Login/Sign Up




Is the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay and check on George Bush a decision that holds this country's interests?
Politics

silver
Jun 12, 2008
7 votes
9 debaters
4
4
3
2
1
1


+ Add Argument

3
Yes, everyone deserves Habeuas Corpus no matter who they are


sander
Jun 13, 2008
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lithium Show

I do.

Honestly, I think they should be given the same rights. Not necessarily the same privileges, but yes, they should have the same rights. There is a big difference.

 
vancam
Jun 14, 2008
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lithium Show

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is another mans brainwashed teenager is another mans wrong place wrong time is another mans etc etc.

Until a fair and just court decides what they are, then who are we to declare them a terrorist and subsequently have them condemed?

 
hottubwille
Jun 13, 2008
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Hoooraaa to the Supreme Court for getting this right. While the ruling did make headlines most people don't understand how important it really was. The right of Habeus Corpus is foundational to a free society and to liberty for ALL. This ruling is a referendum on the wanton disregard of Bush an his administration to do something they all promised to do - protect the constitution.

 
brivapor
Jun 13, 2008
2 convinced
Rebuttal
im betting that alot of the things the bush administration has set up will fall down like a house of cards once the new admin comes in

Im wondering why it took so long for them to do this though, at the end of the administration and all

 
whiterabbit
Jun 14, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lithium Show

the whole point of going to court is to make the case against the terrorist. Why would you be afraid to let them have a day in court? If you don't have a strong case against them, why the hell are you holding them prisoner? What if someone at Guantanamo was truly innocent. Maybe they were a journalist or something. Can you put yourself in their shoes and imagine the grief they are suffering? I don't think you can.

 
kdascher
Jun 14, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: brendn Show

I find it extremely ironic that you use Rome as an example of what would happen when we "go soft". You've picked a great analogy, as Rome was a massive, relentless empire, just as the U.S. is the modern-day empire. In Rome, the surrounding peoples were the "evil barbarians" who needed to be controlled, which sounds quite similar to today's U.S. mentality of protecting ourselves against the elusive "freedom-hating terrorists", wherever they may be. Our country currently has bases in hundreds of countries all across the globe, so we're even bigger than the Roman Empire, I'd say more like the British Empire. But as we know, all empires fall.

As for the Geneva Conventions, they're there for a reason--everyone has to follow them. Those who don't should be tried in court. Concerning Guantanamo Bay, all too many people there have not been proven to be members of Al Qaeda, or even to have been fighting against U.S. troops. It's funny you mention people who play off our ignorance and fear; you know who they are, specifically? They're our leaders, largely the Bush administration. That's how this whole "War on Terror" joke started. Now there's an excuse for the Patriot Act, the Real I.D. Act, warrant-less wiretapping, excessive information-gathering, and other such excessive "anti-terrorist" measures. It's our fear of terrorism that allows us to be manipulated into allowing these criminals to little-by-little dismantle our civil liberties. Important to note is that even after what's been done so far, we're still one of the more free societies in the world--let's keep it that way.

 
vancam
Jul 02, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: silver Show

Actually I think you'll find that the US has a long history of changing its stance on who is and who isn't a terrorist.

If you want a very recent example (this very week) you can read this article about how Nelson mandela (you've probably heard of him) was just taken off the US terrorist list.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7484517.stm

Furthhermore, Guantanamo Bay isn't in your country and that's the issue.

dude.

 
+ Add Argument

4
No, if you are a suspected terrorist, you threaten the safety of this country


brendn
Jun 14, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
How can we fight a war against terror and not use every means necesary to stop from being attacked? Has everyone forgot the images of people jumping to their deaths from the towers when they fell or are we so soft and weak as a nation that we decide that "war" is just another legal battle for our courts? Does Osama Bin Laden follow the Geneva Convention? Does anyone know their history and realize what happened to Rome when they went soft? Anyone who believes these scum have rights is offering up America for takeover by the hostel and evil forces that have no mercy for civilians and prey on our ignorence and fear. Maybe we should just all hold hands and that will solve the problem. . .

 
lithium
Jun 13, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Should terrorists be given the same rights as law abiding and moral people? I dont think so

 
silver
Jul 01, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sander Show

Nice point, but you have to realize what you've just said. Rights and priveleges ARE two different things. Privelege, meaning it's a gift...or rather, something that does NOT have to be given to you. If you are arrested and suspected of terrorism, YOU HAVE NO PRIVELEGES. You only have rights. So we can't be considering priveleges at all. Nice try though...

 
silver
Jul 01, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Dude...this is America. I think an advanced civilization such as us has a very firm standard for what terrorism is. There is no subjectivism. There is an expectation, and if you don't meet it, then get the hell out of our country or face the consequences.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong