the four former al-Qaeda members sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 for their parts in the 1998 United States embassy bombings. -Richard Reid, 24079-038, al-Qaeda's would-be "Shoe Bomber" -Oscar Rivera, leader of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, a Puerto Rican militant group, for bombing 28 targets in the Chicago area. Received an additional 15-year sentence for an escape attempt (from another prison). -Eric Robert Rudolph, 18282-058, terrorist, committed the Centennial Olympic Park bombing and other bombings -Mohammed A. Salameh, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -James Ujaama, who tried to develop an al-Qaeda camp in Oregon -Wali Khan Amin Shah, convicted on charges stemming from Operation Bojinka http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/ http://www.ktvu.com/news/11751657/ http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/ "SuperMax Illinois Prison to Soon Hold Gitmo Detainees" http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/12/15/ "But, prisoners have escaped from prison!" Not terrorist prisoners. It's NEVER happened, period. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
Ok, you win this battle. You're learning the game, kiddo. But I still will agrue because it's fun. "Not terrorist prisoners. It's NEVER happened, period."- True, I don't mean to sound paranoid, but it could, just saying. "LOL...it time to get schooled again, moron: "Supermax Prisons in U.S. Already Hold Terrorists" "Detained in the supermax facility in Colorado are Ramzi Yousef, who headed the group that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993; Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Ahmed Ressam, of the Dec. 31, 1999, Los Angeles airport millennium attack plots; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, conspirator in several plots, including one to assassinate President George W. Bush; and Wadih el-Hage, convicted of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ Also held at ADX Florence: -Abdul Hakim Murad, of al-Qaeda's Operation Bojinka -Mahmud Abouhalima, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Ahmed Ajaj, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Nidal Ayyad, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Iyman Faris, also of the NYC landmark plot, sentenced to 20 years in 2003 -Matthew F. Hale, 15177-424, white supremacist for soliciting the murder of federal judge Joan Lefkow -Clement Rodney Hampton-El, a.k.a. Dr. Rashid, convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Eyad Ismail, 37802-054, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a Canadian convicted of terrorism-related offences -Theodore Kaczynski, 04475-046, the "Unabomber" -John Walker Lindh, dubbed "The American Taliban" -Tom Manning, political serial bomber, has been transferred to USP Hazelton -Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, participant in the 1998 United States embassy bombings -Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali, of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings -Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad, would-be financier of al-Qaeda and Hamas, serving 75 years -Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera, chief assassin for Pablo Escobar, responsible for the bombing of Avianca Flight 203 -Terry Nichols, 08157-031, Oklahoma City bombing conspirator -El Sayyid Nosair, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. -Mohammed Odeh is one of the four former al-Qaeda members sentenced to life imprisonment in 2001 for their parts in the 1998 United States embassy bombings. -Richard Reid, 24079-038, al-Qaeda's would-be "Shoe Bomber" -Oscar Rivera, leader of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, a Puerto Rican militant group, for bombing 28 targets in the Chicago area. Received an additional 15-year sentence for an escape attempt (from another prison). -Eric Robert Rudolph, 18282-058, terrorist, committed the Centennial Olympic Park bombing and other bombings -Mohammed A. Salameh, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -James Ujaama, who tried to develop an al-Qaeda camp in Oregon -Wali Khan Amin Shah, convicted on charges stemming from Operation Bojinka http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/ http://www.ktvu.com/news/11751657/ http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/ "SuperMax Illinois Prison to Soon Hold Gitmo Detainees" http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/12/15/ -Very well structured argument, but cut "lol" and the flaming, it makes you sound like an idiot. Use many sources. Like you have here. But you go left-wing. Tisk, use some right wing and you'll get somewhere. "They deserve HUMAN rights...just like all humans get...simply because they are human. Why are you Right-wing morons afraid of actual terrorists being actually, legally held responsible for their terrorist acts??"- You insuate that I am right-wing. I'm completley neutral, so I'm not bashed by my one for my opinion. Both wings are insane. Inhuman acts do not deserve human rights. That's why I believe in the Capital Penalty for rape and murder, but I digress. They should be treated as POW's not regular prisoners, that's all. Terrorists are sick demented people, that's why they don't deserve human rights. But that's all opinion. You can't debate opinion, so that argument's shit. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"But you go left-wing. Tisk, use some right wing" Facts are facts...learn the difference between biased opinion & real, verifiable facts. "You insuate that I am right-wing" ...because you obviously are. "Inhuman acts do not deserve human rights." All humans have rights because they are human, period. "They should be treated as POW's not regular prisoners" POWs have rights too...ugh... "You can't debate opinion" Of course you can...with FACTS. Opinions that are not based on verifiable facts are worthless...just like yours are, moron. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"Facts are facts...learn the difference between biased opinion & real, verifiable facts."- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! What facts? New York Times, Washington Post? HAHA!!!! Oh God, that brought a tear to my eye. Tampa Bay Tribune is not biased. Use that for once. "...because you obviously are."- completely independent, dumbass. "All humans have rights because they are human, period."- Ok, I'll hang a few bodies in your front yard and see how "human" you think I am. By the way, if you take this as a threat... oh God, you're retarded. "Of course you can...with FACTS. Opinions that are not based on verifiable facts are worthless...just like yours are, moron." lolwut.jpg is needed here. What verifiable facts? You've only spammed CD with liberal media. With nothing to verify it... I've backed up my info, you can simply google my info, and find that it is backed up well. So much for not responding. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
"You insuate that I am right-wing. I'm completley neutral, so I'm not bashed by my one for my opinion. Both wings are insane. Inhuman acts do not deserve human rights. That's why I believe in the Capital Penalty for rape and murder, but I digress. They should be treated as POW's not regular prisoners, that's all. Terrorists are sick demented people, that's why they don't deserve human rights. But that's all opinion. You can't debate opinion, so that argument's shit." - You had no response for this, so you have changed subject AGAIN. ha. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
Moron, hehehe. Coming from the one who loves to steer from the subject. I'll just say what said again, and maybe you'll respond to it. ""Facts are facts...learn the difference between biased opinion & real, verifiable facts."- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! What facts? New York Times, Washington Post? HAHA!!!! Oh God, that brought a tear to my eye. Tampa Bay Tribune is not biased. Use that for once. "...because you obviously are."- completely independent, dumbass. "All humans have rights because they are human, period."- Ok, I'll hang a few bodies in your front yard and see how "human" you think I am. By the way, if you take this as a threat... oh God, you're retarded. "Of course you can...with FACTS. Opinions that are not based on verifiable facts are worthless...just like yours are, moron." lolwut.jpg is needed here. What verifiable facts? You've only spammed CD with liberal media. With nothing to verify it... I've backed up my info, you can simply google my info, and find that it is backed up well. So much for not responding." Side: YAAaaaaaa.
While the move was politically smart for Obama, it was a dumb idea for America. Because the real issue isn't Gitmo, and neither was it Abu Ghraib. The real issue is that there are people who will trash America no matter what we do - so it is best to do what is in our own interests. And it is not in our best interests to have terrorists in the country when there is a viable location elsewhere. Side: No way!
"The real issue is that there are people who will trash America no matter what we do - so it is best to do what is in our own interests. And it is not in our best interests to have terrorists in the country when there is a viable location elsewhere." The Gitmo torture prison was NOT setup in the first place to be a "viable location" to house so-called "dangerous" individuals. It was setup to be a location where the USA could claim that the facility could indefinitely detain any non-U.S.-citizen who was believed to be involved in international terrorism (no judge, no jury, no nothing). The Bush Justice Department even tried to declare that Gitmo was outside U.S. legal jurisdiction & that the "illegal enemy combatants" at Gitmo were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court had other things to say about those completely bogus decisions. The fact is that the USA has held many, many actual terrorists (not accused terrorists mind you) in custody for quite some time without ANY of them escaping. Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf? Not I, and neither should you. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
The possibility of a terrorist escaping is a non-issue. The issue is the political cowardice of some people who think we need to kowtow to our detractors. Personally I could give a damn what France or anyone thinks about America - and it gets tiresome listening to people who do. Obama has closed Guantanamo and move terrorists into our country, for no good reason. Side: No way!
"The possibility of a terrorist escaping is a non-issue." Of course it is...there is nothing to fear from terrorists in this country that are safely locked up, since NONE of them have ever escaped! "The issue is the political cowardice of some people who think we need to kowtow to our detractors. Personally I could give a damn what France or anyone thinks about America - and it gets tiresome listening to people who do." Who the hell mentioned France?? America has enough laws of its own to live up to, and torturing prisoners, not allowing prisoners access to counsel & not following international treaties which are U.S. law under our system is illegal! "Obama has closed Guantanamo and move terrorists into our country, for no good reason." If you don't know by now why the Gitmo torture prison is a huge stain on the face of America, then there's simply no hope for you my friend. Side: YAAaaaaaa.
|
