Gitmo?

[Contarini]

If our nation is invalid in the eyes of God it is because of the 1.3M abortions performed each year, not the 385 terrorists temporarily imprisoned in Guantanamo.

Ender

Our lack of respect for human life and dignity takes many forms. “Conservatives” defend some evils; “liberals” defend others. God condemns all.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Ill try to remember that when they are dragging our soldiers burning carcasses through the streets.

Do so. If you are a Christian, your only alternative is damnation.

If you are a heathen or an atheist, God will perhaps let you off easy. But I wouldn’t risk my immortal soul on it if I were you.

Edwin

 

[Hastrman]

You seem like a moderately intelligent person; you really should be able to understand my arguments even if you disagree with them. This caricature of my position is unjustified and does you no credit.

SoCalRC seems incapable of holding any idea that didn’t come directly from the Vatican–but any idea that comes from the Vatican, even a lunch menu, (s)he will consider Dei Verbum Literalis. Two thousand years of Catholic tradition regarding prudential thought, very technical definitions of papal authority–straight down the drain.

Any thinker not a bishop, (s)he will simply refer to as “the layman”, and act as though their presumption, that their faith should seek understanding, or that they should try to apply the principles of the faith in the real world, is purest blasphemy. Any argument, no matter how logical and how consonant with the teaching of the Magisterium, must be signed by not fewer than three bishops.

It’s surreal, by the way, to discuss things with someone who only accepts arguments from authority, and whose own such arguments always have a chaser of implied ad hominem.

SoCal, you dislike violence so much, did you know your favored form of argument–ab auctoritate–is also known as “Arguing from the Big Stick?”

 

[markomalley]

I’m reading up on it, includeing your links, I think the subject of waterboarding is very much relivent to the OP, or at least the spirit of it.

So have you had a chance yet to look through the International Law documents I cited early in the thread yet?

Based upon what you have read, are there any questions as to whether a camp to inter combatants is legal, according to International Law, or not?

(I ask the above without regards to your opinion about HOW it is run)

Also, have you had a chance to look through one of the SOPs yet (that I cited in my last post to you)? I know, at 238 pages, each one is pretty long, but perhaps you would be interested in scanning it…as it shows how the internees are SUPPOSED to be treated.

Let me know.

(The reason why I press on these issues is that there are facts available out there on the subject and those facts may not agree with a lot of the propaganda out there. We should discuss based on facts, not propaganda)

The bottom line is that there are three key questions, in my mind, on this subject:

1. Is it, according to International Law, lawful to detain and inter combatants captured as a result of a military operation? (If not, then the existence of the facility itself is illegitimate. If so, keep reading
2. Are the rules under which the facility operates written to comply with International Law? (BTW, from reading those rules, I have found that the ICRC is allowed to visit internees…I didn’t realize that before) (If not, then those rules should be challenged…not the existence of the camp. If they are, then keep reading
3. If there are violations of the above rules, are the violations punished? (If not, then the fact that discipline among the captors is not being enforced should be challenged…not the existence of the camp or the state of the rules that are in force)

See the point I’m getting at?

Also, the other question is that I wonder if there are protests going on about the treatment of American/Coalition personnel who are captured by the other side?
(Graphic photos edited by moderator.)

 

[iamrefreshed]

If, during WWII, a ‘spy’ or ‘terrorist’ were captured by American troops he would as likely been shot as been detained. Detention was for those enemy soldiers brave enough to put on a uniform and not hide behind the civilian population.

Why is this you ask?

One simple reason. Technology and mass media. With ‘imbedded’ reporters, cameras on everything, and the Internet a soldier is no longer a soldier but a cop looking over his shoulder constantly.

 

[Contarini]

One simple reason. Technology and mass media. With ‘imbedded’ reporters, cameras on everything, and the Internet a soldier is no longer a soldier but a cop looking over his shoulder constantly.

And that’s a Very Good Thing. Whenever you give some people the power to kill other people, no degree of surveillance of those with the power to kill is excessive or unreasonable.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If, during WWII, a ‘spy’ or ‘terrorist’ were captured by American troops he would as likely been shot as been detained.

Yes. This was a very dark period in world history. We all came close to slipping into the abyss of totalitarianism.

Why is this you ask?

One simple reason. Technology and mass media. With ‘imbedded’ reporters, cameras on everything, and the Internet a soldier is no longer a soldier but a cop looking over his shoulder constantly.

 

[iamrefreshed]

And that’s a Very Good Thing. Whenever you give some people the power to kill other people, no degree of surveillance of those with the power to kill is excessive or unreasonable.

Edwin

I don’t think it’s a very good thing for the soldier. They don’t need reporters and folks on the Internet poking into their soldiering. That’s what the officers are for.

Soldiering, since the begining, was ugly, hard and brutal. Filming it to police it by people who never did it only endangers the soldier.

War is ugly. There is no way to make it pretty.People die. Both soldiers and civilians. Until war is completely ended it will always be this way.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think it’s a very good thing for the soldier. They don’t need reporters and folks on the Internet poking into their soldiering. That’s what the officers are for.

Soldiering, since the begining, was ugly, hard and brutal. Filming it to police it by people who never did it only endangers the soldier.

War is ugly. There is no way to make it pretty.People die. Both soldiers and civilians. Until war is completely ended it will always be this way.

That’s an excellent argument for pacifism. If we can’t fight war morally, we shouldn’t fight it at all. If people turn against war when they discover what it is like, then we shouldn’t be involved in it.

I believe in just war theoretically. But I have no particular stake in believing that a just war is possible in practice. I think it is, but it may not be. Your argument would suggest that perhaps it isn’t, which would mean that all Christians should be pacifists in practice even if not in theory.

Edwin

 

[IvanKaramozov]

So have you had a chance yet to look through the International Law documents I cited early in the thread yet?

Based upon what you have read, are there any questions as to whether a camp to inter combatants is legal, according to International Law, or not?

(I ask the above without regards to your opinion about HOW it is run)

Also, have you had a chance to look through one of the SOPs yet (that I cited in my last post to you)? I know, at 238 pages, each one is pretty long, but perhaps you would be interested in scanning it…as it shows how the internees are SUPPOSED to be treated.

Let me know.

(The reason why I press on these issues is that there are facts available out there on the subject and those facts may not agree with a lot of the propaganda out there. We should discuss based on facts, not propaganda)

The bottom line is that there are three key questions, in my mind, on this subject:

1. Is it, according to International Law, lawful to detain and inter combatants captured as a result of a military operation? (If not, then the existence of the facility itself is illegitimate. If so, keep reading
2. Are the rules under which the facility operates written to comply with International Law? (BTW, from reading those rules, I have found that the ICRC is allowed to visit internees…I didn’t realize that before) (If not, then those rules should be challenged…not the existence of the camp. If they are, then keep reading
3. If there are violations of the above rules, are the violations punished? (If not, then the fact that discipline among the captors is not being enforced should be challenged…not the existence of the camp or the state of the rules that are in force)

See the point I’m getting at?

Also, the other question is that I wonder if there are protests going on about the treatment of American/Coalition personnel who are captured by the other side?
(Graphic photos edited by moderator.)
one.jpg (image)

The length is a problem as I’m fairly busy right now, but I’ll start working on it this Friday, I don’t think you’ve been “pushing” it, there is nothing pushy about wanting a response to the very impressive case you presented

 

[iamrefreshed]

That’s an excellent argument for pacifism. If we can’t fight war morally, we shouldn’t fight it at all. If people turn against war when they discover what it is like, then we shouldn’t be involved in it.

I believe in just war theoretically. But I have no particular stake in believing that a just war is possible in practice. I think it is, but it may not be. Your argument would suggest that perhaps it isn’t, which would mean that all Christians should be pacifists in practice even if not in theory.

Edwin

Isn’t that the ultimate goal for us all?

You can’t make something ugly pretty. You just can’t.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

They weren’t released because they were tried and found innocent.

Right. They were never tried at all.

I deal with one false statement at a time. As for your statement, they weren’t tried because there is no obligation to do so. Terrorists don’t merit POW status and even POWs don’t merit trials and, if they did, it would only be by a military court. Since the prisoners’ situations are reviewed annually by a military tribunal I think we have already gone beyond what they deserve. As for releasing them at all - if you really want them to have POW status you need to recognize that there is no obligation to release a POW until the cessation of hostilities.

Clearly these people were not vicious murderers who want to behead us all and would do so in a minute if not caged up like animals. In other words, the pro-Gitmo folks are saying things that quite obviously are not true.

Since evidence has had no part in forming your opinion I am unconvinced that evidence to the contrary will change it, but I’ll provide some anyway.

mensnewsdaily.com/2007/08/17/releasing-wolves-among-sheep-freeing-the-guantanamo-detainees-is-just-plain-wrong/

Ender

 

[Meathead]

If your such a moral person Contarini, perhaps you should go over to the Middle East and preach to the terrorists. I am sure they would love to listen to your self-righteous arguments on why its immoral to torture and kill prisoners, as they agree with you whole-heartedly.

 

[tomarin]

If your such a moral person Contarini, perhaps you should go over to the Middle East and preach to the terrorists. I am sure they would love to listen to your self-righteous arguments on why its immoral to torture and kill prisoners, as they agree with you whole-heartedly.

that’s precisely the point of holding our leaders to account. what’s the point of fighting a highly moralistic war (rhetorically speaking) against terrorists if we are going to behave like a terror state? what have we won if we sink to that level of barbarity?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If your such a moral person Contarini, perhaps you should go over to the Middle East and preach to the terrorists. I am sure they would love to listen to your self-righteous arguments on why its immoral to torture and kill prisoners, as they agree with you whole-heartedly.

Do you actually disagree with any of his statements, or do you just want him dead? If the former, let’s discuss the statements without death wishes. If the latter… you might want to discuss that with a priest.