UN Report Urges Gitmo Shutdown

[Orogeny]

AndyF:

I am not going to review all the posts concerning Guantanamo,
the slights of Muslim religions, the porn mags to prisoners, etc. That speaks for itself. Neitheer am I to dig up every news article for the past 3 years. I assume everyone is current on news events.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I am current on news. That is why I am calling you out. As you seem to know, there is NO UN claim of US genocide. Why don’t you admit that you made up your accusation.

Also there is erroneous belief that I need to back up every argument with sold facts that confirmed authorities have used by their decision. It is enough that we find them worthy of the tasks we citizens assign them. The UN is an agreed on institution that the globe(mostly) finds of good repute, and when called upon to support it’s interests in the ongoing war, the US proved that
repute.

That has nothing to do with your accusation. Quit hiding. You made an accusation so back it up or retract.

When the Geneva convention was drawn up, it was to prevent genocidic wrongs on captured prisoners, even if it was by another name.

You don’t even understand what genocide is, do you?

Peace

Tim

 

[Lance]

Philip P:

There’s plenty wrong with Gitmo without throwing around accusations of genocide…

I think the prisoners at Gitmo should either receive a trial or be released (I’d prefer trials myself, with release for those innocent of the charges and appropriate penalties for those found guilty). Your post doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, though.

The case against Gitmo is strong on its merits. Stick to that, instead of picking fights.

This might surprise you but I too think the prisoners should stand trial. It should be a military type trial and some of the evidence may have to be given behind closed doors to protect our sources, never the less they should stand trial and if found not guilty returned to their home countries. If found guilty give them the appropriate punishment in Gitmo. They should never ever be allowed on US soil.

 

[Philip_P]

Lance:

This might surprise you but I too think the prisoners should stand trial. It should be a military type trial and some of the evidence may have to be given behind closed doors to protect our sources, never the less they should stand trial and if found not guilty returned to their home countries. If found guilty give them the appropriate punishment in Gitmo. They should never ever be allowed on US soil.

It doesn’t surprise me as much as you might think. Rule of law isn’t a liberal or conservative issue.

 

[AndyF]

wabrams:

When did we start wholesale killings at Gitmo? Didn’t think there were enough prisoners there to start a genocide.

Genocide by desire is just as sinful.

Of course bringing them to a quality of life where they are borderline dead, or wished they were, is commendable. If by law they restrain themselves, and not by conscience, that is Ok in the eyes of God. But then again the US has the technology to revive flat liners, so that could be discounted also, so they can go ahead with their wishful thinking, God isn’t fooled, and either is the UN.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

Ani Ibi:

Conflict Resolution Graduate Programs - McCormack Graduate School

Interview: Former UN Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire

I didn’t ask you for link, I asked you who he was. What, don’t like your own rules being applied?

Andy

 

[Orogeny]

AndyF:

Genocide by desire is just as sinful.

What in the world are you talking about? Desiring someone dead is as bad as actually killing whole populations?

Who has committed “genocide by desire”? Do you have anything to back up that fallacious accusation?

Peace

Tim

 

[AndyF]

Philip P:

There’s plenty wrong with Gitmo without throwing around accusations of genocide…

I think the prisoners at Gitmo should either receive a trial or be released (I’d prefer trials myself, with release for those innocent of the charges and appropriate penalties for those found guilty). Your post doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, though.

The case against Gitmo is strong on its merits. Stick to that, instead of picking fights.

ichounslow.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14707912&method=full&siteid=53340&headline=guantanamo-briton–saw-deaths–name_page.html

But of course, you’ll deny it.

Andy

 

[wabrams]

AndyF:

Genocide by desire is just as sinful.

Of course bringing them to a quality of life where they are borderline dead, or wished they were, is commendable. If by law they restrain themselves, and not by conscience, that is Ok in the eyes of God. But then again the US has the technology to revive flat liners, so that could be discounted also, so they can go ahead with their wishful thinking, God isn’t fooled, and either is the UN.

Andy

So by holding a couple hundred guys, we, the United States, are desiring genocide? Who are we wanting to wipe out?

 

[AndyF]

Philip P:

There’s plenty wrong with Gitmo without throwing around accusations of genocide…

I think the prisoners at Gitmo should either receive a trial or be released (I’d prefer trials myself, with release for those innocent of the charges and appropriate penalties for those found guilty). Your post doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, though.

The case against Gitmo is strong on its merits. Stick to that, instead of picking fights.

Strange the mindset how it changes when it’s OUR side.

The US has been found guilty. You see, criminals don’t get to try other victims, and neither does it prove virtuos enough to try others either.

Andy

 

[Philip_P]

AndyF:

Strange the mindset how it changes when it’s OUR side.

The US has been found guilty. You see, criminals don’t get to try other victims, and neither does it prove virtuos enough to try others either.

Andy

Hey, if in the course of the trials it becomes apparent that a large number of folks have been wrongfully imprisoned (as may well be the case), I’m all for sticking it to the people in charge. Drag Rumsfeld before the ICC, and whoever else you can make a case for complicity.

But going around shouting “genocide” where none exists and posting with such a, well, frankly incoherent, attitude undermines serious critique.

Read my posts. I am not a fan of this administrion, by a long shot. But this isn’t the way to make an effective critique.

 

[librtee3]

ichounslow.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14707912&method=full&siteid=53340&headline=guantanamo-briton–saw-deaths–name_page.html

But of course, you’ll deny it.

Andy

OK, I see what you mean now Andy.

Good point.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

I am not going to review all the posts concerning Guantanamo

Please be kind enough to answer the question. How did you get genocide from the article you posted?

AndyF:

the slights of Muslim religions, the porn mags to prisoners, etc. That speaks for itself.

Do slights and porn say “genocide”?

AndyF:

Neitheer am I to dig up every news article for the past 3 years. I assume everyone is current on news events.

In order for us to regard your claims with some degree of credibility, we need you to do your own homework. It is unreasonable to expect us to do your work for you. If you cannot back up your accusations, then we are forced to conclude that you concede that your accusations are unfounded.

Having said that, how did you get genocide from the article you posted?

AndyF:

Also there is erroneous belief that I need to back up every argument with sold facts that confirmed authorities have used by their decision.

In this thread, where has that idea been expressed? Saying something is erroneous does not make it so. If you want to tell us things – as opposed to discussing things with us, that may appear at first glance to be your option.

However this, I believe, is not a lecture board. It is a discussion board. So merely telling us things is likely not going to get your point of view a lot of mileage.

For discussion, it is very important in my opinion-- a necessary condition, in fact – to arrive at common understanding of terminology and events.

In order to do that, the folks participating in the discussion are expected to offer links to authoritative sources.

Moreover folks participating in the discussion are normally expected to explain their points of view using logical argumentation.

If those two things are not in place – reference and logic – it is really difficult for folks to understand each other. And therefore really difficult to have discussions.

However, if it is not discussion you after – but merely telling us things – then there is no need for you to offer any links to authoritative sources. And no need for you to go to the trouble of explaining your point of view in the form of logical argumentation.

If this turns out to be your strategy, then you would be seen to concede any points on which you might be setting forth in the form of merely telling us things. Why? Because telling us things in the absence of reference and logic – and even some basic effort to explain your point of view – would be seen to be unreasonable. It is through reason that we would be persuaded.

Some of us might also be asking ourselves by what authority you presume to merely tell us things. Do you believe that you have some special authority to merely tell us things and not use reference and logic to explain your point of view to us? Is it discussion you want? Or merely telling us things?

Occam’s Razor: I just think it is easier all around to discuss things in good faith among interested folks, rather than having one person telling us things.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

It is enough that we find them worthy of the tasks we citizens assign them.

The UN is found worthy of the tasks we assign them? Rwanda? Which citizens of which country are doing the assigning?

AndyF:

The UN is an agreed on institution that the globe(mostly) finds of good repute

There are questions about the relevance of the United Nations in a world where one side of a major global conflict is in fact nationless. As for good repute: Rwanda.

AndyF:

and when called upon to support it’s interests in the ongoing war, the US proved that
repute.

I don’t understand what you have just said. Honestly, could you please explain it, maybe give some more details and set out the steps between each assertion.

AndyF:

When the Geneva convention was drawn up, it was to prevent genocidic wrongs on captured prisoners, even if it was by another name.

OK, would you please be kind enough to offer us a credible definition of “genocide.”

AndyF:

If then the UN deems it below standard, the US finds it in good repute, then it must be below standard.

I am not trying to be difficult. I simply am experiencing difficulty following your logic. One of the problems is your use of faulty referents. It is not always clear to which noun “it” or “they” refers.

AndyF:

There is never an in between in US policy.

“Never” covers a lot of territory. The implication is that US strategic planning is the same for a variety of situations.

AndyF:

Bush said “If they are not with us, they’re against us”

Who were the “they” to which Bush referred when he said this?

AndyF:

so they by their own principles, if they fail by standards then they do.

I simply do not understand what this means.

In any case, please be kind enough to answer the question. How did you get genocide from the article you posted?

end of post

 

[Geldain]

From where I sit, this UN report is a farce. Apparently, based on news reports, the UN has refused to come down to Gitmo and inspect the facility.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

I didn’t ask you for link, I asked you who he was. What, don’t like your own rules being applied?Andy

Andy, your replies are being needlessly confrontational and inflammatory. Please tone down the rhetoric.

You asked me who Dallaire is. I gave you a link to an interview which tells you who Dallaire is.

Your question has been asked and answered. The appropriate response for you would have been “thank you.”

As for rules, it is the forum rules and guidelines which apply here. Not mine. And not yours.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Geldain:

From where I sit, this UN report is a farce. Apparently, based on news reports, the UN has refused to come down to Gitmo and inspect the facility.

I wounder if it is the same sources as those in Rathergate

PF

 

[beckers]

I am totally confused Andy… The UN said that “the United States should shut down the prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay and either release the detainees or put them on trial, the United Nations said in a report released Thursday”…so how did your thought process work on jumping from a request to close a camp equate to genocide?? …(And yes i follow the news and yes I understand History—I majored in it at college)…how does that in any way say genocide…

Genocide (per websters online) : the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group—

If you want examples of genocide then check out this website preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm or

the what the definition per international law preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm#II

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

What the US is doing at Guantanamo Bay is not mass murdering of people because of their race, or religion affiliation…They are holding these people prisoner…Now you may want to argue about the camp in general or the treatment of the people but jumping and saying that the US is actively pursuing genocide is a bad assumption.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

Genocide by desire is just as sinful.

Genocide by desire is just as sinful as what?

Please define genocide. Please define genocide by desire.

AndyF:

Of course bringing them to a quality of life where they are borderline dead, or wished they were, is commendable.

I’ll quote you on this. Please define genocide.

AndyF:

If by law they restrain themselves, and not by conscience, that is Ok in the eyes of God.

Who are “they”? To what Catholic teaching are you referring?

AndyF:

But then again the US has the technology to revive flat liners, so that could be discounted also

What could be discounted?

AndyF:

so they can go ahead with their wishful thinking

What wishful thinking?

AndyF:

God isn’t fooled

God isn’t fooled by what?

AndyF:

and either is the UN.

The UN isn’t fooled by what?

There is no logic in your previous statement whatsoever.

Please define genocide.

I am finding your original post and your posts subsequent to that to be flame bait.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

librtee3:

OK, I see what you mean now Andy.

Good point.

I see you have 3 posts. You seem to be speaking only to Andy? Are you Andy? Is this a pre-meditated pile-on flame bait?

Just wondering.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AndyF:

Strange the mindset how it changes when it’s OUR side.

“OUR side” …

Philip are you involved in this pile-on flame bait?

AndyF:

The US has been found guilty.

In what court?

AndyF:

You see, criminals don’t get to try other victims, and neither does it prove virtuos enough to try others either.

I assume from the structure of your sentence that you are calling the US “criminals.” Do you have some sort of special privilege that allows you to namecall? The forum rules don’t apply to you?

In any case, when folks start namecalling it means that they have forfeited the moral authority to continue in the discussion. Namecalling is not conducive to reasonable discourse.