Guantanamo may shut, Republicans split

[ThAnswr]

I am concerned that any legal proceedings will become platforms for them, with which to put the US on trial instead.

So? What are you afraid of? Up until the Bush administration, I had no doubt in my mind the US's standards, practices, and beliefs would've withstood the scrutiny of world attention. But, then again, I could never have imagined Ronald Reagan, or for that matter, any president authorizing the use of torture.

And what if they were put on trial here? We have rules governing the way trials are run. If the testimony is relevant to the proceedings, it's fine. If it isn't relevant, it's stopped.

In spite of the Bush administration's self-serving bull**** that they're faced with a situation "unlike any other in history", the wheel really doesn't have to be re-invented.

We can't prosecute them here, the only reason we're picking them up is to gain useful information out of them and remove them from circulation. This has become such a controversial issue that it makes more sense to question them in the field, and then release them to their local authorities.

After 3 years, you either have your information or you don't.

Like everything else in the Bush administration, no one thought beyond the act of doing something. They were great warriors, in their own minds, who were going to show the world how tough they were. They actually believed their own bull****. Unfortunately, the amatuers in the Bush administration should've left it to the professionals.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Perhaps we could use some form of religious conversion to Christianity?
Teach them the "error of their ways".

Yes, bring in some Bibles. After 3 years, I think they need a new book to read.

 

[Teejay32]

Afraid of nothing, just have no desire to give them that kind of air time. Let them get their own.

The rest is just noise. Half the people here are also convinced on the other hand that the guys are POWs. So they're conflating the terms of the Geneva conventions and the Constitution to suit their purposes, and working to dismantle any leverage, as US citizens, they have against the organized roving bands of homicidal zealots the country wants to protect them from, who have zero commitment to any notion of human rights, but expect everyone else to follow the code to the letter on their behalf. And they're happy to do this, because it makes them better people and sets a good example, despite the fact that a promiscuous use of terms like "torture", "gulag", and "Nazi" actually weakens those terms over time. And btw anyone who doesn't agree is a Nazi-sympathizing moron. Why I expect to see a practical solution to having detainees at Gitmo I don't know, but I'm still waiting if you're so inclined.

 

[ThAnswr]

Afraid of nothing, just have no desire to give them that kind of air time. Let them get their own.

The rest is just noise. Half the people here are also convinced on the other hand that the guys are POWs. So they're conflating the terms of the Geneva conventions and the Constitution to suit their purposes, and working to dismantle any leverage, as US citizens, they have against the organized roving bands of homicidal zealots the country wants to protect them from, who have zero commitment to any notion of human rights, but expect everyone else to follow the code to the letter on their behalf. And they're happy to do this, because it makes them better people and sets a good example, despite the fact that a promiscuous use of terms like "torture", "gulag", and "Nazi" actually weakens those terms over time. And btw anyone who doesn't agree is a Nazi-sympathizing moron. Why I expect to see a practical solution to having detainees at Gitmo I don't know, but I'm still waiting if you're so inclined.

You want a practical solution, try this on for size.

Either try these people, or send them back. If they're convicted of a crime, punish them. If you don't have enough evidence to try them, you don't have a crime.

Stop this tortured logic used by the Bush administration to justify their own toughness and existance. We've been involved in wars before and we've been confronted with war crimes before. Enough with the re-invention of the wheel.

Here's a good rule for living: When you have to put such a fine point on something to justify it, there's something wrong. The Bush administration has mishandled this entire episode regarding Guantanamo. The second someone presents them with an opportunity to close the place, AND cover their ***, Guantanamo is history.

Btw, let them have their air-time. So what? Geez, maybe they'll call us names. Big "effen" deal. We have rules regarding how trials are conducted. They wouldn't be the first defendants with a chip on their shoulder inspite of the Bush bull**** "this is the first time in history".

 

[Professor Mouse]

The only thing that is being discussed is closing the prison/interrogation/torture facilities. The US will keep the base there until Castro dies just to spite him.

The concept of the prison on Guantanomo was based on our current Attorney General's intrepretation of a 1954 Supreme Court case that he read to say that prisonsers on Cuba would not be subject to the jurisdicition of the US Courts. In effect, prisoners held on Guantanamo were in a legal black hole with no rights. Luckily, the ACLU and others took this position on and the Supreme Court rejected the Bush position on prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay being outside the jurisdiction of the US Courts.

Now that the legal excuse or justification has gone away, the US has gone back to the use of extraordinary rendition or the sending of prisones to Egypt to be tortured.

Until the US rejects the concept that torture is acceptable way of extracting information, closing Guantanamo Bay will not make a difference.

 

[wvrevy]

The only thing that is being discussed is closing the prison/interrogation/torture facilities. The US will keep the base there until Castro dies just to spite him.

The concept of the prison on Guantanomo was based on our current Attorney General's intrepretation of a 1954 Supreme Court case that he read to say that prisonsers on Cuba would not be subject to the jurisdicition of the US Courts. In effect, prisoners held on Guantanamo were in a legal black hole with no rights. Luckily, the ACLU and others took this position on and the Supreme Court rejected the Bush position on prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay being outside the jurisdiction of the US Courts.

Now that the legal excuse or justification has gone away, the US has gone back to the use of extraordinary rendition or the sending of prisones to Egypt to be tortured.

Until the US rejects the concept that torture is acceptable way of extracting information, closing Guantanamo Bay will not make a difference.

VERY well put, PM ! The only problem is, the US will never take that stance as long as people who continue to let fear rule them are running things. When vengence takes precedence over justice, you've begun to go down a very dark path.

The worst part is, if we are ever in a conflict in which American prisoners are taken, we can expect the exact same treatment from our enemy, and we won't even be able to condemn it without becoming hypocrites. The best people can offer up now is "at least we didn't behead them", as if that somehow justifies doing anything short of that.

 

[Teejay32]

The worst part is, if we are ever in a conflict in which American prisoners are taken, we can expect the exact same treatment from our enemy, and we won't even be able to condemn it without becoming hypocrites. The best people can offer up now is "at least we didn't behead them", as if that somehow justifies doing anything short of that.

What a strange thing to say. We're in a conflict in which American prisoners are taken right now. Expecting the exact same treatment seems incredibly optimistic.

 

[dcentity2000]

I don't think we should stoop to the terrorist's level by holding people without fair trial and due charge.



Rich::

 

[What the Heck]

The worst part is, if we are ever in a conflict in which American prisoners are taken, we can expect the exact same treatment from our enemy, and we won't even be able to condemn it without becoming hypocrites. The best people can offer up now is "at least we didn't behead them", as if that somehow justifies doing anything short of that.

Well, almost 4 pages and I was agreeing with quite a bit of what you had to say and ThAnswer and then this. As TeeJay pointed out, we are already in a situation where Americans are being taken hostage. What we have going in Gitmo would be a picnic compared to how our hostages are being treated.

This doesn't mean I believe we should be engaged in torture, but at what point does something become torture. Bodily injury, yes, but what about pschological? Emotional? What might be considered stupid (but not torture) over here, is quite the contrary in their countries. For instance, someone who pisses on an American Flag or the Bible is going to get me angry, but someone doing the same to their Koran causes them to kill people. They consider it torture whereas up to a couple of weeks ago most of us probably would have just considered it stupidity on the captor.

That being said, I think (getting back to the subject) that Gitmo's holding camp needs to be closed. I believe we should hold military tribunals for those who are being held. Let the detainees rant all they want against the US. The only ones they will convince are those who believe in them already. No matter what, though, Gitmo has become a lightening rod, and has lost it's effectiveness because of it. Just my thoughts.

 

[DisDuck]

dcent can verify this for me but I remember reading that several months ago some 'prisoners' were released, British & Australian citizens. They were sent home and still remain free, I believe. Probably not enough evidence to hold or convict of any crime. If these 'prisoners' are innocent then they may be others in Gitmo also innocent. As to 'interrogation' methods I am sure that Sen. McCain might have some thoughts on that subject as it pertains to Gitmo.

Hold trials, punish the guilty and release the innocent then proclaim to the world this is how a democracy works. It seems to me that this is the way to promote democracy to the world not acting like the dictatorships out there.

 

[wvrevy]

What a strange thing to say. We're in a conflict in which American prisoners are taken right now. Expecting the exact same treatment seems incredibly optimistic.

Yes, I'm well aware that we are in a conflict right now. However, the "enemy" in this conflict doesn't have a national government, nor do they have prisons set up along the lines of Gitmo. We're dealing with criminals, not enemies.

What the Heck - Basically, you're asking for a definition of torture. Unfortunately, I think you'll find that the answer is just as you stated: entirely subjective. However, boneheaded decisions by our government have left us very open to criticism along that front. But beyond the simple fact that any semblence of "torture" - by their definition, not by ours - will be used against us as a likely successful recruiting tool, it is simply wrong to engage in inhumane acts, regardless of the motivation.

 

[Charade]

Well then if all you're doing is talking about jihad, you haven't committed a crime.

No exactly true. People are tried for conspiracy to commit certain crimes all the time. Although they haven't carried out their Jihad, they could be very close to doing it tomorrow. Should we just wait to see what happens and clean up the mess afterwards?

Here's an intriguing question: How do you know so much about what's going on in Guantanamo? Where are you getting your information? Who are your sources? Maybe we ought to have an investigation to find the mole you have in Guantanamo?

Right back atcha.

 

[dcentity2000]

dcent can verify this for me but I remember reading that several months ago some 'prisoners' were released, British & Australian citizens. They were sent home and still remain free, I believe. Probably not enough evidence to hold or convict of any crime. If these 'prisoners' are innocent then they may be others in Gitmo also innocent. As to 'interrogation' methods I am sure that Sen. McCain might have some thoughts on that subject as it pertains to Gitmo.

Hold trials, punish the guilty and release the innocent then proclaim to the world this is how a democracy works. It seems to me that this is the way to promote democracy to the world not acting like the dictatorships out there.

I can indeed verify that Britons did return home from Guantanamo Bay. There was quite an uproar when they were incarcerated in that man made version of the Divine Comedy.

One is now into politics. The UK also insisted that the Britons be tried in the UK, which the USA gave into and that no detainee of UK origin be charged with the (rather archaic) death penalty which by proxy was agreed to.



Rich::

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I don't think we should shut it down. However, since we don't see the war on terror ending soon, I think we need to figure out someway to process more of these prisoners. Whether it's a military tribunal or something else.

The war on terror (in general, I don't mean Iraq or just Iraq) could go on for a LONG time. Will there be a true end to it, as terrorism may never be completely eliminated. Are we doing to detain these people for the rest of their lives? Are we going to charge some as criminals, and give them a specific sentence? I know some that were released went right back to attacking us, and some other prisoners if released would likely do the same. What to do with these people? Is there a true precedent?

 

[dcentity2000]

I don't think we should shut it down. However, since we don't see the war on terror ending soon, I think we need to figure out someway to process more of these prisoners. Whether it's a military tribunal or something else.

The war on terror (in general, I don't mean Iraq or just Iraq) could go on for a LONG time. Will there be a true end to it, as terrorism may never be completely eliminated. Are we doing to detain these people for the rest of their lives? Are we going to charge some as criminals, and give them a specific sentence? I know some that were released went right back to attacking us, and some other prisoners if released would likely do the same. What to do with these people? Is there a true precedent?

You have to remember that the so called "war" on terrorism is ancient; Eta, the IRA, etc, have been around for decades preceding the 9/11 attacks. There's nothing new about this whatsoever.

And there was a time in the UK when the policy was indeed "guilty until proven innocent". That got scrapped pretty quickly for one reason or another.

I'd also like to know why people seem so eager to site this prison in an area where the Geneva convention does not apply; seems like torture through proxy.



Rich::

 

[Teejay32]

Yes, I'm well aware that we are in a conflict right now. However, the "enemy" in this conflict doesn't have a national government, nor do they have prisons set up along the lines of Gitmo. We're dealing with criminals, not enemies.

I disagree. They're all still in one piece, so no crime has been committed yet to prosecute. And it's all kind of pointless after the fact.

I'll start calling them "alleged combatants."

 

[Professor Mouse]

I disagree. They're all still in one piece, so no crime has been committed yet to prosecute. And it's all kind of pointless after the fact.

I'll start calling them "alleged combatants."

Luckily, the Supreme Court rejected the concept that Bush has the right to do anything he wants to with enemy combatants. We have to try the detainees or release them at some point. Guantanamo is no longer a legal black hole where we can hold these detainees forever without filing charges. A republican supreme court can down with the right ruling here.

 

[DawnCt1]

What a strange thing to say. We're in a conflict in which American prisoners are taken right now. Expecting the exact same treatment seems incredibly optimistic.

Absolutely! These detainees are fed three wholesome meals per day in accordance with their dietary restrictions, they are provided with Korans, signs pointing towards Mecca and their allegations of torture have never been corroborated. In fact, in their training manuals, it instructs all detainees to accuse the US of torture. In WWII, POWs were kept imprisoned until the end of the war. Some have been released to their homelands. Some have been recaptured trying to kill Americans.

 

[7thdwarf/dopey]

Lets hope not.

Do you have any idea at all why Gitmo even exists? Its been there as a defense for this country way before this prison camp. Have some faith in our country's leaders.

 

[ThAnswr]

No exactly true. People are tried for conspiracy to commit certain crimes all the time.?

Well to have a conspiracy, you have to prove that someone conspired to commit a crime, and not just talk about jihad.

Although they haven't carried out their Jihad, they could be very close to doing it tomorrow.

They could also be close to doing it never.

Should we just wait to see what happens and clean up the mess afterwards

No, let's just round up everybody who is thinking the wrong thoughts, talking to the wrong people, maybe capable of committing a crime, has criminality in their heart, etc. Would that make you feel safer?

Right back atcha.

You see, you've got this all wrong. I don't know what's going on in Guantanamo except what we're being told by the Bush administration and their credibility reminds me of an old saying we had in NY: "That and a dime will get you a ride on the subway".

I want to know what's going on in Guantanamo and the ones preventing that is the Bush administration and their water carriers. I want to know if the CIA is shipping prisoners out to Uzbekistan where their dictator boils political enemies. I want to know if there are any Americans there. I want to know if the Bush administration is sending people to countries where they will be tortured. I want to know, why after nearly 3 years, there isn't one person arrested for being in an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell or been arrested in connection with 9/11. Btw, Moussaui was arrested the month before.

Of course, YMMV.