Poll: Is Guantanamo Bay Wrong or Right?
Poll Options
View poll results: Is Guantanamo Bay Wrong or Right?
Its Right.
21 37%
Its not right, its wrong.
36 63%
Voters: 57.
Page 1 of 4
#1
I would like to cite some references from the US Constitution that both sides should be wary of... because there are articles in the Constitution which verify both options as unconstitutional.

--

Constitutional exerpt which supports Anti-Guantanamo Bay stances.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

Definition- "A bill of attainder is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial."

--

Constitutional exerpt which supports Pro-Guantanamo Bay stances.

Article 1, Section 9 (Located directly above the previous rule in the Constitution)
"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (the right to fair trial) shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

--

Your thoughts?
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#2
Well the exact wording of the pro stance leaves it open as the use of terrorism isn't an invasion as they aren't occupying american territory, and if they fight in Iraq or afghanistan they're fighting against the puppet government of the us, and as that statement applies to US soil it isn't exactly pro-gitmo, also it isn't a rebellion as these people have never sworn alliegence to america.
#3
Quote by Draken
Well the exact wording of the pro stance leaves it open as the use of terrorism isn't an invasion as they aren't occupying american territory, and if they fight in Iraq or afghanistan they're fighting against the puppet government of the us, and as that statement applies to US soil it isn't exactly pro-gitmo, also it isn't a rebellion as these people have never sworn alliegence to america.


Hmm, good point.

What bugs me the most is how vague and empty that statement in the US Constitution is. Apparently the Government can imprison ANYONE they want. They just have to say that they are a national security threat.

I want proof that they are a national security threat.
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#4
Do they really feed you cockmeat sandwiches there? :p
Gear:
Epiphone G-400 Ebony
Line-6 UberMetal, EchoPark
Boss RC-2 Loop Station
Traynor YCV50Blue, Bass Mate 25, Guitar Mate 15
#5
Quote by SlinkyBlue
Hmm, good point.

What bugs me the most is how vague and empty that statement in the US Constitution is. Apparently the Government can imprison ANYONE they want. They just have to say that they are a national security threat.

I want proof that they are a national security threat.


Well it's all legalese in the constitution isn't it? i mean when was legal langauge ever meant to be clear and easy to interpret.


I think if they're guilty then the US govt should put them up for trial, otherwise it just makes them look incompetent.
#6
Pshhh, it costs quite a bit of money to keep someone imprisoned, and the US government doesn't want to have them there. They wouldn't just imprison them on a whim. Logically for their finances, they'd have to have good reason, and if these terrorists are trying to kill us, why are we whining that they aren't being treated humane? Think if some guy killed your sibling or parent, or you found that they had plans to. You wouldn't invite them over and have them for dinner, you'd want them far away, being watched.

Americans are far to comfortable, and are ironically ignorant sometimes.
Jesus for president. PM me to join the campaign. or just sig it.

Of course God has a sense of humor. Look at the Platypus...

Member #9 of the Trumpet Players' Alliance, PM E V H 5150 to inquire about joining.
#7
Your a f*cking retard. Did you know one of the supreme court cases(cannot remember which because civics and econ was so long ago) said the US can hold people based on cultural/racial factors during time of war. Also they recieve free food and healthcare (which is more than many/any americans get). And "stalling" the trial can be for the reason that they do not know the customs of our legal system, and we dont want them trying to communicate terrorist messages during the trial. Learn to read, and then come back
people with large sig's are clearly compensating for something.
#8
But how do you know those guys are guilty they might be in the wrong place at the wrong time, hating america isn't a crime. Acting on that hatred is if it harms people or causes another to harm people.
#9
The Constitution of the United States of America only applies to U.S. citizens, U.S. Nationals, and legal residents of the United States of America. It has no power over non-U.S. Citizens, and therefore the government has no legal boundaries prohibiting the imprisonment of those at Guantanamo Bay.

The Geneva Convention Treaties only apply to declared wars, and only can be applied to those who fight under the flag of a Sovereign Nation. The "War in Iraq" is technically a police action, and therefore has no legal recourse in the context of the Geneva Convention.
#10
Quote by Draken
But how do you know those guys are guilty they might be in the wrong place at the wrong time, hating america isn't a crime. Acting on that hatred is if it harms people or causes another to harm people.

They kinda confessed....Heck one of them was being disruptive during a pre-trial and the judge reminded him that he could face the death penalty, and the guy replied "It would be an honor to die a martyr..."
people with large sig's are clearly compensating for something.
#11
Quote by cashewchaching
Are you responding to mine? Because if it is, yours isn't refuting mine at all...

no, im responding to the thread in general(mainly to the starter)
EDIT: yours is one of the only logical comments on here.
people with large sig's are clearly compensating for something.
#13
Quote by Draken
But how do you know those guys are guilty they might be in the wrong place at the wrong time, hating america isn't a crime. Acting on that hatred is if it harms people or causes another to harm people.

Yes, but then it's almost an ethical question. You may send one man to his death, but then you could release another terrorist who might go on to kill ten people and himself in a suicide bomb. It's a hard decision. I'd rather be safe and go with 1 then a possible 10. Even if it's not an actual war, this is still a bloody conflict, and there will be deaths on both sides.
Jesus for president. PM me to join the campaign. or just sig it.

Of course God has a sense of humor. Look at the Platypus...

Member #9 of the Trumpet Players' Alliance, PM E V H 5150 to inquire about joining.
#15
Quote by Lamrick21
no, im responding to the thread in general(mainly to the starter)

Ah, gotcha. Sorry about that.
Jesus for president. PM me to join the campaign. or just sig it.

Of course God has a sense of humor. Look at the Platypus...

Member #9 of the Trumpet Players' Alliance, PM E V H 5150 to inquire about joining.
#16
I think the human rights abuses at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan are far worse than the sum total of terrorist attacks through history.
#17
Quote by SlinkyBlue
Hmm, good point.

What bugs me the most is how vague and empty that statement in the US Constitution is. Apparently the Government can imprison ANYONE they want. They just have to say that they are a national security threat.

I want proof that they are a national security threat.



are you a freaking idiot YES all terrorists are a national security threat!
Quote by gregs1020
Brett has been saving for a splawn for 4 years
countries have been toppled in the time it's taking, revolutions won got a black pres

yawn


Quote by bubb_tubbs
When he finally gets one it'll probably be televised like the Berlin Wall coming down.
The end of an era
#18
Thing is if it's a police action in Iraq, who is America policing for? who did they ask if they could police it. Police Action just means that America doesn't want to declare war on the insurgeants because that would mean they had to treat them better as they'd be a military force and they wouldn't be able to put them in Gitmo because the geneva convention would fully apply.
#19
Quote by smb
I think the human rights abuses at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan are far worse than the sum total of terrorist attacks through history.

You realize you just said Guantanamo bay is far worse than the holocaust right?
people with large sig's are clearly compensating for something.
#20
Quote by Lamrick21
You realize you just said Guantanamo bay is far worse than the holocaust right?
I said no such thing. Can you read?
#21
Quote by Bostonrocks
are you a freaking idiot YES all terrorists are a national security threat!



Arrest me.
I'd gleefully commit an "act of terror" if it were to make the world better.
#22
Quote by Lamrick21
You realize you just said Guantanamo bay is far worse than the holocaust right?


I don't think the Holocaust is considered a terrorist attack. Genocide in general isn't a terrorist attack. A genocide removes a mass amount of people. A terrorist attack is generally much smaller, and is used to create a feeling of fear and uncertainty within a population.
#23
Quote by smb
I said no such thing. Can you read?



yes and you said that the things at gitmo are much worse than losing more than 100,000 CIVILIANS through out history

no offense but that my friend is stupidity

EDIT:

To Original=punk

I would also gleefully arrest you if you ever tried to do kill someone on American soil
Quote by gregs1020
Brett has been saving for a splawn for 4 years
countries have been toppled in the time it's taking, revolutions won got a black pres

yawn


Quote by bubb_tubbs
When he finally gets one it'll probably be televised like the Berlin Wall coming down.
The end of an era
#24
To be fair in britain these terrorists have prompted internment without a trial to be extended to 42 days, it was only 14 days during the height of the IRA attacks on the mainland and they made an attempt on the leading political party, these guys have set themselves on fire here and hit a few buses, the IRA blew up crowded pubs wtf mate!
#26
Quote by smb
I think the human rights abuses at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan are far worse than the sum total of terrorist attacks through history.

Are you serious? Guantanamo bay and the middle east is nothing compared to the 3000 dead on 9/11 alone. Then combine that with the london underground was bombed a while ago(i think, i dunno, correct me if i'm wrong) that train system in madrid, and the 10 people killed daily from suicide bombs? How many people have died at guantanamo bay anyway? I assure you it can't be more than 3000.


^ Oh yeah, how bamf is wikipedia...
Jesus for president. PM me to join the campaign. or just sig it.

Of course God has a sense of humor. Look at the Platypus...

Member #9 of the Trumpet Players' Alliance, PM E V H 5150 to inquire about joining.
Last edited by cashewchaching at Jun 12, 2008,
#27
The holocaust was government and military action. Locking up and torturing innocents. You know, just like the US do at Guantanamo.
#28
Quote by smb
The holocaust was government and military action. Locking up and torturing innocents. You know, just like the US do at Guantanamo.



VERY few of them are actually innocent sir.
Quote by gregs1020
Brett has been saving for a splawn for 4 years
countries have been toppled in the time it's taking, revolutions won got a black pres

yawn


Quote by bubb_tubbs
When he finally gets one it'll probably be televised like the Berlin Wall coming down.
The end of an era
#29
Quote by cashewchaching
Are you serious? Guantanamo bay and the middle east is nothing compared to the 3000 dead on 9/11 alone. Then combine that with the london underground was bombed a while ago(i think, i dunno, correct me if i'm wrong) that train system in madrid, and the 10 people killed daily from suicide bombs? How many people have died at guantanamo bay anyway? I assure you it can't be more than 3000.
Yes I'm serious. You think US troops in Iraq haven't killed many many times more innocent bystanders than the terrorists did in September 2001? Get real.
#30
Quote by Draken
Thing is if it's a police action in Iraq, who is America policing for? who did they ask if they could police it. Police Action just means that America doesn't want to declare war on the insurgeants because that would mean they had to treat them better as they'd be a military force and they wouldn't be able to put them in Gitmo because the geneva convention would fully apply.

Exactly. Politics is a mother****er.

As far as the ethics of this, it is an armed conflict. Of course there are going to be atrocities and such on BOTH sides of the fence. That is the nature of armed conflict. But remember, there are no war criminals among the victors.
#31
Jesus.

Two people have called me a "****ing idiot" because I said want proof that they are terrorists.

Wow. Some people should probably read the constitution.
"The future's uncertain, and The End is always near."
-Jim Morrison
#32
Quote by Bostonrocks
VERY few of them are actually innocent sir.
They are all innocent, because they haven't been charged with any crimes. In law that makes them innocent.
#33
Look, im not saying its the best thing weve ever done, but would you rather have them in a facility where they can contact, or spread messages to other "suspected" terrorists? War has its costs, whether its the people waging it or the people responding to it, there will be unjust actions on both sides.
people with large sig's are clearly compensating for something.
#34
Quote by smb
Yes I'm serious. You think US troops in Iraq haven't killed many many times more innocent bystanders than the terrorists did in September 2001? Get real.



No I don't think I KNOW that they haven't friendly fire happens but AMERICAN troops have not killed Civilians on PURPOSE unless they were a threat

EDIT: Lamrick I agree
Quote by gregs1020
Brett has been saving for a splawn for 4 years
countries have been toppled in the time it's taking, revolutions won got a black pres

yawn


Quote by bubb_tubbs
When he finally gets one it'll probably be televised like the Berlin Wall coming down.
The end of an era
#35
It's a shame as two of the nazi leaders were tried and convicted to prison for a crime that both Britain and America committed which was violating the 1930 treaty london which regarded toward submarine warfare as during the war all nations participated in unrestricted submarine warfare.
#36
Quote by Draken
It's a shame as two of the nazi leaders were tried and convicted to prison for a crime that both Britain and America committed which was violating the 1930 treaty london which regarded toward submarine warfare as during the war all nations participated in unrestricted submarine warfare.


actually no the Germans violated that treaty first
Quote by gregs1020
Brett has been saving for a splawn for 4 years
countries have been toppled in the time it's taking, revolutions won got a black pres

yawn


Quote by bubb_tubbs
When he finally gets one it'll probably be televised like the Berlin Wall coming down.
The end of an era
#37
Quote by Bostonrocks
No I don't think I KNOW that they haven't friendly fire happens but AMERICAN troops have not killed Civilians on PURPOSE unless they were a threat
What does intention matter? You started with the death toll calculus. Far more innocent civilians have been killed by US troops in the middle east than by terrorist actions.
#38
Quote by smb
Yes I'm serious. You think US troops in Iraq haven't killed many many times more innocent bystanders than the terrorists did in September 2001? Get real.

Define "innocent".

If it is a person who simply does nothing, and their act of doing nothing directly puts American Soldiers in danger, they are going to be killed. Furthermore, the amount of "innocent bystanders" killed by the United States in this conflict is FAR less than the number of "innocent bystanders" killed by Iraqi/Iranian/Afghani/Syrian/Saudi "freedom fighters".
#39
Quote by Draken
It's a shame as two of the nazi leaders were tried and convicted to prison for a crime that both Britain and America committed which was violating the 1930 treaty london which regarded toward submarine warfare as during the war all nations participated in unrestricted submarine warfare.



I also think it's a shame how everyone jumps on Germany's old eugenics program, when a f*ckload of countries did it beforehand- US, UK... hell, Sweden didn't drop their program until 1975
#40
Quote by imgooley
Define "innocent".

If it is a person who simply does nothing, and their act of doing nothing directly puts American Soldiers in danger, they are going to be killed. Furthermore, the amount of "innocent bystanders" killed by the United States in this conflict is FAR less than the number of "innocent bystanders" killed by Iraqi/Iranian/Afghani/Syrian/Saudi "freedom fighters".



+ a million
Quote by gregs1020
Brett has been saving for a splawn for 4 years
countries have been toppled in the time it's taking, revolutions won got a black pres

yawn


Quote by bubb_tubbs
When he finally gets one it'll probably be televised like the Berlin Wall coming down.
The end of an era
Page 1 of 4