What do y'all think about some Doyle's recent blog commentaries?

I find it kind of hard to believe that Doyle is catching flak for some of his recent comments about terrorism.

Maybe it is just a function of age and experience. As one get older and more experienced, hopefully this translates into wiser, which often involves pragmatism.

It can be fairly dramatic the changes one sees in people after certain experiences.

"There are no atheists in foxholes."

"A conservative is just a liberal who has been mugged."

The killing of women and children civilians is and has always been considered the crime of murder, not warfare. This is true for every documented civilization throughout the history of mankind.

The Geneva Convention is a compact between modern civilizations governing conduct in regards to warfare.

Constitutional rights are inherent rights.

American law is jurisdictionally limited.

i am fine with him posting whatever he feels like

it is his blog and if others dont like what he says, they can choose not to read it and find out

as to his religious and/or political views: it is none of my business and none of anyone elses either
he is a poker player, not a senator - he can hold whatever views he pleases, as one doesnt need to be popular to play poker

I'm with odinscott. Good post.

FYP.

Well, until the liberals manage to infringe on free speech to "manage" opinions differing with theirs, as they currently are trying to do with Talk Radio, Doyle can think and say anything he wants to. I happen to agree with him on this and disagree with him on who he was supporting for President. Polite disagreement used to be the standard in this country, but that, sadly, seems to be fading away.

This is part of Doyle's blog and I find it really interesting. I think he genuinely doesn't realise that a number of people who are held captive, and tortured, in Guantanamo Bay are innocent civillians, who have done nothing wrong, and, until Obama closes the damn place, will not get anything resembling a fair trial.

So if you agree with what Doyle says, do you also agree that it's ok for terrorist groups/foreign armies to torture American troops? Because that's what Doyle is, unwittingly, justifying.

I appreciate everyone has the right to free speech, but free speech should be used responsibly, and Doyle hasn't done that here in my opinion

It's free speech Geoff. I think you are irresponsible for suggesting that Doyle advocates torturing American troops, you think he is irresponsible for saying what he said. Everyone has an opinion. Your's just happens to be wrong.

Whats the difrence in torturing the inocent(yes, there not all guilty) prisioners in Gitmo and torturing a US soldier?

You know what, I'm wrong. If we don't torture these people to gain information, all the terrorists will lay down there weapons and we can all sing Kumbaya.

Ummmm, ironyaments? Are you really that ignorant to the situation at Guantanamo that you don't realise that many of it's inamtes are innocent? If you can genuinely justify the torture of civilians then I will be incredibly surprised.

If Doyle makes a comment like this, he can hardly turn round the next minute and claim that it's not ok for enemy forces to torture American troops. Like I said, free speech has to be used responsibly, with a well thought out, and deep understanding of the situation, something it appears Doyle doesn't have here.

And your last post makes me chuckle too. No terrorists wont lay down their weapons if Guantanamo was closed, but I dare suspect that it would be one small step in improving the American governments shattered image in the Middle East

Who cares. Hes a poker player. His opinion holds no more value than any of ours. He just has a podium to be heard from because of his name.

Geoff, I think an important part of his opinion that you skipped dealing with is the intent of the people imprisoned. One thing that makes terrorism different from military operations, and murder is the intent. The original argument has to deal with ethics of prevention of the use of force. Its kinda like the current season of "24". Do the ends justify the means? Should they?

This is a poker site and I'm not going to inject my opinion on the matter, because it has no place here. But I just wanted to better explain my understanding of Doyle's main point. There is much more to it than just a "if he thinks that, he can't be against other countries imprisoning American soldiers."

The difference is that once the US stood as guiding light for all that could be good in the world. By torture, the Patriot Act, and keeping an occupying army in conquered countries, we are no longer any better than the Regimes we have railed against in the past.

I guess I'm simply not interested about Doyle's point of view in politics or religion.

He's not saying anything particularly offensive or groundbreaking. Let him be.

neo-conservative


You should read up on neoconservatives and their neoconservatism. They are the reason for America's decline and America being pretty much an island in the storm.

You know what, we are wrong. If we torture them there will never be any terrorist attacks ever again because hey guys, under threat of torture they will be too scared to attack. Amirite?

I disagree with some of Doyle's comments whole-heartedly but it is a blog, he should be giving his opinions and he should continue to do so, no question. However, what people post in a blog should be able to be contested by people reading it.

I tend to think the US has been happy for a very long time to pretend to play this "guiding light" role. (since well before Bush...don't even try to blame this all on him. Even though he does deserve his own fair share of blame). We've definitely been playing it since WWII if not earlier. With WWII, it's hard for anyone really to not look at the US as the "guiding light" when you are being compared to Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. Or Japan and their pearl harbor attack and kamikaze bombers.


I don't believe for one second that the US hasn't been using torture for quite some time on some high and underground level. Can I prove it? Absolutely not, this is pure opinion and speculation. With Guantanamo, we did have some proof. I just refuse to buy it's as limited or as recent as that. Or that we are somehow "above" being "capable" of doing it.

As far as Doyle goes, I don't see anything particular offensive there to anyone and he's more than welcome to post his own opinions on anything on his own blog. Who cares? You are free to agree or disagree and no one is forcing you to read his blog or subscribe to his opinions. If what he wrote is particularly offensive to you I think it's *you* that needs a good looking at.

Stalin had a similar approach

I have a question. Are you guys telling me Obama is holding innocent people in Gitmo? He didn't release them immediately? Didn't they even say that the people in Gitmo weren't gonna be released, just moved. Maybe we should impeach this guy!

I have a question for you.

How can they be anything but innocent if they have not received a trial and been found guilty?

They maybe doyles blog but shouldnt these posts be about poker?

Answer my question first, then I'll answer yours.

I just like that pretty much the oldest dude in poker even has a blog, and regularly writes in it. GG Doyle

It isn't a civil operation, innocent until proven guilty does not apply. Even in criminal cases, the accused are often locked up and denied bail until their trial. The Constitution and due process do not apply to military operations and foreign combatants. And while the Geneva Convention does, the difficulty in applying it here is that these are likewise not conventional soldiers fighting under the sovereignty of a nation state, much less a Geneva signatory. They are uninvited terrorists and guerrilla fighters, without sanction from anyone. It is quite unlike any combat operation the US military has ever fought. The closest thing would be the Vietnam conflict -- another unpopular US operation. Anytime we're involved in a fight with someone other than a "country," it gets uglier than the usual war.

Therefore many consider them in a limbo area between criminal and military combatant. They are both, and they are neither, depending on who you ask. Hence the reason they are still there and no legal or political means has changed things (at least until Obama's election). And even Obama -- wisely so -- does not support opening the gates at Gitmo and letting everyone free.

It's easy for us to armchair quarterback things from the safety and comfort of our own homes. Having been on the pointy end of combat operations, as no doubt some of you have, I know that it isn't as black and white as it seems to the folks back home.

^^^

I agree with what you say here, they are neither civilians or in military combatants, in the traditional sense.

I can understand that they would be in a limbo state for a period of time whilst authorities decided how to proceed.

However there has to be some time frame beond which it is unacceptable to keep them without trial. This period should be counted in months; not years.

The issue is not whether or not they should be sentenced to incarceration, rather that it is wrong to detain anyone without setting a timescale for trial.

Put them on trial and sentence them accordingly. They are more of a threat to your way of life whilst held in Gitmo than you may believe.

The American ideal is based on democracy but their treatment is more in keeping with a dictatorship, where people can be held without trial for unspecified periods of time.

Agree with this+
Imagine your just a run of the mill Afgani citizen,no terrorist links or any thing.
Then one day bad US millatary intel says your a high ranking Al-Quida officer,you get arrested shiped to Gitmo and are tortured for 3years.
Then your finaly released and the US officials say,sorry we maked a mistake hope there no hard feelings but we had to torture u just to make sure.
Bamm you just made a new terrorist(probably dozens seeing how this guy probably has friends and family that will hate America when they hear this guys story).

The ends dont justify the means cause even if u manage to stop some terrorist attacks by using torture,you will just be stuck in a viciose circle of creating new enemys.

And the "enemy combatened" argument is just stupid imo.
In gitmo there are member of the Iraqi republican guard(aka the Iraqi elite miliatary),there solders but saying there not just makes it easyer for the US to bypass the Geneva convention.
Sure some of the people in Gitmo can be considered enemy combatened" but the people that where members of the Iraqi and Afgani army´s should be treated acording to the Geneva convention imo.
As well as Iraqi and Afgani resistence fighters(if China invaited and ocupied your country wouldnt you join some sort of mulisha unit?)
And the fact that children(yes children,13 year old kids) where held there at one point sickenese me.

Just my 2cents,begin the flaming...

Think of it this way. Sometimes you just don't know, the greater good, and Mary Mallon.

To the OP:

I don't mind Doyle having his (somewhat controversial) opinion,

but I find it unwise of him to broadcast in his blog as if he was an expert in politics and/or ethics.

Making a difference between "innocent prisoners" and "terrorists" the one being tortured wrongly and the other being tortured rightfully is complete BS.

Germany has some history in torturing - most of you will know that -
but torture was abolished after WW2 - this was put into the constitution.
The allied control board (yes there were US in that, too) strongly insisted on that.

Now here a definition on torture (for all that don't know...)

Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. In the 21st century, torture is widely considered to be a violation of human rights, and is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 145 states.
National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are immoral, as well as being impractical. These international conventions and philosophical propositions notwithstanding, many organizations (e.g. Amnesty International) that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.

And here where it applies to the US:

Ending judicial review of torture against terror suspects Main article: Military Commissions Act
In October 2006, the United States enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, authorizing the executive to conduct military tribunals of so-called enemy combatants and to hold them indefinitely without judicial review under the terms of habeas corpus. Testimony coerced through humiliating or degrading treatment would be admissible in the tribunals. Amnesty International and numerous commentators have criticized the Act for approving a system that uses torture, destroying the mechanisms for judicial review created by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and creating a parallel legal system below international standards.Part of the act was an amendment which retroactively rewrote the War Crimes Act effectively making policy makers, i.e. politicians and military leaders, and those applying policy, i.e. CIA interogators and soldiers, no longer subject to legal prosecution under US law for what before the amendment was defined as a war crime, such as torture.. Because of that critics describe the MCA as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror.