Author Topic: The waterboarding controversy  (Read 1043 times)

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
The waterboarding controversy
« Reply #60 on: November 03, 2007, 01:46:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Odee
THEY, the enemy, do not get lawyers.  Period.  No where in the articles of war or the Geneva Convention (of which Al Quiada is not a signatory) is it written that POWs get lawyers.  They can be vistied by Red Cross and other NEUTRAL parties.  Other than that all they get is held in prisons.  And after the war is over, they get REPATRIATED to their own craphole country.


But Bush claims they aren't POWs. The neutral parties have restricted access to them. Unlike POWs, Gitmo detainees are pending for a trial, which why it is reasonable to also let them have an access to lawyers. The state of an enemy is also questionable, because some of the detainees have been released, which means they haven't been enemies or otherwise they wouldn't have been set free.

Gitmo detainees have been also arrested under different conditions. They haven't been necessarily detained on the battlefield like POWs, but they've been also arrested from their home et cetera. In several cases they've been turned in to the US troops by locals who have been after the reward money. It's a nice way to get rid of someone who you have quarrel with and even get money for it.

That's what is the problem here: Being detained in Gitmo isn't a guarantee of a person being an enemy combatant. Therefore torture is bad, restricting their access to lawyer is bad, etc.

Offline MORAY37

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2318
The waterboarding controversy
« Reply #61 on: November 03, 2007, 01:48:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
wow. just...'wow'. could you explain to  me the police officer/citizen comparison to that  of a soldier/terrorist ?


If you take away the rights of one group, it is inevitable you take them away from others.  Remember, Bush just declared our own soil a battleground.... how long until US citizens are held without due process?

I will never defend a terrorists stance... it's wrong.  

I would point out, that most of those who say we should do anything possible to kill them all, would be the first to take up arms were we under occupation for any reason whatsoever.

But, I will defend our democratic stance of habeas corpus and free will determination.  For the price of 3,000 american lives, the lives of three of my friends alone, this country sold it's soul.... that which made it different, that made us stand apart.  Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.... not just those you agree with.  See back to the end of World War Two...when our allies wanted to hang everyone, and we alone, stood up to say "Give due Process it's time".
That was the sole reason for the Nuremburg Trials.... trials which should be seen as a win for rational thought, and a defeat for "caveman justice".
"Ocean: A body of water occupying 2/3 of a world made for man...who has no gills."
-Ambrose Bierce