Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Well, there was at least one.

And others were held elsewhere. Nice try though. And they forced him to renounce his citizenship before they'd release him.

A. Last I checked, citizenship could only be stripped via a trial concerning treason. He never had a trial.

B. The US gov't ruled IN HIS FAVOR once it came out that he was a US citizen, which led to his release back to Saudi Arabia provided he admonish his US citizenship.

That's right, even though they were sure he was working with terrorists, he went free because his rights were violated.

The Bush administration tried to justify themselves by saying that their war-making powers overrode his constitutional liberties. Yes, you did read that right. That was their defense. Is it ANY surprise they lost? No. Because the protection of these rights against the federal gov't is set down in the constitution as being unalienable. They do NOT have the right to do as they please.

Furthermore, even if the rest of the prisoners of Guantanamo aren't US citizens, we are still in violation of the Geneva convention, which we agreed to, signed and expect every other nation to follow when dealing with Americans.

And you aren't getting out of this one by arguing that they weren't torturing these people. Even if you want to claim that "torture" is a strong word (which I don't agree with, but whatever--it doesn't hurt my argument), it is DEFINITELY cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Geneva convention. Water boarding? Blasting music for days on end at decibels that damaged their ears, and then shutting it off to induce silence? Their intentions were to extract information using force. The Geneva Convention protects against that.

You know how the Bush Administration got around that? By saying that all the people they are holding aren't prisoners of war. That's clearly bullsh*t (and every other nation on the planet made it clear that they thought so--including our allies). A PoW is technically defined as someone held during or after an armed conflict--an official declaration of war has nothing to do with it. The GC makes clear that it applies to all times of war AND ARMED CONFLICT.

The fact is that the Bush administration treated international treaties (ones put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the world against the horrors of WWI and II) and its own constitution as rules to be bended or broken, not as something that should be protected for every citizen. And the senate did not agree.

Why? Because the entire basis of the constitution is that the gov't MUST protect these rights.

[EDIT]


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said terrorist for a reason. We refuse to acknowledge that they are PoWs, even though they clearly are, and so feel like we are justified in treating them like they have no rights.

Furthermore, the very first line of the constitution is that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness. No where does it say all Americans. The Bill of Rights and additional amendments may refer only to American citizens, but the constitution clearly also says that we can't treat foreigners like they don't have such rights. Which is exactly what the Geneva Convention says.

The reason we aren't considering them PoWs is because, by law, we would then have to give them trials. And because most of the evidence against them was either acquired illegally, or we don't have enough to actually prove they were involved, we'd be forced to release them.

That's right. We don't even know if some of the prisoners actually did anything wrong. Some of them are only SUSPECTED of it, and the gov't thinks it's okay to lock them in a torture camp for the rest of their lives. That's ethical.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 10:52pm by idiggory

They didn't know he was a US citizen. I'm not sure what you think that proves. You string a bunch of nice conspiracy theories together, but none of it has to do with the topic at hand.



No we're not. Can you show me what part of the Geneva Convention we violated? It's easy to insist that this is true, but you are making an argument from ignorance and counting on the fact that most people are equally ignorant of what the Geneva Conventions actually say.



No. It doesn't. Have you ever in your life actually read the Geneva Conventions?



They aren't. They do not meet the criteria set in the 3rd Geneva Convention which are required to qualify for POW status. I'll ask again: Have you actually read the Geneva Conventions?



That is not what defines a POW. You haven't read the relevant Convention.

There's a very long list of things qualifying one for POW status, the most relevant is the following:



This is the section under which civilians may choose to join a conflict and still qualify as POWs. Note, that at least 2 of the required conditions have clearly not been met (b and d), and several others likely weren't either.

They were not classified as POWs because they don't meet the criteria to be POWs. This is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. It's in exact accordance with it. It's largely only ignorant people who don't know what the conventions actually say who continually insist otherwise.




That is not a fact and it's not true, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. We did not violate the Geneva Conventions, and the only constitutional violation at Gitmo was that the US had not passed a law specifically defining the military commissions process underwhich detainees were being held. Congress clarified that law in 2006, making the detainments completely legal and in accordance with the US constitution (per the Supreme Court even!).


You are just plain wrong.



No. You miss the point. People who are declared to be POWs can be held indefinitely and without trial. Yet you are arguing that terrorists should be given *better* treatment in this regard and be granted trials or be let free. Do you see how that makes no sense?



But if they were POWs they would not be able to demand speedy trials either. I was specifically responding to your statement that denying these people trials was a violation of their rights. It very clearly isn't. You just have such a poor understanding of these things that it appears that way to you. Ignorance doesn't make you right.



No. We wouldn't. That was the whole point of what I said before. POWs do not get trials. You really do have no clue what you are talking about, do you?



It's not about committing a crime though. It's about committing an act of war. We have exactly as much evidence that these guys were engaged in illegal military actions against our country as we have for "legal" military action in the case of POWs. But you don't understand what I'm talking about, do you?

Edited, Dec 23rd 2010 12:58pm by gbaji

It's normal for homosexuals to shower with straights in the gym & in your military already & will remain so post DADT.

You're right, but those people also are not able to provide legitimate reasoning without fear or hatred. Besides, posters on this forum have said in the past that the ONLY reason why a person wouldn't support the repeal of DADT or other homosexual related activities is through hatred and fear.



No, that would be like forcing men and women to shower together and saying it's "normal" for men and women to shower together, as my example stated. I was referencing to the psychological norm. Just as it is a norm for women not to want to shower or share close rooms with random men, it's a norm that men not to want to shower or share close rooms with homosexual men. That was the whole purpose of DADT. To allow homosexuals to serve under the assumption that they are straight. Add that with the segregation of men and women, you are appealing to both norms. The problem is, it's a double standard where one practice is accepted and the other isn't.

Alma's secretly hoping to be the last guy in with a **** so he can drop the soap.

Uh, yes.


Good for you but ultimately pointless. Practice is what matters, not what makes your little heart glow with pleasure.


No, it's under a self-imposed blissful ignorance. Under DADT, it's known that you will be showering with homosexuals because homosexuals are allowed to join the military. If the only way you can handle that is to chant "hemustbestraight... hemustbestraight..." over and over, that's your own lookout.

Again, you need to make the argument about why the norm should be changed since that norm is the current practice. You keep failing to do so.

So basically what you are saying is that John is cool when he doesn't know, but if he did know he would be afraid that Tom is now checking him out when showering. Which is exactly what I said earlier. You could be showering with 10 ****'s right now, and no even know it. But you are comfortable around them, even though they could be checking you out right now and over the last X times you shower with each other. You are afraid to shower with people who may be sizing you up, assuming that because they are gay they want you.

Anyhow, the above is mostly redundant because most gays will not tell you they are gay anyway. The majority of them don't want to deal with the situation of being eye-balled and talked about negatively behind their backs. Furthermore, I am quite sure none of them are going to check you out or try and pick you up. They are more likely to ignore your heterosexual *** in favor of finding another gay man/woman, someone that they can likely get together with and play tummy sticks, or lay some carpet.

You are not special, you are just a random dude, if "Tom" hasn't been checking you out for the last X years, Tom isn't going to start checking you out now, just because he is allowed to say if he is gay or not. Nothing is going to change, gays are in the military now, they will be in the future, they have seen you naked, you have seen them naked, and will continue to do so for most of your time left.

His best bet is to just not leave his room, anyone could be gay, he may as well just lock himself up alone, because at least he knows for sure i he is gay or not. Cut off all ties with the world because a dude might check out your package.

You must be some kind of girlie-man if you think you could pull that off.

I don't think you understand it. I get what you want to be the argument but it's irrelevant.


Currently. Given that the UCMJ will be changed with the repeal of DADT, that's pretty irrelevant as well, at least until the new rules are released by the Dept. of Defense.

You're still failing to make an argument.

You can certainly prefer not to shower with the out poofs post DADT, but there are no legitimate reasons why you shouldn't or can't do so. I'd prefer to shower with the nubile co-eds that frequent my gym as opposed to Robert, the fat(& hairy) **** whom seems to frequent the gym around the same time that I do. But since I'm a man, I use the men's locker room as is the "psychological norm" (whatever the fuck that means). If Robert & I soldiered together, we'd still shower together!

What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little. Sure, you can ask your commanding officer to shower separately from the poofs that come out in your unit & he might (and that's a very slight might )even let you do it.

But what will be your answer when the straight dudes whom are comfortable with their sexuality ask you why you're acting like such a little ***** about it?