Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 10 Oct '16 09:08
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEbFtMgGhPY
  2. 10 Oct '16 12:44
    What I find interesting is just how many people are willing to discard morals when they think it doesn't apply to them ie they support immoral laws if those laws will only affect other groups. I guess this is also how racism lasts so long.

    In this case people are supporting rules for Guantanamo detainees that they would never accept domestically and every argument they give for keeping Guantanamo or having it in the first place they would not actually accept in their own justice system. Its interesting that John Oliver failed to bring that up.
  3. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    10 Oct '16 12:55
    I agree that Guantanamo should have been closed years ago.
  4. 10 Oct '16 13:43
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    What I find interesting is just how many people are willing to discard morals when they think it doesn't apply to them ie they support immoral laws if those laws will only affect other groups. I guess this is also how racism lasts so long.

    In this case people are supporting rules for Guantanamo detainees that they would never accept domestically and ev ...[text shortened]... ly accept in their own justice system. Its interesting that John Oliver failed to bring that up.
    Protections are expensive -- in dollars and opportunity costs. It makes sense that we give more protections to our citizens than to non-citizens -- especially when the non-citizen is connected to violent terrorist group.
  5. 10 Oct '16 13:54
    Originally posted by quackquack
    Protections are expensive -- in dollars and opportunity costs. It makes sense that we give more protections to our citizens than to non-citizens -- especially when the non-citizen is connected to violent terrorist group.
    Huh?
  6. 10 Oct '16 14:07
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEbFtMgGhPY
    The ones that Obama released are now back in the terrorist game.
  7. 10 Oct '16 14:29
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    What I find interesting is just how many people are willing to discard morals when they think it doesn't apply to them ie they support immoral laws if those laws will only affect other groups. I guess this is also how racism lasts so long.

    In this case people are supporting rules for Guantanamo detainees that they would never accept domestically and ev ...[text shortened]... ly accept in their own justice system. Its interesting that John Oliver failed to bring that up.
    he did, when he showed an interview with a Collin Powell aide calling people who are unwilling to risk releasing Gitmo's detainees cowards and subsequently reminding us that "Freedom isn't free".
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Oct '16 14:30 / 1 edit
    Why do people worry so much about whether this building stays in operation or not?

    Isn't the real issue whether to hold suspected terrorists or not and under what circumstances? If Gitmo is closed and they moved the suspected terrorists to SuperMax, would that be better? If Gitmo stays open and they don't keep people there unless they've been convicted, would that be worse?

    The whole issue seems one of substanceless symbolism.
  9. 10 Oct '16 14:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    The ones that Obama released are now back in the terrorist game.
    less than 10%
    EDIT: 5.6% to be exact

    saying that you are unwilling to release wrongfully detained humans because 10% of them might be actual terrorists reveals how rotten you are as a human being.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    10 Oct '16 14:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    What I find interesting is just how many people are willing to discard morals when they think it doesn't apply to them ie they support immoral laws if those laws will only affect other groups. I guess this is also how racism lasts so long.

    In this case people are supporting rules for Guantanamo detainees that they would never accept domestically and ev ...[text shortened]... ly accept in their own justice system. Its interesting that John Oliver failed to bring that up.
    Wouldn't this concern be better accomplished by increasing due process protections for Guantanamo detainees more so than closing down the facility and presumably just holding these detainees somewhere else?
  11. 10 Oct '16 14:34 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    less than 10%
    EDIT: 5.6% to be exact

    saying that you are unwilling to release wrongfully detained humans because 10% of them might be actual terrorists reveals how rotten you are as a human being.
    10%? Where did you get that number?

    I suspect they are holding these folks for a reason. Why do you think they are, because they hate Muslims?
  12. 10 Oct '16 14:37
    Originally posted by sh76
    Wouldn't this concern be better accomplished by increasing due process protections for Guantanamo detainees more so than closing down the facility and presumably just holding these detainees somewhere else?
    at this point, Guantanamo stands as a symbol of US casually imprisoning other countries' citizens, many times outside of its own territory and many times without proper cause.

    shutting it is just as necessary as abandoning these heinous practices.
  13. 10 Oct '16 14:39
    Originally posted by whodey
    10%? Where did you get that number?

    I suspect they are holding these folks for a reason. Why do you think they are, because they hate Muslims?
    from Oliver. who got it from your government.
    want me to look the actual data up? i trust Oliver enough to be sure i will find the facts after minimum googling.


    "I suspect they are holding these folks for a reason"
    yes. the problem is that those reasons are many times ludicrous.

    "Why do you think they are, because they hate Muslims?"
    no, because you are cowards and you would rather imprison an innocent person than risk letting a terrorist go free.
  14. 10 Oct '16 15:11
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    he did, when he showed an interview with a Collin Powell aide calling people who are unwilling to risk releasing Gitmo's detainees cowards and subsequently reminding us that "Freedom isn't free".
    "Freedom isn't free" means that sometimes we have to devote resources to killing those who wish to eliminate our way of life or to detain them indefinitely in a place like Gitmo. Simply, I much rather be free of a potential attack than release someone with links to a terrorist group. If this offends you, which apparently it does, I am very willing to pay that additional small price than o be free of their potential attack.
    Apparently more people think like me than you because despite Obama's naive campaign promise, we can all be thankful that Gitmo is still open.
  15. 10 Oct '16 15:20
    Originally posted by quackquack
    "Freedom isn't free" means that sometimes we have to devote resources to killing those who wish to eliminate our way of life or to detain them indefinitely in a place like Gitmo. Simply, I much rather be free of a potential attack than release someone with links to a terrorist group. If this offends you, which apparently it does, I am very willing to pa ...[text shortened]... because despite Obama's naive campaign promise, we can all be thankful that Gitmo is still open.
    "Freedom isn't free" means that sometimes we have to devote resources to killing those who wish to eliminate our way of life or to detain them indefinitely in a place like Gitmo.
    the problem with your rather psychotic view is that the majority of the people that went through gitmo are innocent. the majority were detained without a sane cause.

    so it basically is the same as imprisoning an apartment building full of people because there might be a murderer among them. then keeping them in prison because you don't know how to charge them of something, because you still don't know who the murderer is, torturing them all then using that information to imprison even more people.

    "Simply, I much rather be free of a potential attack than release someone with links to a terrorist group"
    what part of "the vast majority of gitmonians are innocent?" eludes you?

    "Apparently more people think like me than you because despite Obama's naive campaign promise, we can all be thankful that Gitmo is still open.["
    yes, like i said, cowards all of you.

    didn't franklin said something in the lines of those that are willing to sacrifice freedom to gain security deserve neither and will lose both? it's nice that what you learned from that is that it is ok to sacrifice other people's freedom.