Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

**HoreTore** · 03-09-2011, 16:23

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

If you're actually interested in the facts surrounding the situation and not simply throwing around rhetoric, then you should.

It has nothing to do with the issue.

The US tortured people. Torture is not acceptable. Thus, the US must correct its mistake and let these people go and apoologize for their crime.

If some of them wants to commit a crime in response, then the US will of course be free to arrest them again, provided they do things properly the second time.

Some US citiens may loose their lives because of the actions these people might commit because of what h happened to them. That is the consequence of torturing people.

Personal responsibility, one must live with the consequences that comes from ones actions.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-09-2011, 16:35

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It has nothing to do with the issue.

The US tortured people. Torture is not acceptable. Thus, the US must correct its mistake and let these people go and apoologize for their crime.

If some of them wants to commit a crime in response, then the US will of course be free to arrest them again, provided they do things properly the second time.

Some US citiens may loose their lives because of the actions these people might commit because of what h happened to them. That is the consequence of torturing people.

Personal responsibility, one must live with the consequences that comes from ones actions.

The US' adminstration's first priority is to it's own people, if these prisoners represent a threat they cannot be released. One does not loose a rbaid dog in a playground.

**HoreTore** · 03-09-2011, 16:56

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The US' adminstration's first priority is to it's own people, if these prisoners represent a threat they cannot be released. One does not loose a rbaid dog in a playground.

Do we punish people for what they have actually done, or do we punish them for what we believe they might do?

And do we allow one group to investigate, prosecute and judge? Or do we split that responsibility among different groups? If so, what is the reason for that split?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-09-2011, 23:28

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Do we punish people for what they have actually done, or do we punish them for what we believe they might do?

And do we allow one group to investigate, prosecute and judge? Or do we split that responsibility among different groups? If so, what is the reason for that split?

Most of these men are guilty, the problem is that the evidence that proves this was got at using evidence from torture - this makes the proof inadmissable. The issue is the "poisened tree" laws in the US. A legal system that allowed these men to be prosecuted would see a lot of them convicted. So actually I think that, purely with reference to the prisoners themselves, keeping them in detention is a lesser evil compared to setting them fee.

**HoreTore** · 03-11-2011, 14:08

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Most of these men are guilty, the problem is that the evidence that proves this was got at using evidence from torture - this makes the proof inadmissable. The issue is the "poisened tree" laws in the US. A legal system that allowed these men to be prosecuted would see a lot of them convicted. So actually I think that, purely with reference to the prisoners themselves, keeping them in detention is a lesser evil compared to setting them fee.

Most?

So, plenty of the people there are completely innocent then? But because they're brown it's all OK?

**Centurion1** · 03-16-2011, 00:38

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Most?

So, plenty of the people there are completely innocent then? But because they're brown it's all OK?

your consistent use of the race card is disgusting and annoying. And no I do not want to hear about how your sisters boyfriend is black or whatever it is you say.

If anything the issue here would be their religion. The fact that they are "brown" as you so eloquently put it probably has zero impact on this decision.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 03-16-2011, 02:13

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Most?

So, plenty of the people there are completely innocent then? But because they're brown it's all OK?

A lot of them are about as "brown" Italians or Greeks, they're Mediteranian, but maybe that distinction is lost of you in your Northern Fastness. The issue is that we don't know what to do with them, but "just" letting them go is foolish.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 03-16-2011, 03:27

Gah!

You knuckledragging paleoconservatives were right all along!

**PanzerJaeger** · 03-16-2011, 06:05

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Most?

So, plenty of the people there are completely innocent then? But because they're brown it's all OK?

I would wager that all are guilty at this point. What the screamers don't seem to acknowledge is that these people are not locked away in a dark cell and forgotten. Their cases were under constant review during the Bush administration, and many hundreds were released. (How do you think the US was able to record recidivism?) This process has been heavily expedited during the Obama years with many released who probably shouldn't have been in the failed effort to close the facility. At this point, they're down to the worst of the worst - those that pose such a risk that they can neither be released nor traded away to our allies for beneficial trade deals and subsidies.

**HoreTore** · 03-16-2011, 09:32

So, if the Police is certain, 100% positive, that you're guilty, there's no need for a trial?

We are to trust the competence of the police officer, and accept his or her judgement when it comes to seperating the guilty from the innocent?