Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Gitmo had nothing to do with Geneva. It dealt with US law. If we brought them back to our soil, they’d have full protections under the constitution.
Gitmo was supposed to be a stop gap while we figured out what that meant.
I was there for about six months. Obviously can’t get into details but it needs to be shutdown. It’s lived long past its purpose. The things that went on there are a black eye to our country.
Isn't that where the GC comes in? The convention isn't about applying your country's laws, but about ethical standards for treatment of enemy combatants. Gitmo being not on our soil is where Geneva should have come into play.
I'm sorry about that; maybe some people enjoyed working there, but I think it would have messed me up.
No. Geneva has nothing to do with it. We have to comply with Geneva anywhere.
We picked gitmo specifically because it’s not US soil.
There is the whole debate if they weee protected under Geneva and if they was law enforcement, etc. but gitmo was only selected to avoid US law.
Yah I think we're talking past one another. I wasn't debating where Gitmo was located; when I said it was "outside Geneva" I meant it was operating outside of the agreements of the Geneva Conventions. Torture is not allowed for captured enemy combatants under the convention; prisoners at Gitmo were tortured. Gitmo was not obeying the conventions.
I'm sure there are all sorts of loopholes engaged in what went on there; were insurgents technically "enemy combatants?" By classifying them as "terrorists" were they excluded from protection? Since they weren't wearing military uniforms, were they excluded from protection? Is waterboarding technically torture?
But nobody in the world is going to being the US in for trial, so the question was moot: we all knew Gitmo defied the spirit of the Geneva Convention; this is why I say it didn't serve a purpose. We know torture is an unreliable way of gathering intel. If I waterboard you enough, eventually you'll name your own child as a terrorist if I want you to.
The torture is a whole different debate. It was called enhanced interrogation techniques. I’ll leave it at I wouldn’t want that shit some to me. I’ve been through many of the techniques and they’re no joke.
I suspect we disagree on a lot of things, but this one thing we're in complete alignment. There's a golden rule concept floating in here: I think if one takes the position that waterboarding isn't torture, they should try it sometime. I don't want to be incarcerated, but I'd be willing to try it for a while it if meant proving it's not inhumane. Very few of the "approved" interrogation techniques I've heard come out of Gitmo would I willingly subject myself to.
I have been through them all but in a much milder manner. Also, when we did SERE training, they subjected us to techniques.
I can't say I am a fan of them or approve of their use in 99% of cases.
I have never been incarcerated but I think it should be humane and try to better the person. Just warehousing like we do currently is not a solution to any problem.