Jeep Wrangler Forum

Jeep Wrangler Forum (http://www.wranglerforum.com/)
-   Off-Topic (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f6/)
-   -   Obama has nothing better to do???? (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f6/obama-has-nothing-better-to-do-29501.html)

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 07:13 AM

Obama has nothing better to do????
 
than possibly bringing charges against high ranking offficials, or even George Bush for "torturing detainees" :banghead::banghead:

torture....the ones who do not care about the geneva convention, the ones that aren't uniformed soldiers that attacked our land hidden among civilians, killing mainly civilians. the ones that fight hidden among civilians in their own land. the ones that break the rules of war.

i don't think people should be tortured, but we also can't treat those people like little harmless bystanders.

obama doesn't have more important things to do right now???:mad:

and did anyone see the special on guantamino bay cuba? those prisoners are treated better than prisoners that are citizens in america's prison system.:banghead:

jupiterboy 04-22-2009 07:25 AM

For the sake of every US soldier that is being held and will be held we do need to sort this out.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 07:33 AM

obama is the one who decided to release internal memos and stir this up. he's using it as publicity, you think he's genuinely concerned. maybe he is since those are his relatives:banghead:

again, i don't believe in torture. i don't think they were tortured. and again, whats the geneva convention to terrorists?

pretty soon a terrorist is going to sprain his ankle breaking into your house, and he's going to sue you

jupiterboy 04-22-2009 07:44 AM

We may be at war with a nation in the future that does respect the geneva convention. If we can't make a public show of supporting it and instead flaunt our disrespect for international law and use legal gymnastics to skirt the spirit of the convention there is little chance any US soldier will be shown any degree of mercy or respect by captors.

I will say this though, that in the end I tend to believe it comes down to individuals. I have a dear uncle that was held captive after the battle of the bulge. He was not treated well and does not speak about it much but he will tell you stories about minor negotiation he made with individuals that lessened the burden for himself and the other prisoners.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jupiterboy (Post 359156)
We may be at war with a nation in the future that does respect the geneva convention. If we can't make a public show of supporting it and instead flaunt our disrespect for international law and use legal gymnastics to skirt the spirit of the convention there is little chance any US soldier will be shown any degree of mercy or respect by captors.
.

this is true, how have we flaunted disrespect for it.

where does the geneva convention describe how to deal with terrorists, or people that do not fight by the convention in so many ways? i for one am glad we had a comander in cheif with the balls to do something, and take every step to bring justice, and prevent another attack thus far.

jupiterboy 04-22-2009 08:00 AM

Read my post. It is perception.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 08:01 AM

and did anyone see the special on guantamino bay???

we treat those terrorists like 3rd graders.

"now abdul...take the towel down from your window...c'mon abdul, please....you need to take the towel down.....abdul....take the towel down please......":banghead:

give me a break, in american prison, a criminal not obeying the rules after being asked is going to have his cell stormed by 4 or so guards, and they will make him obey the rules, and the towel will come down. is that torture?? the guards are so scared to be considered torture they have to treat terrorists like 3rd graders...and the terrorists know it, and play mind games with the guards.

jupiterboy 04-22-2009 08:08 AM

No charges. No trial. No war that will ever see an end. Clearly we need to define torture as it is a very grey area, but torture is just one aspect.

We also shouldn't label an action as a war when it isn't. War has been defined as against a specific country. War on terror is a joke because there will always be a terror threat. Should anyone picked up under suspicion be held until they die of old age because the “war on terror” is still ongoing? These issues could have been dealt with upfront. We have many black-site prisons around he world that are still active. It is a PR nightmare and our soldiers get the blowback.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 08:15 AM

dealing with them up front was our country trying to figure out what the hell just happend on 911, who did it, why, and how are we gonna prevent this.

but, the definitions, and actions do need to be defined and dealt with now i agree.

and when have the soldiers not gotten the blow back? vietnam and every war you can name. it is sickening, and God bless them for what they do, and they know what they're doing up front, and wilfully sacrifice for our country.

so when are the detainees going to be brought into our country, since obama is closing cuba? i haven't heard if its already empty, or how long that will be.

jupiterboy 04-22-2009 08:25 AM

You can negate any law by pointing out the ones that do not follow it. Still we have a speed limit. Still we have laws against murder. Does that stop someone from killing who is in a murderous rage? No.

Habeas Corpus has been respected since the early 14th century. We have and other nations have had terrorist attacks before. 911 was known within the intelligence community before it happened. The idea that we have to throw 700 years of legal precedent out the window because a few jackasses flew airplanes into a building is pure folly.

When we put business people in charge of government they look for business solutions to problems. If we want America to survive as a leader in creating civilization we need to have people in office that respect the foundations of civilization and resist the urge to find legal loopholes to accommodate any and every action that seems desirable at the moment.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 08:33 AM

there's other nations that lock up other citizens, including americans for 7 years for having marijuana on them. or get cained for graffiti. is that torture, or is that lack of tolerance for breaking the law. it is extreme, but i bet there's not a lot of graffiti, or drugs being pushed around.

evilray 04-22-2009 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdocdave (Post 359179)
there's other nations that lock up other citizens, including americans for 7 years for having marijuana on them. or get cained for graffiti. is that torture, or is that lack of tolerance for breaking the law. it is extreme, but i bet there's not a lot of graffiti, or drugs being pushed around.

The difference being that what you said only happens after a trial and conviction under the given countries laws.

skeeter 04-22-2009 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jupiterboy (Post 359161)
Read my post. It is perception.

Read the Geneva conventions, it is black and white. These people were not wearing uniforms and they are not agents of one of the signatories to the conventions.
The Geneva convention does not apply.

ETA: I actually hope obama does try and prosecute bush administration officials, it should be entertaining.

jupiterboy 04-22-2009 12:17 PM

I suspect Obama will not be prosecuting anyone. Again, it is perception. We are not technically at war either, and it is odd that we have bestowed upon ourselves the power to round up anyone we deem suspicious and hold them indefinitely without charges. Clearly we have dealt with this sort of situation before.

Quote:

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a car bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. And in November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.
Odd that they have been trying for so long to target the heart of the derivatives trade that is ruining our own country today. It is almost like they were aware of a huge problem even before the American people were. Who built those world trade towers anyway? Hmmmm.

skeeter 04-22-2009 12:28 PM

How are we not technically at war?

jupiterboy 04-22-2009 01:03 PM

War on terror? Is that a country? Since when did any nation declare a war on an emotion? Our national defense against terrorism will most likely be a never ending battle, calling it a war for PR reasons is brilliant but a horrible turn of events for anyone fighting as a soldier. Typically we declare war through a process defined by precedent and law. If we do not, and there is not nation we are fighting against then we define it as something else—police action etc.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 01:47 PM

^if we can't declare a war on terrorism, the terrorists hide behind the very facts you are presenting. who's side are you on?:D (sarcastic, yet not)

skeeter 04-22-2009 01:49 PM

Ahh okay, I stand corrected. In that sense I agree with you, "The war on terror" is little more than a catch phrase to convince the gullible to be more willing to fill the coffers just like "The war on drugs" or "The war on poverty".
I was afraid you were going to claim we weren't technically at war in Afghanistan and Iraq because congress didn't issue an official declaration of war.

jupiterboy 04-22-2009 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdocdave (Post 359371)
^if we can't declare a war on terrorism, the terrorists hide behind the very facts you are presenting. who's side are you on?:D (sarcastic, yet not)

It was declared as “War on Terror”. Imagine what sort of police actions could be justified using such a broad net. There is no defined theater or playing field. You have the makings of an open account in the name of the taxpayers for a wide variety of interests that may not have anything to do with protecting Americans. In my opinion we need to be very careful about using our national defense to protect business assets, as we need to be careful about using tax dollars and debt to assist international banking interests.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 05:05 PM

^ sure, but as the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, do we ere so that we don't hurt terrorists feelings, and some innocent people (which are involved any case in any country) or do we protect our country.

i go back to the insanity of our country allowing burglars to sue home owners while they unlawfully entered someones house.

Odhinn 04-22-2009 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jupiterboy (Post 359147)
For the sake of every US soldier that is being held and will be held we do need to sort this out.

Unfortunately, no matter how we act or what we do, our soldiers will be treated like criminals (relative term) by them. You can not use our standards and morals when dealing with other cultures. Heck...that's the reason why most of the world hates us, because we force our standards and morals onto everyone else. Those people have been taught to hate everything about western civilization. This hate is driven by a devout religious belief, and a brainwashed mind that thinks they are right and backed by God. Their is no way to get through to them except through brute force, determination, and good intelligence gathering.

Look up "Ethnocentrism" and apply it loosely to the reason behind all the cultural clashes in the world today.

jupiterboy 04-22-2009 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odhinn (Post 359544)
Unfortunately, no matter how we act or what we do, our soldiers will be treated like criminals (relative term) by them. You can not use our standards and morals when dealing with other cultures. Heck...that's the reason why most of the world hates us, because we force our standards and morals onto everyone else. Those people have been taught to hate everything about western civilization. This hate is driven by a devout religious belief, and a brainwashed mind that thinks they are right and backed by God. Their is no way to get through to them except through brute force, determination, and good intelligence gathering.

Look up "Ethnocentrism" and apply it loosely to the reason behind all the cultural clashes in the world today.

It is true, but it also applies to us as well. That is why international law and laws like Habeas Corpus are so interesting—they represent an effort of disparate cultures to come together in acceptance of shared values. The nature/nurture question may never be understood in a way that is definitive, but there is some chance we can deconstruct religion enough on a global scale to realize we are simply a species on a rock in space and that there may be some value in attempting to not end the experiment prematurely by our own hand.

It is not lost on me that many religious universities in our own country do not teach anthropology specifically because they do not want students to understand that morality is cultural rather than a static law handed down from above. Even with an understanding of cultural and moral relativism there remain concepts and values that are common—value of life is one of them even if the only lives that count are the lives of your own tribe.

(No offense to the believers.)

2much 04-22-2009 09:18 PM

yeah, i saw the special, and they are definately treated well.
I do not think the U.S. should ever engage in torturing any individual, I guess it comes down to what you beleive is torture. I don't consider any of the techniques stated in those memos as torture.

tiny terror 04-22-2009 09:30 PM

Quote:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die. It is considered a form of torture by legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations. As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately. The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death. Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.
Many would disagree with that assertion.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 09:37 PM

the last few sentences of that quote are true of many many things.

flying comercial jets into mass civilian populated buildings is known to cause death to thousands of innocent civilians.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evilray (Post 359250)
The difference being that what you said only happens after a trial and conviction under the given countries laws.

oh, can't believe i forgot this. not true. there was a specific instance i remember of an american citizen being caught in another country transporting drugs for someone else. this transporter was not tried and convicted, just slapped in jail for about 7 years before american finally got this person released.

tiny terror 04-22-2009 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdocdave (Post 359611)
the last few sentances of that quote are true of many many things.

flying comercial jets into mass civilian populated buildings is known to cause death to thousands of innocent civilians.

And? Just because everyone dies eventually does not mean I can help them to it.

When one decides to take the moral high ground, they cannot send their counter part to the moral low ground and expect no one to notice.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiny terror (Post 359615)
And? Just because everyone dies eventually does not mean I can help them to it.

When one decides to take the moral high ground, they cannot send their counter part to the moral low ground and expect no one to notice.

i refer to a previous statement quoted below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdocdave (Post 359468)
^ sure, but as the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, do we ere so that we don't hurt terrorists feelings, and some innocent people (which are involved any case in any country) or do we protect our country.

i go back to the insanity of our country allowing burglars to sue home owners while they unlawfully entered someones house.


jupiterboy 04-22-2009 09:43 PM

I’m not a moralist. One very big issue is that in situations where open ended torture has been used the information obtained has been largely false. I would like to see some separation between a populist desire to punish people who we trust are guilty because we have been told there is reason to suspect, and real evidence regarding obtaining credible information. It appears that the ability of the system to absorb, prioritize and act on the incoming information we have is a much larger issue than splitting hairs over waterboarding, which is not the lighting rod buzz word that evokes an opinion from nearly everyone.

jpdocdave 04-22-2009 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jupiterboy (Post 359617)
I’m not a moralist. One very big issue is that in situations where open ended torture has been used the information obtained has been largely false. I would like to see some separation between a populist desire to punish people who we trust are guilty because we have been told there is reason to suspect, and real evidence regarding obtaining credible information. It appears that the ability of the system to absorb, prioritize and act on the incoming information we have is a much larger issue than splitting hairs over waterboarding, which is not the lighting rod buzz word that evokes an opinion from nearly everyone.

what other option was there at the time after 911, without uniformed soldiers fighting for a declared government, with a declared cause (other than kill americans cuz their god said so). how were we supposed to determine who the enemy was, and what further threats were evident. just wait and see? or be proactive, and protect ourselves.

if someone breaks into my house, i'm not gonna wait and see if they're dangerous.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.