• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Funny Gitmo political cartoon

Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah. detaining people without ever charging them with a crime is hillarious.

Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.
 
Originally posted by: Tab
I laughed. 🙁

You people have no humour..

Sure the cartoon was cute, but it in no way invalidates any criticism of Gitmo's policies and history, which the OP seems to think are "ridiculous ."
 
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah. detaining people without ever charging them with a crime is hillarious.

Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.

because we're the united states and should be better than our enemies.
 
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah. detaining people without ever charging them with a crime is hillarious.

Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.

If we're not concerned about people being mis-treated, then why did we invade Iraq to supposedly creat a democracy?? Isn't that the justifacation used by the right now for invading Iraq?? Shouldn't we be setting an example??
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah. detaining people without ever charging them with a crime is hillarious.

Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.

because we're the united states and should be better than our enemies.

Ideally, the U.S SHOULD be extended certain rights to these indiviuals as they are soliders. The US just found away to be creative and claims these soliders are not from any particular country or fighting for one. They are "terrorists" Therefore they are not covered by any UN or Geneva Conventions.

Therefore, we can do whatever the fvck we want.

Not, that I agree with that at all.
 
While I certainly don't think prisoners of any kind should be intentionally mistreated I think people on both sides of the argument are vastly over-reacting to some of the specifics, which I think is what the comic is saying. Certainly there are other issues that deserve more attention than Gitmo is getting.

And no, I'm not saying Gitmo isn't important too, I'm just saying that there are MORE important issues, like why the hell we ever went into Iraq in the first place, since the administration seems to be unable to pick a reason and stick with it for more than a couple months.
 
Heh, Cox and Forkum. I've been checking out their stuff for about 4 years now 🙂

Browse for yourself... it's sure to enrage a lot of people.
 
I think we should take the gloves off and show them (and the liberal press) what torture really means. Chainsaws anyone?

I'm sick and tired of this Leftist drumbeat to close Gitmo because we forced a few terrorists to stand naked in a room for 12 hours while dogs barked. Cut off their fingers and give them something to really cry about!
 
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah. detaining people without ever charging them with a crime is hillarious.

Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.


What about when Jose Padilla was held at Gitmo. He's a US citizen. He was arrested on US soil. He was only moved to South Carolina after the media and his lawyer made a stink. And he still hasn't been charged with anything.

And many of these people are citizens of Afghanistan and they were fighting for the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan in Afghanistan. Just because we eliminated their government (and the Taliban were lowlifes) does not make them suddenly not POWs. They are POWs and we signed all of the Geneva Protocols guaranteeing prisoners would not be treated this way.
 
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I think we should take the gloves off and show them (and the liberal press) what torture really means. Chainsaws anyone?

I'm sick and tired of this Leftist drumbeat to close Gitmo because we forced a few terrorists to stand naked in a room for 12 hours while dogs barked. Cut off their fingers and give them something to really cry about!

Go for it. Maybe you should volunteer to go to Iraq, that way you could take care of matters so they would never end up at Gitmo.

Problem solved...except for the ones we're stuck holding.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah. detaining people without ever charging them with a crime is hillarious.

Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.

If we're not concerned about people being mis-treated, then why did we invade Iraq to supposedly creat a democracy?? Isn't that the justifacation used by the right now for invading Iraq?? Shouldn't we be setting an example??

Well these are malevolent killers and terrorists, not innocent civillians. If you dont see the distinction between the two, you have serious problems.

Originally posted by: Czar
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1305083&enterthread=y

read this thread please, expecialy the last news stories posted (since reading the whole thread might take too long)

I guess these scumbags should be pampered while in our custody, after all, it would be the right thing to do.
 
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah. detaining people without ever charging them with a crime is hillarious.

Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.

If we're not concerned about people being mis-treated, then why did we invade Iraq to supposedly creat a democracy?? Isn't that the justifacation used by the right now for invading Iraq?? Shouldn't we be setting an example??

Well these are malevolent killers and terrorists, not innocent civillians. If you dont see the distinction between the two, you have serious problems.

how can we know that when they've never had a trail or had charges made against them?
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

If we're not concerned about people being mis-treated, then why did we invade Iraq to supposedly creat a democracy?? Isn't that the justifacation used by the right now for invading Iraq?? Shouldn't we be setting an example??

Well these are malevolent killers and terrorists, not innocent civillians. If you dont see the distinction between the two, you have serious problems.

how can we know that when they've never had a trail or had charges made against them?

 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah. detaining people without ever charging them with a crime is hillarious.

Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.

If we're not concerned about people being mis-treated, then why did we invade Iraq to supposedly creat a democracy?? Isn't that the justifacation used by the right now for invading Iraq?? Shouldn't we be setting an example??

Well these are malevolent killers and terrorists, not innocent civillians. If you dont see the distinction between the two, you have serious problems.

how can we know that when they've never had a trail or had charges made against them?

O well, I guess they must've been in the wrong place at the wrong time :roll:

The US never charged German POWs either, I think we should pay reparations. Damn American injustice!
 
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah. detaining people without ever charging them with a crime is hillarious.

Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.

If we're not concerned about people being mis-treated, then why did we invade Iraq to supposedly creat a democracy?? Isn't that the justifacation used by the right now for invading Iraq?? Shouldn't we be setting an example??

Well these are malevolent killers and terrorists, not innocent civillians. If you dont see the distinction between the two, you have serious problems.

how can we know that when they've never had a trail or had charges made against them?

O well, I guess they must've been in the wrong place at the wrong time :roll:

The US never charged German POWs either, I think we should pay reparations. Damn American injustice!

So, just to get this straight, we have some magical system in place that allows us to declare everyone at Gitmo guilty of being a "malevolent killer and/or terrorist" without needing any trials or any system of justice at all. Also, since they are so obviously guilty, torture is certainly justified as long as we don't use chainsaws. Does that about sum up the argument being made here?

I think we have to ask ourselves the question of what kind of people we want to be. Do we want to be seen as the country that captures, holds and tortures (it's still torture, no matter how funny you think it is) people who we think might be terrorists? I certainly don't want us to be seen that way.

And here's the thing, you chest thumpers that think acting differently would hurt our fight against terrorism couldn't be more wrong. The fight against terrorism is as much about how we are seen in the rest of the world as it is about military action. Right now we are providing perfect fodder for the idea that America is nothing more than a bully that is after total control of the Middle East. Do we know how many innocent people are at Gitmo? I doubt it, because we've never taken the time to find out. We're treating everyone we capture like they are Osama himself, and since we can't show that they really are bad guys, anyone can argue that all we're doing is abducting and torturing random Muslims simply for being Muslim. Even if that's not true, we have no way to fight that argument. And you can bet that terrorist leaders are making that exact argument. No matter what you people think, we can't fight everyone, at some point we need to be able to point to the specific reasons the terrorists are in prison so we can refute the idea that we're the bad guys. Capturing some guy for some reason looks a lot worse than capturing some guy because he tried to blow up an APC. The first situation leaves it open to all sorts of stories, while the second tells people that we have good reasons for what we do. Maybe it won't win over the hard core terrorists, but the average Muslim's opinion of the US will certainly improve. Beyond that, it is vital that we make every effort to show we are better than the terrorists. Torture is what bad people do, our moral legitimacy relies on the fact that we act better than our enemies. The ends might justify the means, but only in the short term. Long term, if we win through amoral means, we still lose.

Our method of fighting terrorism needs to involve thinking with our big head more than our little one. I want to beat terrorism just as much as people like you, probably more, because I'm willing to think long term instead of giving in to my feelings right now.
 
Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.


its called the geneva convention, should we have done this to nazis that were torpedoing our boats right off our own coast during ww2?
 
Originally posted by: Krk3561
Well these are malevolent killers and terrorists, not innocent civillians. If you dont see the distinction between the two, you have serious problems.
If they are malevolent killers as you say, why not charge them, and try them? I mean, why are we treating these killers like royalty as illustrated in the cartoon?
 
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
Theyre not US citizens, they fought against us in Iraq or Afganistan and tried to kill our soldiers. Why should we extend the same protections to them beyond basic human rights.


its called the geneva convention, should we have done this to nazis that were torpedoing our boats right off our own coast during ww2?

I think the Geneva Convention covers uniformed soldiers, these are not and therefore are not protected. But, I still think they deserve to be treated as human beings and what is going on in Gitmo is definitely adequate yet the liberal nutjobs continue to blow issues out of proportion and exaggerate.

al-Qahtani's "torture" from Time

On Dec. 2, Rumsfeld approved 16 of 19 stronger coercive methods. Now the interrogators could use stress strategies like standing for prolonged periods, isolation for as long as 30 days, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, playing on ?individual phobias? (such as dogs) and ?mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing.

According to the log, al-Qahtani experienced several of those over the next five weeks.

The techniques Rumsfeld balked at included ?use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation.? ?Our Armed Forces are trained,? a Pentagon memo on the changes read, ?to a standard of interrogation that reflects a tradition of restraint.? Nevertheless, the log shows that interrogators poured bottles of water on al-Qahtani?s head when he refused to drink. Interrogators called this game ?Drink Water or Wear It.?

After the new measures are approved, the mood in al-Qahtani?s interrogation booth changes dramatically. The interrogation sessions lengthen. The quizzing now starts at midnight, and when Detainee 063 dozes off, interrogators rouse him by dripping water on his head or playing Christina Aguilera music.

According to the log, his handlers at one point perform a puppet show ?satirizing the detainee?s involvement with al-Qaeda.?

He is taken to a new interrogation booth, which is decorated with pictures of 9/11 victims, American flags and red lights. He has to stand for the playing of the U.S. national anthem.

His head and beard are shaved. He is returned to his original interrogation booth. A picture of a 9/11 victim is taped to his trousers. Al-Qahtani repeats that he will ?not talk until he is interrogated the proper way.?

Invasion of Space by Female: Over the next few days, al-Qahtani is subjected to a drill known as Invasion of Space by a Female and he becomes especially agitated by the close physical presence of a woman. Then, around 2 p.m. on Dec. 6, comes another small breakthrough. He asks his handlers for some paper. ?I will tell the truth,? he says. ?I am doing this to get out of here.? He finally explains how he got to Afghanistan in the first place and how he met with bin Laden. In return, the interrogators honor requests from him to have a blanket and to turn off the air conditioner.

Soon enough, the pressure ratchets up again. Various strategies of intimidation are employed anew. The log reveals that a dog is present, but no details are given beyond a hazy reference to a disagreement between the military police and the dog handler.

But a much more serious problem develops on Dec. 7: a medical corpsman reports that al-Qahtani is becoming seriously dehydrated, the result of his refusal to take water regularly.

He is given an IV drip, and a doctor is summoned. An unprecedented 24-hour time out is called, but even as al-Qahtani is put under a doctor?s care, music is played to ?prevent detainee from sleeping.? Nine hours later, a medical corpsman checks al-Qahtani?s pulse and finds it ?unusually slow.? An electrocardiogram is administered by a doctor, and after al-Qahtani is transferred to a hospital, a CT scan is performed. A second doctor is consulted. Al-Qahtani?s heartbeat is regular but slow: 35 beats a minute. He is placed in isolation and hooked up to a heart monitor, TIME reports.
Seriously, they crossed the line with playing Christina Aguilera music. How dare the interrogators "agitate" and "enrage" the detainee, especially since he may have helped plan the 9/11 attacks.


THE REAL CUBAN GULAG, FVCK AI
 
The Geneva Accords cover many classes of people. The framers tried to include everyone who might be encountered in a conflict, and assign them to a class with well defined rights. GWB coined a new term "enemy combatant", and declared that since the term was not in the Accords, no rights applied to them. The invention of a new term to circumvent the intent of the Accords is almost childish, and yet, it is defended by the faithful and the frightened. It requires very little intellectual effort to see that it is a simple "smoke and mirrors" ploy.
 
Back
Top