It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gitmo: 5 Star Resort

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
They don't have constitutional rights they are not U.S. citizens...


::sigh::

It isn't about being a citizen, it is about being human, and treating others as you would want to be treated. It isn't about legality, but ethics and morality. Those two words are obviously not in your vocabulary, as you seem to equate the law with morality.




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

as posted by CapatainJailew
...it is about being human, and treating others as you would want to be treated....


I suppose that is why those being held are eating better than some of those who guard them? Orange Glazed Chicken anyone? Is that why in that cell they sleep in there is one inmate/prisoner, whereas, those that guard them sleep 3-5 in the same sized space as that of the inmate/prisoner?

Lets be real here, k.....these non-US citizens are being treated and given better than US citizens that are in US prisons serving criminal sentences. Hell, all we need now is an "Adopt a terrorist" program, then maybe some of you can do just that?


Question: If US imates/prisoners/POWS/non-combatants/insurgency fighters/guerillas were to be held as captives, etc., would they be given such accomodations? Would they be given religious texts such as the Christian Holy Bible to read, etc?

Let me know, k?




seekerof

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Lets be real here, k.....these non-US citizens are being treated and given better than US citizens that are in US prisons serving criminal sentences.
[edit on 17-6-2005 by Seekerof]


Maybe because they are not criminals (not proven yet). They haven't been sentenced, some of them not even charged.

US citizens that are in prison were charged, tried and sentenced. They were found guilty by a court of law and recognized as a true criminals by society.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Lets be real here, k.....these non-US citizens are being treated and given better than US citizens that are in US prisons serving criminal sentences. Hell, all we need now is an "Adopt a terrorist" program, then maybe some of you can do just that?

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Seekerof]


If they are being held and treated humanely prior to their trial, then thats cool with me. I am not asking for them to eat orange glazed chicken and have access to a spa, but we have a paternalistic obligation to give them the same rights that we enjoy as citizens.

It isn't about how the terrorists would treat us either, its about how we would like to be treated. If you were put in jail because one of your distant cousins or friends robbed a bank, and you werent charged with a crime, and didn't have access to a fair and speedy trial would you be happy about it? No. Why not? I think its because those are not fair and just conditions for any human being, regardless of your country of origin.

I am not saying Gitmo is a "gulag" or any of that preposterous nonsense, what I am saying is that every (non-convicted) person on earth deserves the same treatment that you and I get. I am not arguing that holding actual terrorists is bad, or even that torturing convicted terrorists would be bad, but lets actually convict them first before we imprison people against their will.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I suppose that is why those being held are eating better than some of those who guard them?

That's ridiculous.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Orange Glazed Chicken anyone? Is that why in that cell they sleep in there is one inmate/prisoner, whereas, those that guard them sleep 3-5 in the same sized space as that of the inmate/prisoner?

Like I said, they could claim they are given kaviar and silk sheets, but who would still believe any propaganda the US puts out after the WMD disaster? Your naive trust amuses me. The only way there could be a shred of truth in this if it is part of a carrot and stick approach, with a carrot for those that cooperate - read: willing to say whatever US interrogators want to hear, whether it is truthful or not.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
They are POWs and prisoners who were caught under arms against Coalition/US troops. As such, they are not entitled to the rights that normal US citizens are or of the country that holds/detains them, other than to be treated in accordance to the Geneva Conventions. Gitmo is a detention facility holding POWs and combatants.

Last I heard and understand, the "war" on terrorism has not come to an end.




seekerof


[edit on 17-6-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Last I heard and understand, the "war" on terrorism has not come to an end.


So how do you designate a terrorist?

Wich law do you use regarding non-US citizens beign accused and arrested for terrorism?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
They are POWs and prisoners who were caught under arms against Coalition/US troops.

Where do you get the image all of them were arrested under arms? That is a generalization which is by far not always true.



Originally posted by Seekerof
Last I heard and understand, the "war" on terrorism has not come to an end.

By the use of your quotations, I think even you realize enough that it is not a real war which can have an end, like in the war on crime there will always be criminals, there will also always be terrorists. The "war" excuse is as phoney as can be.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
They are POWs and prisoners who were caught under arms against Coalition/US troops. As such, they are not entitled to the rights that normal US citizens are or of the country that holds/detains them, other than to be treated in accordance to the Geneva Conventions. Gitmo is a detention facility holding POWs and combatants.


Just because they aren't US citizens doesn't make them less human. Are you understanding this point? Yes, you are correct in stating that we can probably legally treat them like slaves and have them do forced labor. My question is WHY? Why not treat them humanely until they go to trial? After they go to trial, fine, that is their time of reckoning, but lets please charge them with something first.

Also, Gitmo does hold some terrorists, but it also holds some innocent people, the attorney general said that we have so far released over 200 detainees, we don't usually release terrorists do we? Exactly, there was enough attention given, and justice was served so that some of the innocent were let go. Unfortuneatly that is hardly the end, and we still have a lot of work to do to get to the bottom of this.

It is nothing short of ethnocentrism to believe that somehow, as Americans we deserve more rights then someone of a different skin color, or from a different country. Statehood is irrelevent with morality, when will you get it?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainJailew
Also, Gitmo does hold some terrorists, but it also holds some innocent people, the attorney general said that we have so far released over 200 detainees, we don't usually release terrorists do we? Exactly, there was enough attention given, and justice was served so that some of the innocent were let go. Unfortuneatly that is hardly the end, and we still have a lot of work to do to get to the bottom of this.


This is a good point, for it shows that despite all the hubbub, these people are getting their due process. If there are about 500 of them in there right now, and about 200 hundred of them have been released, does that not show that after reviewing their cases, we released about 30% of them as either being not guilty, or at least not dangerous? Does that not contradict the assertion that these people were rounded up and thrown in jail without any hearings? Three out of every ten released sounds reasonable to me, even if it can be shown that some of those released have returned to the battlefield to try to kill our servicemen who are on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.



It is nothing short of ethnocentrism to believe that somehow, as Americans we deserve more rights then someone of a different skin color, or from a different country. Statehood is irrelevent with morality, when will you get it?


Another interesting point. While it may be ethnocentric to believe that we deserve more rights then them, it is not ethnocentric to state that we have more rights then them. I believe that, despite what you infer, racism has very little to do with our conflict. You may have stronger footing on a nationalistic arguement, but not much more.

The problem with your argument is that it is predicated on the assumption that these detainees desire these rights, which I believe they do not. I would be curious to know how many detainees would be willing to accept protection under the U.S. Constitution, if they only had to:

- recite the Pledge of Allegence, in front of their cell mates and countrymen
- promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United States agaisnt all enemies, both foreign and domestic

My guess is that most of these people would view that as a one-way tciket to Hell, based upon the tenets of their faith. Equal rights for women? All men are created equal? No state-supported religion? Accomodation and protection of all other faiths? Free speech, even that which is blasphemous? No slavery? This kind of society is completely counter to what they believe, which exactly why they are trying to eliminate us all.

Whether or not they deserve these rights is a matter of law, based upon the definitions in our constitution and code, as interpreted by the judiciary. This is still being worked out, but it looks to me that the judicary seems to be leaning on the side of the government. Protection under the Constitution is only available to U.S. citizens, or where U.S. civilian law is in effect.

I would be much more willing to consider the concept of extending constitutional rights to those people who fall outside of our legal system, if those same people were not trying to destroy may way of life. Simple as that.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Seekerof
They are POWs and prisoners who were caught under arms against Coalition/US troops.

Where do you get the image all of them were arrested under arms? That is a generalization which is by far not always true.


Show me proof that they were not. Show me evidence that any of these people were simple innocent bystanders who were randomly and for no good reason swept up by our military, carted 1/2 way around the world, questioned, and imprisioned because we simply did not like the way they parted their hair. If it comes down to a "he said, she said" contest between the people of our military and these people, I'll take our boys every day. I am familiar with the society that raised these people, and I trust them to make good decisions. A also know of the societies that raises our enemies, and judge them accordingly. Show me proof that they are innocent.


Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by Seekerof
Last I heard and understand, the "war" on terrorism has not come to an end.

By the use of your quotations, I think even you realize enough that it is not a real war which can have an end, like in the war on crime there will always be criminals, there will also always be terrorists. The "war" excuse is as phoney as can be.


Well, just as soon as Al Qaeda starts wearing uniforms, starts their own state, has a well-defined land mass and populace, and is represented in the international community, we will go to Congress and ask for a formal declaration. Will that make you happy? Why don't you tell us the last time there was a "real" war, anyway, just we can all be enlightened?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros
The problem with your argument is that it is predicated on the assumption that these detainees desire these rights, which I believe they do not. I would be curious to know how many detainees would be willing to accept protection under the U.S. Constitution, if they only had to:

- recite the Pledge of Allegence, in front of their cell mates and countrymen
- promise to support and defend the Constitution of the United States agaisnt all enemies, both foreign and domestic


Very interesting points, and just for the record I would like to say that I am enjoying this conversation.

That being said, I don't think their desire for the rights has much to do with this either. I think that is like saying that freeing slaves who were accustomed to their conditions would be unjustified because they didn't have an active desire for freedom. Why not present them with their rights and actually have them make a choice, i think that would belie their true desires. Human beings deserve rights due to their intrinsic value, I am sure you are aware of Locke's idea of the veil of ignorance. If we assume that we had no idea where we would be born, and what our social class and religion/status would be, we would want everyone treated equally.

I think that can apply in this instance as well, we should give humans the rights they deserve. The caveat here is that when they are convicted of crimes against humanity (i.e. murdering civilians, terrorism) they cede their rights to these protections. I do doubt that all of the detainees have been given a fair and speedy trial. If they are processing them, it is taking a while longer than it probably should, but I think we can agree that convicted terrorists do not deserve the same rights we have, but until convicted, I think they should.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Wow you people are something.

Seekerof:

They are POWs and prisoners who were caught under arms against Coalition/US troops. As such, they are not entitled to the rights that normal US citizens are or of the country that holds/detains them, other than to be treated in accordance to the Geneva Conventions. Gitmo is a detention facility holding POWs and combatants.


According to what laws exactly? If you take up arms against the US WHEN THE USA HAS INVADED YOUR COUNTRY, then you are eligible to be detained indefinitely without trial? Says who?

Gitmo is CONTRARY to the Geneva Convention. Obviously you have no clue whatsoever about what the Geneva Convention describes as "humane behavior". Once hostilities are ENDED, these people must be tried in a court of law or FREED. Neither is happening.

The Enemy Combatant term is laughable and insidious at the same time. Gitmo is an illegal detention center that only serves to recruit more terrorists worldwide and stoke anti-American sentiment.

"If you're American, you're protected under the U.S. Constitution. If you're not American, we can do whatever we want to you because you have no rights."

Does anyone else see this as the ultimate in assine arrogance. If you say such a thing, explain to me why, as a Canadian, I should not actively hate your blind, stupid, arrogant ignorance?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Does anyone else see this as the ultimate in assine arrogance. If you say such a thing, explain to me why, as a Canadian, I should not actively hate your blind, stupid, arrogant ignorance?


Come on man, I am American, I think the problem here is the miscommunication between people who don't know/believe that some of the people in Gitmo are innocent.

Please chill out.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Captian Jailew:

Come on man, I am American, I think the problem here is the miscommunication between people who don't know/believe that some of the people in Gitmo are innocent.


I understand that. What I don't understand is how someone can go around harping that their country is so great and they are so free and yet not give a rat's ayse about anyone else's rights.

Innocent until proven guilty, but only if you fly the red, white and blue?

Sorry, but that kind of stuff is what makes people hate America and hate Americans.

That kind of blinkered ignorance coupled with blind patriotism is what made it possible for the Nazis to wipe out millions of people in the 30's and 40's while their people sat idly by, trusting their government.

I understand that the vast majority of Americans are honest, peace-loving people. It's the smaller minority of redneck patriots I have a problem with, and that the world has a problem with.

This is the public face of America that people around the world see and despise.

We all know the culprits.

jako



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I say skippy and anybody who considers Gitmo a five-star resort should be sent IMMEDIETELY to Gitmo

Enjoy your permanent stay!



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I say skippy and anybody who considers Gitmo a five-star resort should be sent IMMEDIETELY to Gitmo

Enjoy your permanent stay!


its only for people who have Al Qaeda membership or groups linked to it, dont u remember?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
its only for people who have Al Qaeda membership or groups linked to it, dont u remember?


That's too bad. Skippy and company really really want to live at Gitmo. My heart goes out to you all for being denied such a wonderful prospect.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
You're all able to say how horrible and inhumane the treatment is and that it should be shut down.

So answer me this:

Where should emeny combatants be housed?
How should emeny combatants be treated?
What are acceptable interrogation techniques that will get the most important information?
Should enemy combatants be treated like the rest of the USA prison population?

*edited by ME
- dbates

[edit on 17-6-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
yo ferretman need to chill. people have opinions either for it or against it. we just debating and arguing.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join