Thread: gitmo
View Single Post
Old 02-25-2006, 02:53 PM   #3 (permalink)
mandiejo
Block Captain
 
mandiejo's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 211
Points: 2,343, Level: 29
Points: 2,343, Level: 29 Points: 2,343, Level: 29 Points: 2,343, Level: 29
Level up: 29%, 107 Points needed
Level up: 29% Level up: 29% Level up: 29%
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Send a message via AIM to mandiejo Send a message via MSN to mandiejo
mandiejo is offline 		Reply With Quote
Re: gitmo
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevusa
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandiejo
once again, debate related. sorta. gitmo, short for guantanamo bay, was just on c-span, where the nat.'l security advisor stephen hadley said that most people wish there weren't any gitmo's, but that they are in fact necessary to the war on terror. if we have any policy debaters on here whatsoever, what's your stance on granting POW status under the resolution?

I don't see how stripping people of their right to a trial as being necessary to the war on terror. I would argue that it creates more fuel for the enemy and may even create more enemies overall.
that's precisely why the affirmative has the advantage on this side, because giving them their right to due process, while not required and certainly not deserved (seeing as it's a civil liberty, not human, applying to citizens only) is said to up our soft power and hegemony. everyone loves that nye 99 card. but in negation, would we not be violating internat.'l law by giving them status that under the geneva convention they don't qualify for? and, in addition, would we not have to change their status in order to ensure said due process?