(July 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm)Hovik Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 7:32 pm)Shell B Wrote: A person not being found guilty in court does not make them innocent. Period.

I guess the phrasing "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing to you, huh?

That phrase refers to how we should treat people under the legal system, not whether they are actually innocent or guilty of committing a crime or not. Whether a person is innocent or guilty of something is an absolute; it doesn't change, even if a court rules on it.

(July 15, 2012 at 2:19 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(July 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm)Hovik Wrote: I guess the phrasing "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing to you, huh?

That phrase refers to how we should treat people under the legal system, not whether they are actually innocent or guilty of committing a crime or not. Whether a person is innocent or guilty of something is an absolute; it doesn't change, even if a court rules on it.

However, you cannot make a judgement on it. You don't have any evidence.

(July 15, 2012 at 1:41 pm)Hovik Wrote:

(July 15, 2012 at 1:18 pm)goddamnit Wrote: OK, but I do not disagree with this.

To clarify, you don't disagree with what, exactly?

This question presupposes that we disagree. I am not sure whether or not we do. I just asked to elicit information and use it to explore an idea. I will explain where I was going with this.

Shell B's initial post stated she cares about Guantanamo Bay being run according to humane standards rather than whether or not it exists. People were talking about where the prisoners would be moved to if Gitmo was shut down. It led to a dispute about freeing the untried detainees vs imprisoning them in America or keeping them at Gitmo.

With all of that in mind, I began to brainstorm along these lines: Do we really want to move suspected terrorists, many of which are probably highly dangerous and willing to die for a cause, to America around innocent citizens? Might it be better to have fair trials and better human rights, unlike the present Gitmo, but use a humane version to separate them from mainstream America?

The train of thought I just described corresponds well with Shell B's first sentence.

Quote:Polaris, if Obama moved prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the continental United States, he's essentially bringing terrorists into U.S. prisons.

That seems like a reasonable concern to me, especially considering her explicit assertion that "they need to be tried." Somehow, it seems that the thread evolved into jumping on her position, as if she thinks people should be indefinitely detained at Gitmo before being found guilty. Am I wrong? I could be confused here. Did she actually mean we should water-board suspects or convict them for life before finding them guilty by trial? If so, then I disagree with her. I am honestly not sure if I am the one confused or those responding to her.

(July 15, 2012 at 2:25 pm)goddamnit Wrote:

(July 15, 2012 at 1:41 pm)Hovik Wrote: To clarify, you don't disagree with what, exactly?

This question presupposes that we disagree. I am not sure whether or not we do. I just asked to elicit information and use it to explore an idea. I will explain where I was going with this.

Shell B's initial post stated she cares about Guantanamo Bay being run according to humane standards rather than whether or not it exists. People were talking about where the prisoners would be moved to if Gitmo was shut down. It led to a dispute about freeing the untried detainees vs imprisoning them in America or keeping them at Gitmo.

With all of that in mind, I began to brainstorm along these lines: Do we really want to move suspected terrorists, many of which are probably highly dangerous and willing to die for a cause, to America around innocent citizens? Might it be better to have fair trials and better human rights, unlike the present Gitmo, but use a humane version to separate them from mainstream America?

The train of thought I just described corresponds well with Shell B's first sentence.

Quote:Polaris, if Obama moved prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the continental United States, he's essentially bringing terrorists into U.S. prisons.

That seems like a reasonable concern to me, especially considering her explicit assertion that "they need to be tried." Somehow, it seems that the thread evolved into jumping on her position, as if she thinks people should be indefinitely detained at Gitmo before being found guilty. Am I wrong? I could be confused here. Did she actually mean we should water-board suspects or convict them for life before finding them guilty by trial? If so, then I disagree with her. I am honestly not sure if I am the one confused of those responding to her.

I think the critical issue is the assertion that we would be moving "terrorists" into the United States, as though that valuation has already been determined. Without due process, that cannot be determined, and Shell's original statements are very clear with regard to her opinion about their presumed innocence. The fact may very well be that they are all guilty, but we cannot just assume that's the case without evidence and a proper trial for each individual thereby detained.

(July 15, 2012 at 2:21 pm)Annik Wrote: However, you cannot make a judgement on it. You don't have any evidence.

Indeed, and I don't see anywhere where Shell said you could. Thus, Hovik's comment is entirely baseless, as is apophenia's accusation of lying.

Shell said many of them are guilty (as in, they really did commit a crime), a statement supported by the fact that we've actually tried and convicted people in Guantanamo Bay. She did not state that they were "found guilty", nor did she support the idea of a place like Guantanamo where people can be held indefinitely without trial.

Indeed, her main point (sadly missed due to the misrepresentation of other things she said) was that there are most probably terrorists being held there, and not many Americans would like to see them on American soil, held in American prisons. You can't just close Guantanamo Bay down; you need to plan where you are going to move the prisoners. If Guantanamo can't be closed, it is surely better to reform it so that it follows the American justice system, and not the cruel inhumane system it currently has.

We got her point, but the number of people actually tried at GITMO is small.

Shell Wrote:Guilty means they did it. You and I both know that odds are that many of them did. Yes, they need to be tried, but that is what I mean by reform.

She has no basis for this statement. At all.

(July 15, 2012 at 2:40 pm)Hovik Wrote: I think the critical issue is the assertion that we would be moving "terrorists" into the United States, as though that valuation has already been determined. Without due process, that cannot be determined, and Shell's original statements are very clear with regard to her opinion about their presumed innocence. The fact may very well be that they are all guilty, but we cannot just assume that's the case without evidence and a proper trial for each individual thereby detained.

I see what you are saying but it leaves me wondering. Historically (although under a decade), we know (from verdicts of former detainees) that there has always been a mix of legally guilty and legally innocent people held there (despite very recently, which we are legally unsure of). Is that not a reasonable basis to induce (not deduce) there are probably detainees who will later be legally guilty terrorists, there now? That is not to say they should be executed, tortured, indefinitely detained, etc. without trial, but couldn't it be a reasonable basis for separating them from Americans before trial, in the same way that suspected murderers are confined before trial?

(July 15, 2012 at 11:50 am)apophenia Wrote:

(July 15, 2012 at 9:37 am)Shell B Wrote: Hey, Apo, learn how to read. I pointed out that there are some who have been tried and found guilty. If you are going to accuse someone of lying, you better read the whole thread before you dive in.

Liar.

Dipshit.

---

Annik and Hovik, several of the people at Guantanamo have been FOUND guilty. Stop being purposely daft so you can pretend I'm some warrior against justice.

---

(July 15, 2012 at 12:59 pm)Hovik Wrote:

(July 14, 2012 at 7:32 pm)Shell B Wrote: A person not being found guilty in court does not make them innocent. Period.

I guess the phrasing "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing to you, huh?

I'm not a fucking judge or on a jury, knuckle dragger. A personal opinion that the odds are in favor of at least one being guilty has nothing to do with the above legal term.

---

Also, this "at all," "period," "never" bullshit is getting old, Annik. Dealing only in absolutes is foolish.

Basis for assuming some of them are guilty? Odds, the reasons they were detained in the first place (which is now public information), etc. Honestly, read half of what I have read on the topic, learn that idealism is foolish and come back.

So the people who have been tried automatically condemn all the other who have not stood trial yet? You have NO BASIS on which to determine their guilt. None. This is getting tiring.

(July 15, 2012 at 3:51 pm)Shell B Wrote: I'm not a fucking judge or on a jury, knuckle dragger. A personal opinion that the odds are in favor of at least one being guilty has nothing to do with the above legal term.

Wow, for an admin, you sure don't know how to act with much civility in debate. I'm not even going to validate your bullshit with further discussion, seeing as you clearly aren't interested in recognizing the irrationality of your position.