I am having an internal conflict about Guantanamo Bay. One side of me (the liberal side) thinks that it is horrible that all of these innocent people with no information are being tortured and detained for years. Their lives will never be the same and they have lost years of their lives. The other side of me (conservative) thinks that Guantanamo Bay is ok. The information we get from some of these people have enabled the government to stop terrorist attacks that would have killed thousands of innocent people. The way I look at it is, which is better- wasting 3 years of many innocent people's lives with horrible wretched torture, or losing thousands of lives because of a terrorist attack because Guantanamo Bay was closed and leads and tips were lost because torture is no longer allowed. Is my logic flawed?
2007-12-14 07:05:59 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You're not analyzing it perfectly.
First, stick with your Liberal side. It's much more humanly.
The second, you have to realize that, if US stop foccing around with others affairs and stop plundering their lands, oils and assets, stop supporting Israel while they slaughtering innocents and tones of other things.....!
IF, US stop all that, there wouldn't be a so called ''terrorist''
to begin with!! also No need for G. Bay!!
You really like to see if your logic is flawed or not,
review the history on US conducts and da..n foreign policy for the last 5 or 6 decades and '''''honestly''' decide for yourself.
Don't let nationalism and all other crap influence your decision!
Note1: you're being honest about the part that, innocents are being torture in GB which is true. For Ive never seen one with even a slight beliefs of Conservatism admit to that!
Ive also seen many documentaries about this and how people get hijacked or disappeared in middle of the day.
Some return months or years latter, aged and tortured without any charges and the others, who knows!!
Note2: you see, this guy below me, ''army whatever'' is a typical example of one who's full of hot air and BS!!
These kinds are the reasons, US is hated by the world!
A typical bush lover, in denial lying..... who probably used to torture animals as a child!!
Denying the torture by US is pure crap!
Not in Army, he says??!!
Forgot about the Abu Graib?!! That wasn't military?!!
2007-12-14 07:22:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Your logic is NOT flawed.
This topic would not be such an intense issue if it were black and white. Too many people see these issues in black and white when we live in a world of Grey.
You, at least, have the sense to realize there are valid arguments on each side. Imagine being a politician and making these choices every day.
The same goes for "intense interrogation techniques" like water boarding. This may seem awful, evil, criminal to do to another human being.... however it does have a low risk of injury/death AND it reveals information that saves many, many lives. Once again, shades of Grey.
I just recently read an article about a CIA employee who had this same moral dilemma. Its kind of like the old question: would you kill one person to save the lives of 100 people?
Some say yes, I'm a utilitarian- it serves the greater good. Some say no, I would never kill under any circumstances.
Some say, gee- that's a really good question -what would I do?
2007-12-14 07:13:53 · answer #2 · answered by Bob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, your logic is flawed. You first state, "innocent people with no information are being tortured and detained for years". Then later you say, "information we get from some of these people have enabled the government to stop terrorist attacks that would have killed thousands of innocent people."
So basically you think they're innocent, but information they gave us saved American lives. But if information they gave us saved American lives, how can they be innocent?
2007-12-14 07:12:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are two legal and ethical possiblities:
1. The Gitmo prisoners are POWs, and fall under the geneva convention. Eventually they will be turned over to their home country. They are accorded some rights and can NOT be tortured.
2. The Gitmo prisoners are Criminals and will be subject to criminal courts, internation courts, courts in the countries they are from and the countries they commited crimes.
Currently they are labeled Enemy Combatants by the govt. and are not accorded rights of the Geneva Convention or International courts. I feel this is not legal or ethical. Call or write your congressman and tell them if you dissagree.
2007-12-14 07:18:52 · answer #4 · answered by Joechicago 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Very simple way to figure this out:
Put an American soldier in the same place, with the same tactics........
Now, pretend it is your daughter, son, father, uncle, mother or father that's being subjected to it. Is it then fair? The "other side" gets to use the same tactics as "ours" does?
Our country is NOT a country that embraces torture. We have always followed the Geneva convention to the letter and have prosecuted war criminals in the past who have not.
Many Japanese soldiers were tried and EXECUTED by the allies for waterboarding...and other torture.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?
Only the criminal Bush and his cabal of thugs, liars and thieves would approve of such things.
2007-12-14 07:16:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
An innocent person has the same right to leave as thousand others. NO, i could not kill an innocent and g.bay is a satanic place and unlawful. Only bush and his lovers are in love with that place!!
I also agree with this user above me ''acco 5'', mp us army, is full of it. A hand pick war lover!
No wonder our military and country is in such a mess!
2007-12-14 07:56:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone
Where is the evidence that they've prevented terroist attacks? I'd say just about anything the US government says about them must be treated with the utmost of suspicion - after all they are not very interested in the law by keeping them in the first place; who's to say that they will tell the truth about how useful they've been?
In my opinion the US can do one of three things. Charge them with a crime and put them in prison. Do not charge them with anything and let them go. Or admit to using torture (not "extended interrogation techniques") and suspending the rule of law by removing these people's right to habeus corpus, their right to know what they're accused of and the right not to be kidnapped by the US without an extradition order.
2007-12-14 07:16:29 · answer #7 · answered by Mordent 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I can't see how Guantanamo Bay can be right if it were legal to hold people in this way wouldn't they be held in the US. And surely after 3yrs any information received from these people now would be useless, 3yrs too late in fact.
2007-12-14 07:14:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
"all of these innocent people with no information are being tortured"
Even if they are innocent, They all have information. They were all captured in what was the Terrorist equivalent of a Special Forces camp, Or they were wanted for being known terrorists, average people are not just dragged off to Cuba.
Even if some of them were just there to sell stuff to them, they know something.
I don't think the US tortures people, At least not the military.
The Geneva Convention does not cover unlawful combatants because they are not in an Army and do not serve a country.
They DO torture or did not see the beheadings on TV.
2007-12-14 07:29:38 · answer #9 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 0⤊ 7⤋
If you are okay with an innocent person suffering so you can feel safe then I'm glad I do not understand your logic.
2007-12-14 07:14:38 · answer #10 · answered by Alan S 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋