Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73
  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Those supreme court cases where in 2006 and 2008.


    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/guantanamo/timeline/

    Razul Vs Bush was in 2004 and Hamdam Vs Rumsfeld was through out 2005 to 2007. But more importantly, before the military commissions setup by Congress in 2006, everything was illegal according to the Supreme Court.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support your claim that there is less "news-worthy" items under Obama regarding Gitmo.

    Under Obama, there is no legal challenges to Guantanamo, it's unpopular, but legal.
    Under Obama, Gitmo is getting smaller, not bigger.
    Under Obama, advanced interrogation techniques are illegal.
    Under Obama, there has been no hunger strike in Guantanamo.
    Under Obama, there has been no prisoner suicides in Guantanamo.
    Under Obama, there has been no riots of prisoners in Guantanamo.
    Under Obama, there has been no serious new human rights violations reported other then that of trying Omar Khadr as an adult for crimes committed when he was a child.

    You know, all those things that used to make news before Obama.

    Challenge to support a claim.Support your claim that negative coverage has not lessened under Obama.

    That's not my claim... I'm claiming that the coverage matches up to news worthiness which as gone down... you know, like Iraq.

    The fact that Obama decided to continue with military commissions (revamped), is news worthy and was covered widely when it happened, but it's not something that is legally challenged and what's more, the opposition (GOP) is not out to challenge that decision. THAT's the big difference.

    Added: in other words, reporting on the lefts dissatisfaction with Obama on the matter of GITMO at the same intensity then what the coverage was back then when the UN was asking for the closure, prisoners were rioting and the Supreme Court stroke down against the Bush Administration would be grossly overstating the importance of the problem. You can't acknowledge this ?
    Last edited by Vandaler; February 16th, 2012 at 12:16 PM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    A shift is a shift Sigfried and frankly a 10% shift is significant, particularly in opinion polls. You can try to play down the shift of Democratic opinion all you want, but its a fact that Democrats now feel differently about Guantanamo Bay under Obama than Bush.
    We are on common ground that there was a shift, you have demonstrated it. We differ on how significant that is and what it says about the overall character of "the left". I've seen far more significant shifts in my day on various issues.

    Which is understandable if you are more concerned with politics than anything else. I understand that.
    Almost. Its that they are more concerned with the overall impact of the political party than any single issue. That has always been the case. There are pro life democrats and pro choice republicans and many other variations because of this. For the sake of alliance some range of disagreement is tolerated. Same goes for religions and any other large group which has rivalries with other groups.

    Why should you guys shoot yourselves in the foot? Once again you admit, just like Vandaler, that politics is more important than the issue itself and that its ok to ignore a cause when its your guy in office. I get that.
    You on the other hand will mount a political movement against an ally even if it means handing power to people who are far more in opposition to your views? Truly?

    Undoubtedly whomever is nominated for the GOP will have some position you don't agree with. Will you campaign against them and vote for Obama or a third party as a result?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Your claim Chad, on the other hand seems to be: No matter what happens and what the reality is, the media is biased unless, the number of negative reports on GITMO is mathematically equal to what it was back then. Please correct my statement if I misinterpret the direction of your posts.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Ya, nothing changes except the president of the united states tries to close it! And there was a near doubling of media coverage when he did so and when he failed.

    What the media likes to do is cover fights. Whatever kind of fight you got, so long as the sides are out and at it, the media will be there with a camera and commentary about each side and who is winning. Their coverage peaked during Obamas administration when the battle came to a head. And it near peaked prior to that when this issue was in the supreme court. Fights, not some liberal bias. If the "liberal media" was taking sides in this fight, they lost big time. So much for their vaunted influence.... But from most of the coverage I saw, they tended not to take sides and just reported what the fight was, human rights vs national security and they let the public decide where they fell on that spectrum.
    Before that weren't dems trying to close it? Weren't there other fights that they lost? Why was that the end all fight, and now it is no longer an issue? Where is the story of the media saying that bush was right, because all the alternatives are not acceptable even by the Dem controlled congress which blocked the closing. (not because they could stop the closing by the president but because they could block spending for moving and holding the prisoners in the states)?

    To me, what I saw from the beginning was that there was no alternatives and the fight over guitmo was trumped up. They were never going to set these guys free in mas, and they weren't going to ship them to their home countries for detention either. Fundamentally because they weren't keeping Average Joes there to begin with.
    So we go through the whole show of moral outrage without real consideration of the consequences and the "next step", then obama signed a paper that does nothing to actually close it and the story goes away.

    --media cover fights.
    Yes, and dems stopped fighting once obama was in office, without the issue being resolved.


    so it is the case that
    1) The dems stopped fighting over it once their guy was in office.
    2) The media stopped covering the fight that is still going on.
    3) The dems and the media stopped talking about it even though the issue is not resolved.

    Is there another? And which of the above (if true) doesn't support the OP?


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If the "liberal media" was taking sides in this fight, they lost big time. So much for their vaunted influence.... But from most of the coverage I saw, they tended not to take sides and just reported what the fight was, human rights vs national security and they let the public decide where they fell on that spectrum.
    Depends on what "side" you think they were taking.
    If they were taking the side to close gitmo because they really wanted it close, then you would be right. That isn't what is said though. What is said is that they were using this issue to try and hurt the bush adm. Sort of like now that they are talking about the phantom movement to ban contraception, instead of talking about the economy, jobs and oil. It is just another cover story that they perceive Republicans to be weak on and dems to be strong on so the real issues which the dems and specifically obama are weak on are ignored.

    Simply put, the media doesn't need a fight to be on going to make a story out of it. No one was talking about contraception when the media made it an issue. So your premise that the media covers fights and that is what dictates the news is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by VAN
    Razul Vs Bush was in 2004 and Hamdam Vs Rumsfeld was through out 2005 to 2007. But more importantly, before the military commissions setup by Congress in 2006, everything was illegal according to the Supreme Court.
    I'm not sure that is the case...
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    After the US Department of Justice advised that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, the first twenty captives arrived at Guantanamo on January 11, 2002.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...detention_camp
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not sure that is the case...

    After the US Department of Justice advised that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, the first twenty captives arrived at Guantanamo on January 11, 2002.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...detention_camp
    It's not the mere existance of GITMO that was challenged, and spilled so much ink, but rather legal questions over the treatment of the prisoners. It's the uncivilized detention conditions that were at stake, not the building or it's location.

    There are no more legal challenges today.
    Last edited by Vandaler; February 18th, 2012 at 12:54 PM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  6. #46
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    It's not the mere existance of GITMO that was challenged, and spilled so much ink, but rather legal questions over the treatment of the prisoners. It's the uncivilized detention conditions that were at stake, not the building or it's location.
    The what? What exactly was "uncivilized" about how we treated the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The what? What exactly was "uncivilized" about how we treated the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?
    Hi,

    I will not let myself be drowned into a subjective debate on the meaning of the word "uncivilized" when I have already outlined in post 41 the objective differences between then and now.

    If the word bothers you, I'm willing to scratch it. It does not change the substance of the debate.
    Last edited by Vandaler; February 20th, 2012 at 09:05 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  8. #48
    gnome
    Guest

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    All the big "offenses" and "mistakes" that Bush was said to be guilty of, Obama has embraced.

    Yet...it's ok when he does it. He's a Democrat after all so it must be for good intentions.[/QUOTE]

    "Hell is paved with good intentions"- Samuel Johnson.
    Although i agree the the proverbial destination Obama will take us, (hell), i cant say that his intentions were ever good. All of his favorite college professors were communist, his entire career in politics was supported by criminals of all scales, from the petty welfare moocher to organizations like acorn. Organizations like acorn and Solyndra got him elected, and they are precisely the people who's opinions about how life should be are influencing our president to make the decisions he does. We couldn't even tell with certainty how he was raised or what he wrote in his college years or even what his grades were, leading to a majority of americans being blind enough to vote for him. One of the reasons he got elected was the prowess he had in twisting the issue at hand and making his enemies seem at fault, (at least to the casual observer's perspective).

    ---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Squatch's question was not about the definition of the word "civilized", it was about your application of the word to the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo.

  9. #49
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by gnome View Post
    Squatch's question was not about the definition of the word "civilized", it was about your application of the word to the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo.
    I know, that's why I refer him back to post 41 where my application of the word (what I meant) is well defined in my answer to the first challenge.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  10. #50
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    Hi,

    I will not let myself be drowned into a subjective debate on the meaning of the word "uncivilized" when I have already outlined in post 41 the objective differences between then and now.

    If the word bothers you, I'm willing to scratch it. It does not change the substance of the debate.
    But that answer does not reconcile your post to the OP. Chad pointed out that "outrage" has dropped following the election of a Democrat President, that outrage wasn't based on legality (and when that term was used it was largely used in the context of alleged human rights abuses), it was based on morality. Are you saying the morality of the actions have changed? IE that it was "uncivilized" before, but is now "civilized?"
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But that answer does not reconcile your post to the OP. Chad pointed out that "outrage" has dropped following the election of a Democrat President
    I'd say this is almost cherry-picking. Chad points out that "outrage" has dropped following the election of a Democrat President as can be measured by media coverage, and then when on to a major effort to demonstrate the evolution of media coverage. I have successfully, I think answered his challenge to demonstrate why GITMO is less news worthy now then it was. There has been no satisfactory answer to my challenge about what should be covered now, with the same intensity then back then.

    Also, the morality issue had a lot to do with the treatment of prisoners at GITMO which has improved plenty from what it once was. Given that the treatment has improved, and that there is no DEM-GOP fight to stoke the flames, I have already conceded the obvious that the outrage has lessen, but that it's something that is more event and context driven then a sin of hypocrisy.
    Last edited by Vandaler; February 21st, 2012 at 04:11 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  12. #52
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    I'd say this is almost cherry-picking. Chad points out that "outrage" has dropped following the election of a Democrat President as can be measured by media coverage, and then when on to a major effort to demonstrate the evolution of media coverage. I have successfully, I think answered his challenge to demonstrate why GITMO is less news worthy now then it was. There has been no satisfactory answer to my challenge about what should be covered now, with the same intensity then back then.
    But I don't believe your challenge does any such thing. You state that it is less newsworthy because its legality has been covered, but Chad correctly points out that it coverage didn't change when the legal status did, it dropped when the President signed an ineffectual order.

    Quote Originally Posted by V
    Also, the morality issue had a lot to do with the treatment of prisoners at GITMO which has improved plenty from what it once was.
    Can you show any of this? The only thing I am aware of is the restriction on "enhanced interrogation." Largely (at least in the public's mind) this means waterboarding, which had already ended as a practice if I'm not mistaken. On a side note, having been waterboarded myself people should stop whining, it really isn't that bad.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler
    Under Obama, there is no legal challenges to Guantanamo, it's unpopular, but legal.
    Under Obama, Gitmo is getting smaller, not bigger.
    Under Obama, advanced interrogation techniques are illegal.
    Under Obama, there has been no hunger strike in Guantanamo.
    Under Obama, there has been no prisoner suicides in Guantanamo.
    Under Obama, there has been no riots of prisoners in Guantanamo.
    Under Obama, there has been no serious new human rights violations reported other then that of trying Omar Khadr as an adult for crimes committed when he was a child.

    You know, all those things that used to make news before Obama.
    Legal Challenge to Gitmo policy:

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/0...uantanamo.html

    Gitmo prisoner commits suicide

    http://www.sify.com/news/guantanamo-...ukkfibjac.html

    In fact 2 of the 6 total suicides happened under Obama.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...icide_attempts

    There are still 171 prisoners at Gitmo. It was 242 when Obama took office. Yeah, hes reduced it some, still its a significant number.

    According to you, this is all news worthy. How is it then that you are unaware of the two suicides and current legal challenges at Gitmo? How is it that a well informed individual are so in the dark that you can declare that none of these things happen under Obama like they did under Bush?

    Why would that be? After all, you claim that these are exactly the sorts of news items that explain the greater Guantanamo Bay coverage under Bush.

    Could it be that the media simply doesn't pay much attention to it anymore?

    Obviously so. You can try to whitewash it and explain it away all you want Vandaler, but the evidence is all there right in front of you.

  14. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    I doubt that mail privacy for prisoners will inflame passions, no matter who is President. Thinking otherwise is unrealistic. But nice find nonetheless. But shock, you found this in mainstream press... Isn't counter productive to link to mainstream media to support that it's not covered because of some kind of biased innuendo? Here's the Washington Post on the same story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...H2Q_story.html

    I was not aware of those two suicides, thank you for pointing out, I gambled a little lacking all the time I wanted to research.
    But again, prisoner suicides was probably not the most compelling part of my challenge... I retrieve that part, and I think I still have a case.

    What I really see, is you looking for crumbs and expecting these to play very loudly in the media, in a Presidential race where no one is talking about GITMO and where the focus have been on domestic issues.

    Liberals or Conservatives, they both have a short attention span and can just keep their eyes on so many balls at the same time and be passionate about them.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  15. #55
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Before that weren't dems trying to close it? Weren't there other fights that they lost? Why was that the end all fight, and now it is no longer an issue? Where is the story of the media saying that bush was right, because all the alternatives are not acceptable even by the Dem controlled congress which blocked the closing. (not because they could stop the closing by the president but because they could block spending for moving and holding the prisoners in the states)?
    There were many media stories then and now that bush was correct. There has always been support for Gitmo and a no-holds-barred approach to fighting terrorism. There has always been a group that feels we should not compromise our standards of liberty and justice to fight terrorism. There are still liberals fighting Obama, calling him a traitor and claiming he is corrupted by power, or was always a corporate whore to begin with. They are not however main stream, they are the left and center's philosophical sorts.

    To me, what I saw from the beginning was that there was no alternatives and the fight over guitmo was trumped up. They were never going to set these guys free in mas, and they weren't going to ship them to their home countries for detention either. Fundamentally because they weren't keeping Average Joes there to begin with.
    The intention was to give them criminal trials and either justify their imprisonment or return them whence they came. Of course returning them is problematic as few nations really want suspected terrorists wandering around. But you could make it so that if a country would take them, they could go, otherwise they remain in detention. Military trials were at least something, depending on how fair and just you feel they are. (I don't know enough to judge for certain, I find them less fair than civil trials but far better than no trial at all.)

    So we go through the whole show of moral outrage without real consideration of the consequences and the "next step", then obama signed a paper that does nothing to actually close it and the story goes away.
    It is not a show of moral outrage, the show is the political side of the equation which only gets put on when there is an opponent to defeat. There is no doubt this issue was used politically. Every political issue gets used for politics. If Obama were a conservative republican no conservatives would be hounding him about his birth certificate, even if they really cared about it which no doubt some of them do.

    The issue of Guantonimo remains. I and many others still stand opposed to it, most of them however are not willing to attack Obama since he is the one who actually tried to close it and otherwise is the best political match available of those running for office. While I care a lot about the principles of justice, I would say that the rights of suspected terrorists is not the highest on the list of folks I am personally worried about. Its a matter of principle that I think we must follow rather than me being concerned about any specific individual there.

    I and others would much rather those people, or at least as many of them as would be practical, were given trials so we could prove that they are dangerous rather than simply suspecting they are.

    --media cover fights.
    Yes, and dems stopped fighting once obama was in office, without the issue being resolved.
    Duh! But its not because they don't care, its because you don't turn on your political allies over single issues. There are democrats who have entirely turned on Obama, but they are rare.

    so it is the case that
    1) The dems stopped fighting over it once their guy was in office.
    2) The media stopped covering the fight that is still going on.
    3) The dems and the media stopped talking about it even though the issue is not resolved.
    A. They didn't stop, they slowed down. There is still opposition it is just much less than it was.
    B. The mass national media only covers big or potentially big stories, background battles such as this don't get a lot of play

    Depends on what "side" you think they were taking.
    Indeed.

    If they were taking the side to close gitmo because they really wanted it close, then you would be right.
    The news media tries not to take sides so much as present them. Certainly there are editorials but generally news coverage attempts not to be bias. Attempts more than succeeds but when it comes to a side, its not clear cut. What the media really likes is conflict to cover and they will happily discuss it whenever possible. Take away the fighters and the media settles down, though sometimes they fan the flames if they can.

    That isn't what is said though. What is said is that they were using this issue to try and hurt the bush adm.
    The left certainly did. The left will use any and all issues to attack the right. And the right will use any and all issues to attack the left. It is how things work. This issue was a bit unusual in that very few in the middle give a **** about the rights of terrorists. This issue was a huge looser for the left. It did nothing to get bush out of office so far as I can tell and when it came time for Obama to try and enact the issue, he got shut down hard by his own party no less. And that is because Americans some 3 to 1 at best like Gitmo and think its a good idea. Add in the threat that those people will be set free in america... and you have a super looser. You can't run national policy against that kind of opposition.

    Sort of like now that they are talking about the phantom movement to ban contraception, instead of talking about the economy, jobs and oil. It is just another cover story that they perceive Republicans to be weak on and dems to be strong on so the real issues which the dems and specifically obama are weak on are ignored.
    Its just another fight to talk about. If the Catholic Church didn't care, if the bishops didn't make an issue, then it wouldn't get coverage. Obama has signed a lot of legislation in his time, not all of it gets press because not all of it gets people to fight. Contraception has been a key social issue for many generations and it still hasn't gone away. People have strong and definite opinions about it. It is exactly the kind of story the news media likes because people are interested in it and like to talk about it and it has some connection to their own lives. It is not a conspiracy it is the natural way of the media. They cover what folks what people find interesting.

    A famous study of media bias found the strongest predictor was not the politics of the staff, not the politics of the owners, but the politics of its readers (this one studied papers only). The bottom line is that media outlets cater to their audience first and foremost and those that don't die because no one reads them.

    Simply put, the media doesn't need a fight to be on going to make a story out of it. No one was talking about contraception when the media made it an issue. So your premise that the media covers fights and that is what dictates the news is wrong.
    The catholic bishops were talking about contraceptives in press appearances and in churches. The Council of Catholic bishops is important and influential and they picked the fight with the administrations insurance program. Its exactly the kind of fight the media loves so they jumped all over it. They did not manufacture the controversy. It is an easy story to understand, easy to cover, easy to sell. The economy is incredibly complicated and contentious and beyond the detailed knowledge of most Americans. It is still a strong story because Americans are strongly affected by it in significant ways so it still gets a lot of coverage.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But I don't believe your challenge does any such thing. You state that it is less newsworthy because its legality has been covered, but Chad correctly points out that it coverage didn't change when the legal status did, it dropped when the President signed an ineffectual order.
    Clearly, GITMO was reported at various times for different reasons, there has been many periods, each containing their own narrative. I don't see any compelling narratives anymore. Do you?

    Added: It will spike again now and then, it's not over and it may become again a hot button, but in the past few years ? It was calm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Can you show any of this?
    It's based on there no longer being reports of abuse at GITMO. Do you have a better suggestion?
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  17. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    If you are interested in the media, read this article
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ns-journalists

    It is about an analysis of the questions the media asks candidates in the GOP debates. What stands out to me is not the issues covered, not the tone or hostility of the questioners, it is the media's relentless effort to create conflict among the candidates. Time after time they ask one candidate to attack another or highlight controversial statements one made. Some 133 questions were about negative campaign adds. When talking about policy plans there was always an invitation to attack other candidates plans.

    We like to watch them fight. I like to watch them fight. And the media knows this better than anything and they do their best, perhaps instinctively, to generate as much conflict and rancor as possible. Why, because it sells!
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. #58
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    I doubt that mail privacy for prisoners will inflame passions, no matter who is President. Thinking otherwise is unrealistic. But nice find nonetheless. But shock, you found this in mainstream press... Isn't counter productive to link to mainstream media to support that it's not covered because of some kind of biased innuendo? Here's the Washington Post on the same story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...H2Q_story.html

    I was not aware of those two suicides, thank you for pointing out, I gambled a little lacking all the time I wanted to research.
    But again, prisoner suicides was probably not the most compelling part of my challenge... I retrieve that part, and I think I still have a case.

    What I really see, is you looking for crumbs and expecting these to play very loudly in the media, in a Presidential race where no one is talking about GITMO and where the focus have been on domestic issues.

    Liberals or Conservatives, they both have a short attention span and can just keep their eyes on so many balls at the same time and be passionate about them.
    What I really see is excuse after excuse everytime I provide a new piece of evidence or prove one of your claims wrong.

    Your argument was that there was nothing news worthy and you pointed to some news worthy items. I clearly demonstrated that based on your criteria, there still is news worthy items.

    You simply excuse them as still not being news worthy. Thats moving the goal posts.

    Its like with Sigfried. I showed that Democrats have magically changed their opinion on Guantanamo since Obama was elected, moving from a majority supporting closure to a majority opposing closure.

    Like you, he excused this change as insignificant....not really notable.

    That and both of you have openly admitted to letting politics influence the matter. Sigfried being more overt in saying "well of course we aren't going to shoot ourselves in the foot."

    For all intents and purposes I have:

    Supported my argument with extensive evidence. You guys have not. I have shown numerous of your arguments to be wrong. You guys move the goal post and create new unsupported excuses while openingly admitting that the OP's claim is essentially true.

    Enough said. To liberals, Gitmo was first and foremost a political tool to be used against the Right. Their concern about any human rights issues pales in comparison to its importance in politics and they willing to accept the continuation of what they claimed was a human rights violation now that it is the policy of their favored President. In other words, its ok, as long as its they who commit the crime, its not ok for a conservative. Thats hypocrisy.

    ---------- Post added at 12:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If you are interested in the media, read this article
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ns-journalists

    It is about an analysis of the questions the media asks candidates in the GOP debates. What stands out to me is not the issues covered, not the tone or hostility of the questioners, it is the media's relentless effort to create conflict among the candidates. Time after time they ask one candidate to attack another or highlight controversial statements one made. Some 133 questions were about negative campaign adds. When talking about policy plans there was always an invitation to attack other candidates plans.

    We like to watch them fight. I like to watch them fight. And the media knows this better than anything and they do their best, perhaps instinctively, to generate as much conflict and rancor as possible. Why, because it sells!
    More excuses

  19. #59
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    Clearly, GITMO was reported at various times for different reasons, there has been many periods, each containing their own narrative. I don't see any compelling narratives anymore. Do you?
    I never thought the narratives were compelling in the first place, but that isn't the point, I don't see any change to the situation that has led to the narratives having changed. Can you be a bit more specific on how the narratives have changed?



    Quote Originally Posted by V
    It's based on there no longer being reports of abuse at GITMO. Do you have a better suggestion?
    What "abuse" took place prior to the inauguration?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  20. #60
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Wherefore art thou Guantanamo?

    I see no basis in the Constitution for the concept of "extra-judicial" imprisonment without legal charge or trial. This concept is dangerous, because it has started to be applied not only to foreigners, but to American citizens also. Bush was wrong to initiate it, and Obama is even more wrong to expand it. The difference is that Bush was open about his questionable methods for the war on terrorism, and Obama has pretended to be a protector of civil liberties.

 

 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Religion
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: June 15th, 2012, 11:47 AM
  2. Closing Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Public Schools
    By evensaul in forum General Debate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2008, 07:15 PM
  3. Christianity: Thou Shalt Not Steal
    By BionicSeahorse in forum Religion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 24th, 2008, 12:38 PM
  4. Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp
    By sjjs in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2004, 11:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •