Guantanamo prisoners coming to Uruguay.

Let's go! I apologize for having not been able to manage time to post my arguments before. But I haven't surrendered. Well, first of all, my opponent doesn't need to remind me that Uruguay is a sovereign nation and everything it means. By the way, joepbr clearly shows some hostility alluding to what he or she maybe consider to be my political standpoint referring to (sic) ". .. paranoias of the Brazilian right-wing. " As far as I haven't yet made any statements which could lead to that conclusion his or her harsh words could only be related to his or her own views. Despite his or her outrageous way to qualify me (as a paranoic right-wing which would never be a polite way to address anyone) I think he or she deserves an answer. Although it may seem to some people that terrorism is a national question which could be restrained and adequately solved to local governments alone. The facts witnessed in the last 15 years tell the contrary. Terrorism does actually concern to all the people across the countries all over the world since there's no limit or boundaries to the terror. Each individual who going out the street can be a victim of a terrorist bomb blast has the right to discuss anything related to terrorism no matter where in the world the threat is. Besides, as part of a free human right to think and speak anyone is entitled to freely speak for what ones believe. And for anyone who tries to silence by moral of physical coercion the voices of dissension I think Iran would make a perfect home to live in. Regarding my opponent's arguments I think they do not even apply to this debate. Whatever be the Mr. president Mujica's reasons to offer a way out of the problem the point here is the consequences and not the causes. I can see a lot of disturbing questions about the causes but that is not the main concern anyone should stand up against moving terrorists to a country not prepared to handle them. And when Mr. Mujica publicly says those terrorist will be free to live in society well that makes it a lot worse. So, I do not stand here for any hypothetical surreal scenario but rather against a real potential threat that will come from a vulnerable situation we are allowing to take place in south america. Brazilian authorities instead of taking diplomatic and security measures in order to mitigate the risks of terrorist cells start to operate in its territory are volunteering to also receive Guantanamo prisoners. I cannot see any good coming from this. .. All of the arguments my opponent have opposed do not hold to defend such an absurd. Let us go over each of them: 1) Soft Power: no strategy to increase the global relevance should be even considered if it compromises citizens' security; 2) Pepe Mujuca's history as a prisoner: this is only relevant in order to attack his hypocrite speech. His counter-intuitive manners as a president ostensibly showing himself as humble man could not serve as a better way to disguise himself as an angel of light who fights for the Human Rights. Mujica's past as a Tupamaro's guerrilla member who used to plan and execute banks robbery among other tactic actions is never mentioned. A member of a Marxist urban guerrilla group which today resembles what we would call a terrorist group. That is where he really feels any compassion and empathy with the detainees from Guantanamo. But that has been kept under the rug for so long time that he now can even afford to pose as a political pop star in defense of people and democracy. So, your counterargument here doesn't hold just because Mujica's is a blatant political lie backed by his own personal history. 3) Human Rights issues: there's an alternative way to see things when speaking of human rights. You can state that human rights shall be concerned about the prisoner's rights. The Guantanamo prisoners are claimed to be not treated properly, to have suffered torture and been kept captive without prove of their crimes and in bad conditions. I'd say that holds and Guantanamo really has to be closed as soon as possible. I never intended to dispute that claim. .. But on the other side we also could think about the human rights applied to those who are victims of terrorist attacks. I'm not stating that it justifies what has happened in Guantanamo. But how are we about increasing the risk of new terrorist attacks in south america or any part of the world just to fulfill the rights of a few individuals who nobody denies to be related to terrorist activities although it could not be proved? One single terrorist carrying a bomb can kill dozens of innocent people. This is not fairy tale. It's true. This is not a fare crime combat we see in the streets between criminals and police. This is 'bloody' true war! It's naive to think about the human rights of people who clearly state their mission as to kill other people in the name of their God. Only people like Mujica and our enlightened Dilma could really stand up for a fight in these terms in the international community. I'm just depicting Dilma's famous speech in UN recently defending to dialogue with ISIS as diplomatic way out in the current middle-east scenario. Regarding Obama's foreign policy Obama just wants to get rid of Guantanamo to lower down the pressure on his administration. And that is another problem I see. How bad is nowadays U. S. foreign policy. They want to fight terrorism in the middle-east but don't care about bringing terrorists to live as civilians in a country which could not stand by itself if a terrorist menace scenario emerges (what is likely to occur). It's such an ambiguity the way Obama's international policy for security matters has treated identical problems. The geopolitics questions related to terrorism are crucial to any nation's foreign policy. Witnessing a terrorist attack with a lot of victims in homeland is the last thing any chief of State would want. Security is the main concern in people's everyday life because survival is the primary animal instinct. A society pervaded by fear would accept anything in order to keep safety. We have many examples of that in history being the Sep. 9/11's aftermath and consequences the most emblematic. Therefore, the deliberate omission by Brazilian authorities regarding this question couldn't be by a mistake. That is not the same as occurred to M. P"tain in 1940. That foreign policies intervene and affects each other's nations questions is perfectly normal and expected. Nations acting in the best of their interests will imminently come to some sort of conflict with each other since they are competing with the powerful ones overcoming the weak ones most of the times. There is nothing wrong with that. And that is why Brazil should take some course of action about former Guantanamo prisoners set free so close to its borders. Terrorism is globalized inasmuch as any economic activity. Terrorist forces spread around the world are now more numerous and better armed and prepared than some of the UN nations member's armies. It's a myth that countries like Brazil or Uruguay are not hot spots or potential targets for terrorism. That myth could very well be the common sense in U. S. territory until Sep, 11th 2001. That changed the way americans view things. In the last decade terrorism activity has taken the world. I hope to have made my points clear. Sources 1. Washington Post - Uruguay has taken in six Guantanamo prisoners. Will they stay there? - . http://goo.gl... ; 2. The New York Times - Uruguay accepts 6 detainees held at Guantanamo. - . http://goo.gl... ; 3. The National Interest - Jos" Mujica and Uruguay's 'Robin Hood Guerrillas' - . http://goo.gl... .