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.

 

At Least One American Believed Killed by Freed Gitmo Prisoners

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


It was not a leading question - the fact that you failed to answer it, and indeed avoided it does not mean it was a leading question.

Do you deny that circumstances and experience can change and mould a person into something they would not otherwise be?




posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


1. I do not believe the United States Constitution applies to them.
2. We differ in our definition of torture
3. Also of note, I would suggest that there has never been and never will be a conflict where BOTH sides did not routinely violate the GC. It is War after all.

reply to post by Cadbury
 


Fight and if I get captured attempt to escape and once free, ATTACK AGAIN..

Exactly my point in this thread.

However, your use of the word "Invade" is grammatically incorrect as the percentage of Iraqi and Afghanistan Citizens that are being kept is small I believe, if I am not mistaken. I could be wrong. (Wont be the first time)

Sorry about the brevity guys, pain meds kicking in. If I say something silly, tell me to go lay down..


Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Asking him the same questions, will only get you the same results. He's answered it, even if it wasn't the answer you were looking for.

He's a man of the military, has seen things a certain way, and his views sit at a certain level. Those will not be changed based on some forum like ATS.

He has personnal experience as to why his beliefs are as they are. Now whether or not they are wrong, doesn't matter, his experience led him to believe thse things, as your experiences have led you to believe yours.

IMO Gitmo and it's preceedings were non-constitutional and criminal, but either way no ammount of evidence or rethoric will change this members mind.

~Keeper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by semperfortis
 


It was not a leading question - the fact that you failed to answer it, and indeed avoided it does not mean it was a leading question.

Do you deny that circumstances and experience can change and mould a person into something they would not otherwise be?



Please!!!!! This has been a wonderful debate so far; let us not now degrade it into such rhetoric and ruin the whole thing. (It has been a long time since I had this much fun with a topic)

I did not avoid the question. I disagreed with the premise and the way you worded it making it impossible for me to answer truthfull and I guessedf you wanted the truth.

And no matter the circumstances, "A person is still responsible for their own actions"

That will not change with me my friend.

Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
There is a Uk citizen who was detained there and he lost an eye through the torture he received (he was innocent btw). He is now going around the Uk giving talks on it. It just breeds contempt and anger.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
There was no physical torture at Gitmo.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Mate, all I want is an honest opinion on this.

IMO it is THE most important part of the argument.

I respect what you are saying, and I have taken it on board.

Kindly do me the same courtesy



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Budski I gave you my opinion.. several times I believe..

You know me and you know I am not one to avoid anything, much less as issue I feel strongly about.

Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Fight and if I get captured attempt to escape and once free, ATTACK AGAIN..

Exactly my point in this thread.


It's also exactly my point in this thread.



However, your use of the word "Invade" is grammatically incorrect as the percentage of Iraqi and Afghanistan Citizens that are being kept is small I believe, if I am not mistaken. I could be wrong. (Wont be the first time)


I used the word "invaded" not "invade" and that's certain not grammatically incorrect, but it may be slightly misleading as you pointed out. According to this source:



As of January 17, 2009, approximately 245 detainees remained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


...But I have no idea how many of those (if that number is even accurate) are from Iraq or Afghanistan. According to the wikipedia page on the detention camp, though; at some point after 2001 there were at least three times that number held there just from Afghanistan alone.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Cadbury
 


Sorry,

I probably used the word Grammatically wrong..

My fingers are tired..


No offense intended

I am also not sure of the numbers; I remember reading somewhere a breakdown and many were from Syria and Saudi, but as for the exact numbers it has eluded me.

Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Sorry,

I probably used the word Grammatically wrong..

My fingers are tired..


No offense intended


None taken, Sir.



I am also not sure of the numbers; I remember reading somewhere a breakdown and many were from Syria and Saudi, but as for the exact numbers it has eluded me.


They elude me as well. I can't even seem to find the maximum capacity.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


semper, with all due respect.

You just used the phrase 'Prisoners of War'.

Ummm....ermmmm....I have YET to see Congress declare any 'war' since about, ermmmm.....1941.

We have the baloney of these phrases....the 'war' on drugs, the 'war' on poverty, 'the 'war' on whatever politicallly conveinent trend you wish the media to promote for you....seems lately, it's the 'war' on terror.

We just lived under eight years of this crap, from the Bushies....basically, 'keep 'em fearful, and they will follow you sheepishly...'

'Dick' Cheney, even out of office for less than a month, is STILL trying to use his only skill-set....FEAR!!! How pathetic!!!!!

Using the alleged 'fear factor' in order to control the masses....hmmmm....who else tried that???

Our Country was founded on principles. Once we ignore those principles, we become a lesser people. Some may think this is ignorant, Liberal BS...I disagree. I believe that following the folly of the strong arm, rather than the intelligent open hand, will result in a failure of the system.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
The United States signed the GC, but it in no way regulates the actions taken in a conflict without a sovereign declared enemy..



I believe that MOST of the prisoners being held in Gitmo are either Taliban or Al Quada members or sympathizers.

And what your saying in the quote above, I believe, is that since these captives weren't part of a sovereign countries military, that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them.

I beg to differ here, you see, we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban was in power then and were fighting against an invading force.

They were "RESISTANCE" fighters!

They lived in and defended "their country"!

In the words of our EX vice president: ( thank God EX )

Who are the prisoners of Guantánamo?


The Bush administration has repeatedly described the 450-500 men detained at Guantanamo as "the worst of the worst." In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney (June 23, 2005), "The people that are there are people we picked up on the battlefield, primarily in Afghanistan. They’re terrorists. They’re bomb makers. They’re facilitators of terror. They’re members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban….


Administration Appalled by Durbin Remarks


The Bush administration has so far rejected calls to close down Guantanamo Bay, with officials saying that while the military is working to establish the status of the "enemy combatants," most are terrorists who would harm the United States if released.

"To suggest that these enemy combatants that are detained at Guantanamo Bay should be released just is simply beyond reason. These are dangerous individuals who were picked up on the battlefield ... in the fight against American forces," McClellan said.


This would clearly fall into the realm of being covered under the Geneva Convention definition of a POW.
 

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.


Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
******SKIP******
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.


And since Al Quaeda was helping the Taliban fight, that would also mean that they too should be held as POW's according to the rules/guidelines written in the Geneva Convention.

Even if a member of Al Quaeda was captured in Iraq, they could also be labeled as resistance fighters and therefore covered by the Geneva Convention and all the rights given to POW's.

Bottom line is, if they were captured in Afghanistan or Iraq, they should and ARE covered by the Geneva Convention.

[edit on 2/7/2009 by Keyhole]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Semper:

You say that much of what is/was reported in the MSM regarding the activities at Gitmo is false.

What about the many pictures that were released? How else are we to interpret the day to day procedure there?

While I don't think that torture occurs everyday, I also think that there is a level of detachment that exceeds acceptable limits.

Which to me would breed animosity...



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Please refer to several posts past.

This has been covered


I was just doing the courteously of answering your question to me.
I did read the thread to catch up but didn't want to leave your specific question to me unanswered.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Do you think these people would have committed "terrorist" offenses had they NOT been in gitmo?

BTW, I agree we're going to have to disagree about certain aspects of this, but I'm still hoping to find some common ground.

Kudos to you as well for debate tourney practice




[edit on 7/2/2009 by budski]



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



Do you think these people would have committed "terrorist" offenses had they NOT been in gitmo?


Yes I do..

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


No problem BH...


Semper



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
The title of this thread...."At Least One American Believed Killed by Freed Gitmo Prisoners"

Let's look at the various kidnappings, and murders, that have occured in the last seven years. NOT from 'freed' Gitmo prisoners!!!!

Again.....thousands of terrorists already exist, right now, and they are a threat. A couple of hundred more??? Well, they are born every year.....

The Gitmo argument is pointless....UNLESS the right thing is done, and that is sticking to American ideals....Law and Order, and common sense.

It is like taking the 'High Road', instead of delving down to the lowest of lows.......



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by intrepid
 


I agree with what your saying and the concept.

However, that does not in anyway excuse criminal or terrorist actions.

Also remember that in my scenario we are talking absolutes.. "They ARE responsible... etc


Are they? If you poke a dog and it eventually bites you, is it the dogs fault or the poker?


In your scenario, there are "Possibilities"... "Possibly innocent.

Semper


I can only deal in possibilities. We don't know, rather we are NOT ALLOWED to know what's going on in these cases.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by budski
 



Do you think these people would have committed "terrorist" offenses had they NOT been in gitmo?


Yes I do..


Semper


Then please post the reasons WHY they would.

"I hate america" doesn't count.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join