# Obama to close



## MiGsTeR (Jan 19, 2008)

> Obama 'set to close Guantanamo'
> 
> GUANTANAMO BAY
> Guantanamo Bay camp at sunrise, 19 November
> ...


Guantanamo


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)

I say keep it open and keep all the pieces of sh*t in there









Hi Mig


----------



## MiGsTeR (Jan 19, 2008)

Hey Feefa

And I ono I got some weird mixed feeling bout this one


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)

I just really hate terrorists so I think he should leave it open for them and other war criminals.


----------



## need_redz (May 11, 2007)

Feefa said:


> I say keep it open and keep all the pieces of sh*t in there


ya and the c*ck meat sandwiches...


----------



## Brian5150 (Oct 17, 2006)

When it's closed where will they all go?


----------



## ICEE (Feb 3, 2007)

Brian5150 said:


> When it's closed where will they all go?


in and around your neighborhood


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)

ICEE said:


> When it's closed where will they all go?


in and around your neighborhood
[/quote]

Exactly, just like the pedo's


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

I read in an article somewhere that 2/3 of the detainees released from Gitmo went back to terrorist activity.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Conservatives should welcome this move with open arms... that place has universal healthcare financed by taxpayer money ( no wonder they decided to place it in Cuba )


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

Jewelz said:


> Conservatives should welcome this movie with open arms... that place has universal healthcare financed by taxpayer money ( no wonder they decided to place it in Cuba )


what movie?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Oops, i meant move


----------



## Curley (Aug 4, 2004)

need_redz said:


> I say keep it open and keep all the pieces of sh*t in there


ya and the c*ck meat sandwiches...
[/quote]

hahahha that movie was fricken funny!

on a real note, most of them will be sent back to thier home countries. I am sure they will go back to what they love doing and thats killing innocent people. If Obama does this, he has just as much blood on his hands as the terroists. Great first couple days in office! He is really taking care of important things quickly, lmao...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

McCain was one of the first people who suggested closing Gitmo:

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03...guantanamo-bay/

The inmates will probably be hosted by Switzerland

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/id...E50K4K120090121

If they're terrorists, of course, we can always choose to charge them and try them as such.


----------



## PELIGROSO PYGO (Aug 27, 2008)

keep them outta my country.. do your tourtures somewhere else..


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

This is a good thing, I read a book about some innocent German guy who got tortured in their for 5 years by some retarded american soldiers


----------



## Apott05 (Jul 19, 2005)

im sure he was completly innocent. He managed to get in there somehow.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

one of the major problems with this country, which has been grossly accelerated by the media, is the notion that anybody suspected of a crime is in-fact "innocent until proven guilty"...the right to a fair trial is in the bill of rights, obviously one of the most important blocks of the foundation of the constitution, since it's placed within the first 6 amendments.



> the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury





> informed of the nature and cause of the accusation





> and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

ICEE said:


> When it's closed where will they all go?


in and around your neighborhood
[/quote]

Nah, they'll go back to NYC... hehe j/k


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> one of the major problems with this country, which has been grossly accelerated by the media, is the notion that anybody suspected of a crime is in-fact "innocent until proven guilty"...the right to a fair trial is in the bill of rights, obviously one of the most important blocks of the foundation of the constitution, since it's placed within the first 6 amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and how is that a problem? seems like you're saying it's important


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

E-THUG said:


> This is a good thing, I read a book about some innocent German guy who got tortured in their for 5 years by some retarded american soldiers


It's not the retarded american soldiers doing it. It's more like the OGA reps there. Americans nonetheless, but a bit above our retarded soldiers. Turd.


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

You big sensitive baby im not saying ALL american soldiers are retarded im just saying the ones who did the torture are.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

E-THUG said:


> You big sensitive baby im not saying ALL american soldiers are retarded im just saying the ones who did the torture are.


Why ? They were just following orders from above


----------



## Wide_Eyed_Wanderer (Aug 22, 2006)

Yeah and the Nazis were just following order when they sent a bunch of women and children into giant ovens.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

E-THUG said:


> Yeah and the Nazis were just following order when they sent a bunch of women and children into giant ovens.


That's right, they were.

One should not confuse evil with retardation.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Boobah said:


> one of the major problems with this country, which has been grossly accelerated by the media, is the notion that anybody suspected of a crime is in-fact "innocent until proven guilty"...the right to a fair trial is in the bill of rights, obviously one of the most important blocks of the foundation of the constitution, since it's placed within the first 6 amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and how is that a problem? seems like you're saying it's important
[/quote]

"the notion" sarcastically represents the idea that the constitution is fact...when in reality, when it is applied, anybody suspected of any crime these days is no longer given the benefit of the doubt. instead, they are guilty until proven innocent. and as far as an impartial trial, media spectacles of trials and peoples life history only go further in preventing true justice from being served as it was designed by the founding fathers.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

rchan11 said:


> I read in an article somewhere that 2/3 of the detainees released from Gitmo went back to terrorist activity.


well if you dont hate americans going into guantanomo...you sure will when you get out.


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

need_redz said:


> I say keep it open and keep all the pieces of sh*t in there


ya and the c*ck meat sandwiches...
[/quote]
my name is big bob


----------



## need_redz (May 11, 2007)

joey said:


> I say keep it open and keep all the pieces of sh*t in there


ya and the c*ck meat sandwiches...
[/quote]
my name is big bob








[/quote]


----------



## ICEE (Feb 3, 2007)

need_redz said:


> I say keep it open and keep all the pieces of sh*t in there


ya and the c*ck meat sandwiches...
[/quote]
my name is big bob








[/quote]








[/quote]


----------



## need_redz (May 11, 2007)




----------



## ICEE (Feb 3, 2007)

need_redz said:


>


----------



## RedneckR0nin (Nov 5, 2008)

Have to agree with feefa they should close it down after they cook all who live there


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)

PELIGROSO PYGO said:


> keep them outta my country.. do your tourtures somewhere else..


Aren't you Canadian???


----------



## ICEE (Feb 3, 2007)

Feefa said:


> keep them outta my country.. do your tourtures somewhere else..


Aren't you Canadian???
[/quote]

lmao FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)




----------



## MiGsTeR (Jan 19, 2008)

Getting a lil hot in here..







Lol feefa


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)

Cool as a cucumber lol

Luv ya Mig


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

E-THUG said:


> Yeah and the Nazis were just following order when they sent a bunch of women and children into giant ovens.


You know who else wore flair?

The Nazi's did.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

lol, released detainee joins and becomes al queda chief...and so it begins!

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mid...ee.1-414168.php


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

^^That pisses me right the f*ck off. Next time they catch up with the bastard I hope they shoot first and interrogate later.
I'm totally against the sh*t that goes on there. Torturing and holding people for years without charging them with a crime is decidedly unamerican, and it makes us look just as bad as the terrorists.
At the same time though, I don't think we should just throw the doors open and let the people inside free. Most of them desearve to be there, but like even the worst scumbags we have at home they desearve the right to be treated with a certain amount of dignity (i.e. no naked pyramid photoshoots or waterboarding) and given a speedy trial. I really hope there's a plan in place to do this.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

> The development came as Republican legislators criticized the plan to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp


geez, what a coincidence....


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

something that people need to understand is that it's not uncommon or unamerican to hold POWs without trial. same thing happened at the end of WWII. and there is nothing in the Geneva Conventions about irregular troops. if they don't wear a uniform, they don't get that measure of protection. not to mention that a big part of obtaining any conviction could require testimony that won't be forth coming when we set these people loose.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

how can that possibly be constitutionally allowed? they're held for an indefinite amount of time without trial, without council...there has to be a definite outcome to their litigations, by the scope of the law. as far as i know, there's no part of the constitution that exempts those rights from non-citizens...?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> how can that possibly be constitutionally allowed? they're held for an indefinite amount of time without trial, without council...there has to be a definite outcome to their litigations, by the scope of the law. as far as i know, there's no part of the constitution that exempts those rights from non-citizens...?


all i'm saying is what's happened. civil law is not the UCMJ, which is what the military is subject to.


----------



## jharrison (Dec 7, 2004)

The detainee's are not American citizens, that is why they can be held without trial. 
Is it right? No
Should we as Americans set an example as to how a POW should be treated? Yes.
Should these detainees have trials and either be held/imprisoned, or set free? I believe so.
Torture is uncalled for... The military needs to come down hard on it's own leaders (and maybe even a former president and/or vice pres) for their roles in condoning this activity. I am waiting to see how Obama will handle this delicate situation. In my opinion, the military personnel knew what they were doing is wrong, and they deserve to pay the price for their actions.


----------



## MiGsTeR (Jan 19, 2008)

Americans do get a lot of bad rep cuz of guantanamo


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

jharrison said:


> The detainee's are not American citizens, that is why they can be held without trial.
> Is it right? No
> Should we as Americans set an example as to how a POW should be treated? Yes.
> Should these detainees have trials and either be held/imprisoned, or set free? I believe so.
> Torture is uncalled for... The military needs to come down hard on it's own leaders (and maybe even a former president and/or vice pres) for their roles in condoning this activity. I am waiting to see how Obama will handle this delicate situation. In my opinion, the military personnel knew what they were doing is wrong, and they deserve to pay the price for their actions.


detainees not being citizens is not the reason they can be kept the way they are. and to blame the military for "torture" that is committed mainly by INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES just shows how much research you do, before making an argument. if you believe water boarding to be torture, you'd have a very short career in prisons where they really do torture people. you know, the ones we used to just drop people off at under other presidents.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

I love these conversations. I dont know why anybody is complaining about what happens at G-Bay. We send POWs there to be interrogated by some shady means. Slap them around or simulate drowning to get answers.

NOW the other side of it that nobody cares about. A US soldier gets captured, they're decapitated in videos, then their bodies are mutilated and dumped. But people continue to bitch about water boarding.


----------



## jharrison (Dec 7, 2004)

mdrs said:


> NOW the other side of it that nobody cares about. A US soldier gets captured, they're decapitated in videos, then their bodies are mutilated and dumped. But people continue to bitch about water boarding.


Who said that is acceptable?


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> how can that possibly be constitutionally allowed? they're held for an indefinite amount of time without trial, without council...there has to be a definite outcome to their litigations, by the scope of the law. as far as i know, there's no part of the constitution that exempts those rights from non-citizens...?


Because common sense dictates that you don't let enemy soldiers go free until the war is over. Thousands of German and Japenese captured during WWII were held in prisons without being tried or convicted of anything till the war was over. There's nothing wrong with holding POW's indefinitely as long as they're properly treated.
That's where this get's sticky. Technicially, these people aren't POW's because we're not technically at war with their country. They were arrested for attacking US military troops or because they allegedly belong to terrorist organizations that have attacked the US.
It's sort of like what would happen if you, say, mailed a bomb to the Queen of England and it blew up and killed her. England would demand that you be extradited and tried in an English court. Naturally, we'd comply, and even though you're an American citizen you'd find yourself in prison in another country.


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

TheWayThingsR said:


> NOW the other side of it that nobody cares about. A US soldier gets captured, they're decapitated in videos, then their bodies are mutilated and dumped. But people continue to bitch about water boarding.


Hypothetical question for you: Do you think it would've been ok for the US to put all the Japanese-Americans in America during WWII into concentration camps and gas them to death just because the Germans were doing it to the Jews? There's your answer.
The only thing that seperates us from them is the fact that we're civilized people who dont' do sh*t like that. Stoop to that level, and we're no better then they are.


----------



## jharrison (Dec 7, 2004)

Piranha Dan said:


> NOW the other side of it that nobody cares about. A US soldier gets captured, they're decapitated in videos, then their bodies are mutilated and dumped. But people continue to bitch about water boarding.


Hypothetical question for you: Do you think it would've been ok for the US to put all the Japanese-Americans in America during WWII into concentration camps and gas them to death just because the Germans were doing it to the Jews? There's your answer.
The only thing that seperates us from them is the fact that we're civilized people who dont' do sh*t like that. Stoop to that level, and we're no better then they are.
[/quote]

Exactly.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

Piranha Dan said:


> NOW the other side of it that nobody cares about. A US soldier gets captured, they're decapitated in videos, then their bodies are mutilated and dumped. But people continue to bitch about water boarding.


Hypothetical question for you: Do you think it would've been ok for the US to put all the Japanese-Americans in America during WWII into concentration camps and gas them to death just because the Germans were doing it to the Jews? There's your answer.
The only thing that seperates us from them is the fact that we're civilized people who dont' do sh*t like that. Stoop to that level, and we're no better then they are.
[/quote]

We did put them in "Internment" camps during WWII. Just didnt kill them. And at Gitmo we don't kill them either.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

jharrison said:


> True, if I were to be tortured in any means, including waterboarding, I would tell them whatever they wanted to hear. Including lies and false information, which is why torture of any means has been proven not to work.


i'll make this clear, for you. waterboarding is NOT torture. even by accepted international standards waterboarding cannot be defined as torture. "...the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime." it is not painful, is not cruel or inhumane, and does not cause severe pain or suffering. it is not life threatening. make no mistake, it is frightening and not comfortable to be sure but is not life threatening. furthermore, what is "torture of any means" and where has torture "been proven not to work"?

*TheWayThingsR*, i respect you and understand your point, i only have a question. my question is where does that end? you'd know better than i, but i'd say that we come down pretty hard on those who mutilate and torture our soldiers. it's not like we just overlook and continue along our merry way. but where does it end when you become more sadistic to POWs? i'm not defending what's done to US soldiers, but doing to our POWs what they do to theirs will only result in escalation on their end. and it won't make it better, in the first place. so where does that all stop?


----------



## rchan11 (May 6, 2004)

Released detainee now Yemen al-Qaida commander

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_...tanamo_al_qaida


----------



## Nick G (Jul 15, 2007)

i say if your going to detain someone, do it for a reason. if you have a reason, then put them in a legitimate jail.
not only does guantanamo bay make us look like assholes to the rest of the world, its fundamentally wrong to torture people. im not saying let terrorists go, but holding an innocent person captive for five years will turn them into a terrorist if nothing else. 
although its a sticky subject, we should be figuring out the truth bout someone who is contained and making the decision to keep them or release them within a short amount of time.


----------



## MiGsTeR (Jan 19, 2008)

if I was imprisoned and tortured for years and years for something I didn't do.. I'll get my pay back x2


----------



## Piranha Dan (Nov 11, 2007)

mdrs said:


> ..waterboarding is NOT torture...."the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime."


So you're saying that you honestly don't think that strapping someone to a rack and making them feel like they're drowning isn't cruel or degrading? Really?


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

MiGsTeR said:


> if I was imprisoned and tortured for years and years for something I didn't do.. I'll get my pay back x2


So you're saying we're imprisoning innocents? Don't be naive.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Piranha Dan said:


> ..waterboarding is NOT torture...."the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime."


So you're saying that you honestly don't think that strapping someone to a rack and making them feel like they're drowning isn't cruel or degrading? Really?

[/quote]

when you water board someone, you're pouring water down their throat to mimic the sensation of drowning. this trips a reflex that convinces the victim of this. it's no more degrading or abusive then any other reflex. agreed, not fun or nice in any way, but cruel or degrading, no.


----------



## jharrison (Dec 7, 2004)

mdrs said:


> True, if I were to be tortured in any means, including waterboarding, I would tell them whatever they wanted to hear. Including lies and false information, which is why torture of any means has been proven not to work.





> i'll make this clear, for you. waterboarding is NOT torture. even by accepted international standards waterboarding cannot be defined as torture. "...the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime." it is not painful, is not cruel or inhumane, and does not cause severe pain or suffering. it is not life threatening. make no mistake, it is frightening and not comfortable to be sure but is not life threatening.


Waterboarding
Quite a bit of good citation along with that article.



> furthermore, what is "torture of any means" and where has torture "been proven not to work"?


Torture doesn't work

[/quote]


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

jharrison said:


> True, if I were to be tortured in any means, including waterboarding, I would tell them whatever they wanted to hear. Including lies and false information, which is why torture of any means has been proven not to work.





> i'll make this clear, for you. waterboarding is NOT torture. even by accepted international standards waterboarding cannot be defined as torture. "...the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime." it is not painful, is not cruel or inhumane, and does not cause severe pain or suffering. it is not life threatening. make no mistake, it is frightening and not comfortable to be sure but is not life threatening.


Waterboarding
Quite a bit of good citation along with that article.



> furthermore, what is "torture of any means" and where has torture "been proven not to work"?


Torture doesn't work

[/quote]
[/quote]

you linked to a wikipedia listing and an article from amnesty international and think those are credible and unbiased links? are you ten?


----------



## jharrison (Dec 7, 2004)

mdrs said:


> True, if I were to be tortured in any means, including waterboarding, I would tell them whatever they wanted to hear. Including lies and false information, which is why torture of any means has been proven not to work.





> i'll make this clear, for you. waterboarding is NOT torture. even by accepted international standards waterboarding cannot be defined as torture. "...the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime." it is not painful, is not cruel or inhumane, and does not cause severe pain or suffering. it is not life threatening. make no mistake, it is frightening and not comfortable to be sure but is not life threatening.


Waterboarding
Quite a bit of good citation along with that article.



> furthermore, what is "torture of any means" and where has torture "been proven not to work"?


Torture doesn't work

[/quote]
[/quote]

you linked to a wikipedia listing and an article from amnesty international and think those are credible and unbiased links? are you ten?
[/quote]

Both of which had credible sourcing which I checked out before posting. Everything is biased. You simply asked who said. I am sure I could get the CIA member who was doing it and pour water down his throat until he passes out, regains consciousness, passes out, regains consciousness, passes out, regains consciousness, passes out, regains consciousness, etc, until he admits it is torture and it doesn't work and you would still say it wasn't credible enough!


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Are you kidding??? Not only should they close Guantanamo Bay prison, but those who tortured and even ordered the torture should be punished. This includes Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. There are those who say, "You want to let terrorists go free?" Terrorists? Haven't they read the Constitution?

In a free country, one can not call someone a terrorist and then simply claim it is so. You have to PROVE IT!! You have to be CONVICTED in a public court of law. If they committed a crime, try them and convict them in open court. If it's a capital crime, execute him.

Fact is, because of the Patriot Act, the president can call anyone a "terrorist" and that person can be detained. Indefinitely. Without access to a lawyer and denied his right to due process. Many of these detainees are being tried in secretive military tribunals where a lot less evidence is required to convict.

In most cases, the prosecutor appoints the defendant's lawyer! The World Court should have jurisdiction over these prisoners. By the way, a lot of people don't know that in the summer of 2002, before invading Iraq, Bush unilaterally took the U.S. out of the World Court's jurisdiction. He KNEW he was going to commit war crimes.

They should also close all those secret prisons the CIA has in other countries. All these prisons are a BLATANT violation of international law. The U.S. was highly instrumental in creating these laws and signed on. One of the reasons we invaded Iraq was because they refused to follow the United Nations' mandates. Here we are doing the same thing. Go figure!!!


----------



## SERRAPYGO (Feb 4, 2003)

Piranha Dan said:


> ..waterboarding is NOT torture...."the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime."


So you're saying that you honestly don't think that strapping someone to a rack and making them feel like they're drowning isn't cruel or degrading? Really?
[/quote]
I hope it is cruel and degrading. And it is at least cruel...good! How else should American intelligence get crucial information from our enemies? Snake bites? dutch rubs? Play 20 questions? Excessive tickling until they pee their pants? 
One thing is for sure...they (the enemy) are not sitting around, comfy in their homes provided by their military, pondering wether or not they are treating us or our captives in a civil, politically correct manor. Cry me a river.


----------



## jharrison (Dec 7, 2004)

SERRAPYGO said:


> ..waterboarding is NOT torture...."the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime."


So you're saying that you honestly don't think that strapping someone to a rack and making them feel like they're drowning isn't cruel or degrading? Really?
[/quote]
I hope it is cruel and degrading. And it is at least cruel...good! How else should American intelligence get crucial information from our enemies? Snake bites? dutch rubs? Play 20 questions? Excessive tickling until they pee their pants? 
One thing is for sure...they (the enemy) are not sitting around, comfy in their homes provided by their military, pondering wether or not they are treating us or our captives in a civil, politically correct manor. Cry me a river.
[/quote]

Torture does not provide usable intelligence. Think about it.... if you were getting tortured, you would tell them whatever they wanted to hear to make them stop. So that is what torture provides you with... the information that you want to hear!


----------



## SERRAPYGO (Feb 4, 2003)

jharrison said:


> ..waterboarding is NOT torture...."the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime."


So you're saying that you honestly don't think that strapping someone to a rack and making them feel like they're drowning isn't cruel or degrading? Really?
[/quote]
I hope it is cruel and degrading. And it is at least cruel...good! How else should American intelligence get crucial information from our enemies? Snake bites? dutch rubs? Play 20 questions? Excessive tickling until they pee their pants? 
One thing is for sure...they (the enemy) are not sitting around, comfy in their homes provided by their military, pondering wether or not they are treating us or our captives in a civil, politically correct manor. Cry me a river.
[/quote]

Torture does not provide usable intelligence. Think about it.... if you were getting tortured, you would tell them whatever they wanted to hear to make them stop. So that is what torture provides you with... the information that you want to hear!
[/quote]
WTF? Torture has been used for centuries to get viable information. It obviously works! This is a cinch for you to come to this conclusion snug as a bug in a rug in your living room safe in the knowledge that it will never happen to you, drawing conclusions based on scenarios in your mind wich could never equal the real thing! 
It is a fact that waterboarding has already, in the past, provided us with information to thwart potential terrorist activity.


----------



## cueball (May 24, 2005)

give me a break if it was me i wouldn't close the center i would burn it with everyone in it these terrorists hate you Americans why would you object to Torture , they sure as hell wouldn't give you any pity if it was the other way around. take the gun from one of them officers lock him in a sell with osama ben butt fucked and ill bet the officer would not come out alive ,, these are animals


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

In my opinion they should house these scum bag terrorists in the Rose Garden at the White House then. The presidents first and foremost job is to protect and uphold the Constitution. I'd say it's a bit of a conflict of interest when he closes G-mo and will more than likely bring combat terrorist prisoners on various locations throughout America. So I say to Washington and our new savior president, if you want em, YOU can have em! Clear some rooms in the White House and we'll be good to go.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

we should close gitmo to silence the babies then secretly open another secret prison in alaska or some other frigid place but dont let anybody know


----------



## Curley (Aug 4, 2004)

baddfish said:


> Are you kidding??? Not only should they close Guantanamo Bay prison, but those who tortured and even ordered the torture should be punished. This includes Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. There are those who say, "You want to let terrorists go free?" Terrorists? Haven't they read the Constitution?
> 
> In a free country, one can not call someone a terrorist and then simply claim it is so. You have to PROVE IT!! You have to be CONVICTED in a public court of law. If they committed a crime, try them and convict them in open court. If it's a capital crime, execute him.
> 
> ...


so we should just release them all, give them a sack lunch and send them on thier way?


----------



## AKSkirmish (Jun 24, 2005)

diddye said:


> we should close gitmo to silence the babies then secretly open another secret prison in alaska or some other frigid place but dont let anybody know


They can stay the hell away from here......


----------



## MiGsTeR (Jan 19, 2008)

AKSkirmish said:


> we should close gitmo to silence the babies then secretly open another secret prison in alaska or some other frigid place but dont let anybody know


They can stay the hell away from here......:nod:
[/quote]


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)

At least at Gbay the heat will remind them of home.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

Feefa said:


> At least at Gbay the heat will remind them of home.:nod:


So will a nuke


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

diddye said:


> if I was imprisoned and tortured for years and years for something I didn't do.. I'll get my pay back x2


So you're saying we're imprisoning innocents? Don't be naive.
[/quote]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html

who's being naive?


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> if I was imprisoned and tortured for years and years for something I didn't do.. I'll get my pay back x2


So you're saying we're imprisoning innocents? Don't be naive.
[/quote]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html

who's being naive?
[/quote]

Yeah and there are some mistakenly imprisoned individuals in the US prison system also. So we should release all inmates.


----------



## FuZZy (Apr 18, 2003)

When they close gitmo I think we will see the death toll of insurgents rise, rightfully so.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Looks like more ex-inmates are in al queda after being released

Inmates in new video



r1dermon said:


> if I was imprisoned and tortured for years and years for something I didn't do.. I'll get my pay back x2


So you're saying we're imprisoning innocents? Don't be naive.
[/quote]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html

who's being naive?
[/quote]

Um, I'm already familiar w/ that case. Did you even read your own article? Go read it and you'll see the only reason we held on to them so long was that they wouldn't be released back to China where they would be tortured. Nice try.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

so you claim that we dont hold innocents, but then you defend the decision for us holding innocents...how does that work? can you please explain that logic?

and thewaythingsR, i didn't suggest that...are you? a non-factual statement was made, which i responded to. it was NON-factual. but nice try to put words in my mouth...


----------



## jharrison (Dec 7, 2004)

Did you know there were only 245 people in G-Mo? I thought there were more than that. How difficult would it be to try 245 people and properly discipline them? This has been blown way out of proportion for 245 people.


----------



## Boobah (Jan 25, 2005)

not one for conspiracy theories, but 245 people isn't sh*t. there's other Guantanamo Bay's elsewhere.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> so you claim that we dont hold innocents, but then you defend the decision for us holding innocents...how does that work? can you please explain that logic?
> 
> and thewaythingsR, i didn't suggest that...are you? a non-factual statement was made, which i responded to. it was NON-factual. but nice try to put words in my mouth...


Simple. They were caught and then we quickly found that they were a mistake. But for a couple years we held them b/c they are a minority China would abuse. These detainees would rather stay in US hands then Chinas b/c they would be tortured. Its like the US holding some high value german POW's vs releasing them to the Russians during WWII. Or....its like releasing some kurds to turkey...israeil's to the Palestinians etc. Bascically they are political prisioners.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

FuZZy said:


> so you claim that we dont hold innocents, but then you defend the decision for us holding innocents...how does that work? can you please explain that logic?
> 
> and thewaythingsR, i didn't suggest that...are you? a non-factual statement was made, which i responded to. it was NON-factual. but nice try to put words in my mouth...


and ridermoon. You know what happens overseas? of course you dont, you've never been. Sometimes neighbors have disputes and they'll plant weapons caches or insurgent propaganda on on another's property and then call us. So of course there are innocent people at gitmo. I was saying there are innocent people in almost every prison. So because a we should uphold our values and release every at Gitmo because of a few innocent people, then we should do that on our own soil. I didnt try to put any words in your mouth, you just dont know how to interpret certain things.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

dont assume i've never been overseas...im not, and have never been in the army, but over-seas is a hell of a lot of area.

the people at gitmo who deserve to go to trial, will go to trial. everyone thinks that all these people are just going to be booted back to their countries, when in-fact, some of them will, but all of their cases are going to be reviewed.

either way, you said we dont hold innocents, and now you're disputing that...


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

jharrison said:


> ..waterboarding is NOT torture...."the "cruel, inhumane, or degrading" infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime."


So you're saying that you honestly don't think that strapping someone to a rack and making them feel like they're drowning isn't cruel or degrading? Really?
[/quote]
I hope it is cruel and degrading. And it is at least cruel...good! How else should American intelligence get crucial information from our enemies? Snake bites? dutch rubs? Play 20 questions? Excessive tickling until they pee their pants? 
One thing is for sure...they (the enemy) are not sitting around, comfy in their homes provided by their military, pondering wether or not they are treating us or our captives in a civil, politically correct manor. Cry me a river.
[/quote]

Torture does not provide usable intelligence. Think about it.... if you were getting tortured, you would tell them whatever they wanted to hear to make them stop. So that is what torture provides you with... the information that you want to hear!
[/quote]

Exactly. At least some people here can read between the lines.







The real 'terrorists' are the same people filling your heads with crap! All you people do is swallow, swallow, swallow and then swallow. Learn to spit it out.


----------

