Defend Guantanamo

[Winner]

I am writing a paper (well, "report") about Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for my human rights course, and I'd like to explain the position of US government regarding to the 'morality' of its actions. Basically, I want to explain why, under certain circumstances, is it necessary to suspend certain rights of the detainees.

If you know any good source, I'd appreciate if you gave me a link. Thanks

(you have an unique opportunity to influence, through me, the opinion of about 150 students on the US War on Terror and Guantanamo camp )

 

[Uiler]

I am writing a paper (well, "report") about Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for my human rights course, and I'd like to explain the position of US government regarding to the 'morality' of its actions. Basically, I want to explain why, under certain circumstances, is it necessary to suspend certain rights of the detainees.

If you know any good source, I'd appreciate if you gave me a link. Thanks

(you have an unique opportunity to influence, through me, the opinion of about 150 students on the US War on Terror and Guantanamo camp )

Oh it's very easy to defend Guantanamo. I could do it in my sleep.

It's just not easy to do so without appearing hypocritical if you're American. It's kind of when the Catholic Popes used to head armies of conquest. If you really want to you can find a way to fit it all together and justify it yourself to make yourself feel better but to most neutral observers you look like a rank hypocrite.

I find the real question is, not to find arguments to defend Guantanamo. As I said that's dead easy. It's to find arguments to defend Guantanamo while still remaining true to "American values" and which doesn't involve mental gymnastics.

 

[Kyriakos]

Wouldnt it be a better move to first examine some sources, and only then forma view about what you are going to write? It seems that you have the agenda to write in favour of cancelling human rights in some circumstances, but your essay topic was specifically Gitmo. To try to build your essay around a hardcore line may be risky (not to mention not that interesting (?) ) since this is an academic class, and not a forum

 

[Tee Kay]

Satire: http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2005/061205.asp

You don't like the above link? How about this one. I think this guy sums up the US position quite well: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2846

 

[warpus]

The terrorists hate their freedoms, how much more justification do you need??

 

[Jawz II]

good source, hmm try ann coulter or some other crazy facist.

 

[Winner]

good source, hmm try ann coulter or some other crazy facist.

I want serious, credible sources. Something philosophical maybe, certainly not some crazy talk from some religious/fascist wackos

 

[Uiler]

I want serious, credible sources. Something philosophical maybe, certainly not some crazy talk from some religious/fascist wackos

How about. You see despite America's talk all the time about how much better it is morally than the rest of the world, when America becomes scared it is willing to sacrifice all of its moral principles that it likes to boast about. Basically Guantanomo is a sign of the cowardice and shows that despite its talk America is not that much different from any other country in the world. Moral principles are a convenience that can be thrown out of the window as soon as a whiff of danger appears.

Oh sorry, you wanted a positive philosophical thing. Alas there is none. The best you can come up with is "American values" are not worth much if you're dead. But then it comes back to the same argument as the paragraph above really.

OK, right. American values are not universal but only in fact apply to people Americans like. Not all men are equal. Now this does not contradict the American values about all men being born equal and deserving of equal treatment under the law because some people are in fact sub-human. All men are born equal and not all men deserve being treated with human rights does not in fact contradict each other because they are in fact not human. They do not have the same soul as we human beings do. They are animals. Well, more like between animals and humans. For example in America's past we have slavery. So there is plenty of precedent for American values being consistent with considering that some people who look like men are in fact animals or sub-human and thus not deserving of human rights. This makes it completely consistent with American values. You see only need to redefine "human" and then everything is completely consistent. America's enemies are not human. Also, variants of this argument have to justify many things in humanity's past, like slavery, various genocides, religious slaughters etc. so there is plenty of material for you to look up.

As I said the main problem is not finding a way to justify Gitmo - it's finding a way that is consistent with "American values".

 

[Gelion]

Good stuff Uiler.

 

[FredLC]

Winner, I have to say that it's rather difficult to defend guantanamo's virtue - and I say this from the standpoint of a man who make's a living of defending people's claims (even when they aren't all that defensible).

Philisophically and morally speaking, guantanamo is a disgrace, and I feel there is no possible defense for it in that angle outside an environment previously conditioned to accept it.

In your shoes, I'd probably be pragmatic, because that is actually the justification given. Avoid talking about principles at all, but if forced to, put emphasis on right to live and speak of others as guides rather than self-suficient auto-applicable rights. Speak of the utility of g-bay as a form to increase security...

...stop. I'm not convincing anyone, even myself here, that these are good points, and I can't come up with arguments any better than the ones already overused by the people with the actual duty to defend it.

As I said, it's impossible to morally sustain that base.

Regards .

 

[Winner]

Winner, I have to say that it's rather difficult to defend guantanamo's virtue - and I say this from the standpoint of a man who make's a living of defending people's claims (even when they aren't all that defensible).

Philisophically and morally speaking, guantanamo is a disgrace, and I feel there is no possible defense for it in that angle outside an environment previously conditioned to accept it.

In your shoes, I'd probably be pragmatic, because that is actually the justification given. Avoid talking about principles at all, but if forced to, put emphasis on right to live and speak of others as guides rather than self-suficient auto-applicable rights. Speak of the utility of g-bay as a form to increase security...

Well, that's my backup strategy

...stop. I'm not convincing anyone, even myself here, that these are good points, and I can't come up with arguments any better than the ones already overused by the people with the actual duty to defend it.

As I said, it's impossible to morally sustain that base.

Regards .

 

[Trajan12]

Iv'e always thought that if your enemies have no reasons to fear you then they will not respect you.

 

[C~G]

Like Fred said take pragmatic outlook.

You could start about talking that there aren't universal human rights even though there maybe should be. Say that these rights can only be defended by universal acceptance of them but it if doesn't happen only thing people can do is to isolate those that don't accept these basic human rights. Remember to point out that you still accept yourself the human rights of these detainees but just don't know how they should be treated since there aren't enough examples from the past how to deal with them. Show historical reference how fighters that didn't wear uniform have been treated, touch the subject of "just war" which is based in the west to christian principles that changed over time depending of the circumstances and going on power struggles and finally conclude that certain rights have never applied during the period of war in nation's lifetime. Show that this is first time in history we're moving towards universally accepted human rights where national interests should be put aside but there are still sacrifices to be made. US is doing these and moving in unknown territory when it comes to both legal status of the detained and the human rights of those involved.

Raise the question is letting detainees go greater harm towards human rights and letting the terrorist get upper hand than keeping few criminals in Guantanamo bay for short period of time. Remember to mention that the whole system is temporary and some other resolution might be found in future but for now it's the most workable model in order to deal with the threat we all face. Binding current terror threat in Europe to this is way to go.

You should create haze between the human rights in the western countries compared to those in the islamic countries and even though there might exists human rights, these terrorists have chosen to ignore all rules. As they only accept the authority of their God and his commands of holy war, the least we can do is to lock them up so they won't hurt anyone. You could also point out the problem people in secular nations face when dealing with people holding fundamental religious views.

The main problem though is try to explain why they haven't had the opportunity to be in court. You won't find any kind of justification for it, whatever sources you may look up. You might find good excuses though like that the current system of justice isn't flexible enough and doesn't recognise fully such rights of fighters as terrorists. Neither such court might not accept the evidence that would be presented making the whole point of giving them court time useless. Say that the detaining of these terrorists is motivated by the will to protect the country while defending the terrorists is politically motivated and the human right claims are just way to escape the reality that the other side doesn't have any workable solutions to offer either. Convince that the current poltiical climate is creating difficulties to create universal human rights especially since there are no absolute truths and holding into such things would mean we expose ourselves to the absolute truth of these terrorists.

The final card in your sleeve should be that the america isn't only working towards it's national interest but interest of the world. By holding detainees currently it can protect the human rights of great masses and eventually can clear the obstacles to create universal human rights and a world where terrorists are few and far between.

Some day Guantanamo Bay will vanish and we will look back that it was a disgrace but we cannot forget how much it served us in order to be able to make the statement by every man in earth that it was a disgrace.

One quote you can use:

Golda Meir: Every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.

Now, I need a drink. Hell, make it two.

EDIT: fixed some errors.

 

[Aegis]

All you have to say, really, is that they are not American citizens, thus are not subject to the US's Bill of Rights. It's not that the US does not consider them to be "Human," it's that the US Government does not consider them to be "American."

"whiff of danger."

Yeah. 9-11 was a "whiff of danger" alright.

Additionally, you can argue that the US Government puts it's own people under the exact same conditions whenever someone joins the military and trots off to Bootcamp, and they go there voluntarily. Sleep depravation, stripping them of their clothes, intimidating them through physical means, even beatings in rare cases. Those all happens at bootcamp. Well, USMC bootcamp, at least. What the Guantanamo detainees have had to go through is very close to what happens to military recruits on a daily basis. So in that perspective, they don't have it that bad, in terms of torture. Bamboo under the fingernails, castration, amputations, general mutilation are all much worse than anything the Gitmo detainees have had to go through. I don't want to hear that all torture is the same, because that's a load of crap. Saying that sleep depravation, stripping them naked and showing them pictures of naked women/pushing breasts into their faces is somehow just as bad as physically torturing them, is absolutely absurd and completely laughable.

With that being said, I think we should give them all trials and get rid of Gitmo, because it is a disgrace.

In your shoes, I'd probably be pragmatic, because that is actually the justification given. Avoid talking about principles at all, but if forced to, put emphasis on right to live and speak of others as guides rather than self-suficient auto-applicable rights. Speak of the utility of g-bay as a form to increase security...

Indeed. I'd talk about how the safety of 300 million American lives are more important than the ethical treatment of a handful of foreigners.

 

[Lotus49]

Life can be hard in the DoD. Especially certain parts of it. And especially the 'custody units'. This particular base is probably a bit more extreme, because of the cultural tensions, and 9/11, considering it's prisoners. But, regardless of how much a spotlight/magnifying glass you put on this one particular place, these few particular people, life's tough. They're not alone.

Maybe they'd feel happier breaking big rocks into small rocks, @ C.C.U. Yeah, the Marines still do it like that, old-style. IN bootcamp mode, yet again. Anyway, Guantanamo is a Marine base - in CUBA, so they're on their game. And Marine MP's can be some sick, hateful, vicious bastards.

You've just gotta know who you're dealing with here. I'm tellin' ya... don't wind up at a correctional custody unit / prisoner / detainee, etc. at a place where the Marines can sick their MP's on ya. They're all a bunch of power-trippin' 19-22 year olds that really want to let off some aggressive steam. Plus their minds are sorta twisted.... doesn't help. Combine that with the MP training, and they think they're gods. Gods of pain, and @-holes.

Then they get out, get jobs as cops... and one day maybe you see them on YouTube.com mercilessly beating a guy they've already got on the ground in submission, punching him in the face and spraying him with an excessive amount of mace. Maybe it's caught on camera. Maybe not.

Sick bastards everywhere. Everywhere I tell ya. I'm just saying... don't forget that little piece of 'Americana'... because it certainly exists.

Anyway, the gov't decided to turn these people over to the ones I've just described. The particular kind of people that reside down there on MCB Guantanamo. So really, what did you expect? I have no illusions about how the DoD components work, nor do I have any illusions about how the gov't has been working under G. Bush, Jr.

So, quit the "OH, this goes against American values!!" -crap. There are powers that be, a lot of which are best not messed with. That has nothing to do with the society (people & values) they are protecting.

A fitting quote:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?! You, Lieutenant Weinberg?! I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

 

[Swedishguy]

Wouldn't the title of this thread be ''offend Guantanamo''? It would make more sense.

 

[REDY]

I am writing a paper (well, "report") about Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for my human rights course, and I'd like to explain the position of US government regarding to the 'morality' of its actions. Basically, I want to explain why, under certain circumstances, is it necessary to suspend certain rights of the detainees.

If you know any good source, I'd appreciate if you gave me a link. Thanks

(you have an unique opportunity to influence, through me, the opinion of about 150 students on the US War on Terror and Guantanamo camp )

Its very hard to defend it, I think you may have a talk with teacher about it before publish. I suppose that you dont want talk about Nietzsche´s philosophy or something like that. So I think you may constitute defending on basic 3 ways:

1)End justifies the means
2)Pragmatic way (its more effectual - show for example some bad events which was created by too much humanity)
3)Democracy crisis of todays world where human rights are overestimating

 

[aneeshm]

Simple. Terrorists forfeit their rights once they declare their intention of violating yours. You cannot possess a right you do not respect. And once we have sufficient proof of intent, we can go right ahead.

Note that this is not what I really believe, but I'm just helping out Winner.

 

[REDY]

Simple. Terrorists forfeit their rights once they declare their intention of violating yours. You cannot possess a right you do not respect. And once we have sufficient proof of intent, we can go right ahead.

Note that this is not what I really believe, but I'm just helping out Winner.

Hm you may install to same position all murders and another criminals, againist many prisoners they hadnt any proofs.

 

[Winner]

I am going to point out their status of "unlawful combatants" as opposed to the "lawful combatants" (guerilla fighters and regular armed forces). This means that, under international law, they don't have any rights introduced by the Geneva convention. Also, if I remember correctly, the US Supreme Court decided that unlawful combatants are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Also, these people are detained outside the US territory, which means the US laws protecting human rights don't apply. Or am I mistaken?