Guantanamo may shut, Republicans split

[jrydberg]

The US govt, i.e. the CIA had determined that Brittish claims were wrong.

The CIA determined the evidence available to them was inconclusive on the matter. They did NOT determine that the British claims were wrong.

 

[Puffy2]

The Republicans may be split, but one thing's fer sure - the Democrats are all for releasing the terroists back into the world...

I haven't read all the 12 pages of this thread, but I did want to add my 2 cents:

The crime concerning Guantanamo Bay has to do with the fact that most of these "prisoners" haven't been charged with a crime, haven't been given any access to legal counsel, and they intend to keep them indefinately - very possibly for the rest of their lives.

How is that American? Our country is supposed to believe in due process (that's only for "Citizens" the Republicans claim. Well, either you are for human rights or your NOT. If they are willing to take the simple basic rights of "charging an individual with a crime and giving them access to legal counsel" from a human being, what makes you think that they won't try to take their fellow citizens' rights away...one by one

Many of those prisoners very well may be dangerous "terriorsts" (a term being used far too frequently these days. I'm sure there were many southerners during the Civil War that could have been classified as terriorists...fighting without a uniform (Cause they were so freaking poor, they didn't have access to a complete uniform) but, if they infact ARE "terriosts" CHARGE them with a crime and give them access to legal counsel and let them have their day in court.

Otherwise, it would be MORE human just to kill them all, rather than let them rot in that lousey prison for the next 70 years.

 

[jrydberg]

Getting back to Guantanamo, technically there may be cause to keep these people indefinitely under the Geneva Conventions. However, if the United States of America is going to do so, there'd better be no doubt about their status. It should be easily established -- in which case, a military tribunal or a court of law should have no problem determining that. Holding someone as an enemy combatant not in compliance with the Geneva Conventions is a very serious matter and ought not to be done without considerable evidence.

The United States of America is a nation ruled by law. Designating these folks as enemy combatants not in compliance with the Geneva Conventions without establishing that publicly is a dangerous road to follow.

Personally, even if a military tribunal or court finds that to be the case, I still think we ought to accord them protections specified in the Geneva Conventions even if they are not entitled to them. It's just the right thing to do.

 

[Teejay32]

No matter which reason you choose for inclusion someone either dropped the ball or was incompetent or lied. Make your choice.

None. The CIA deemed it inconclusive, not false; the British stand behind the claim, and Tenet opined about its insertion into the SOTU, but also defended the claim itself by referencing Joe Wilson's own words. It's neither false nor misleading, and is factually correct...Iraq sought contacts to purchase uranium in Africa one day. BFD already.

On Guantanamo prisoners - "protections" imply some sort of contract from one party to another. We don't have one. Extending these rights to them is a gift on our part, twofold, with the Constitution and the Geneva accords. Those committed to terrorism will use it against us. It's a losing proposition, kind of on the idea of not profiling airline passengers - if we miss the next Arab shoe bomber, at least we can feel good about ourselves for not appearing to be racist. I don't subscribe to that kind of moral superiority. We have protections because we do have an implied contract in this country - the country protects its citizens, the citizens defend the country. No one has the right to arbitrarily and fundamentally alter that - trading security measures to the benefit of those hostile to the US - on behalf of some global human rights crusade. IMO it's the absolute wrong thing.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Do you really think it's a "gulag?"

You might want to read this.
http://www.wingsofjustice.com/05/06/woj05002.html

This week's "Wings of Justice Award" goes to Amnesty International for correctly calling the Bushevik system of detention and torture camps a gulag. One definition of gulag, according, to the American Heritage Dictionary is "A place or situation of great suffering and hardship, likened to the atmosphere in a prison system or a forced labor camp."

In its forward to this year's annual Amnesty International Report on Human Rights Abuses, Amnesty succinctly summed up the case: "The US government has gone to great lengths to restrict the application of the Geneva Conventions and to 're-define' torture. It has sought to justify the use of coercive interrogation techniques, the practice of holding 'ghost detainees' (people in unacknowledged incommunicado detention) and the 'rendering' or handing over of prisoners to third countries known to practice torture. The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law."

Gulag is right on the money when you lump Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Pakistan and countless secret locations together. Amnesty International merits the BuzzFlash.com "Wings of Justice Award" for reporting on what is obvious, rather than being intimidated by the lies of the White House.

Thank you Amnesty International for speaking up on behalf of all our rights.

 

[DisDuck]

But Teejay.. Who says these people in Gitmo are dangerous? Our government based on what evidence? That they were caught in Afghanistan? So by default isn't everyone one in Afghanistan a 'terrorist' by virtue of living there. You see, not everyone in Gitmo was actually on the 'front-lines' with the Taliban. Take for example what happened during the Republican convention in NYC. There were police sweeps of the protestors picking up those 'violating' the rules of engagement (protest/marching restrictions). It turned out that some of those swept up were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, ie. walking down the street to work, lunch, etc., things like that. So it is possible that some of those in Gitmo were swept up the same way but are not 'terrorists'. What would be wrong in giving them access to legal counsel, to presentation of charges and their day in court? If guilty then have legal and moral reasons for incarceration. The Supreme Court has ruled that legal counsel should be provided. Gitmo just reminds me too much of the WWII interment camps in Colorado. People jailed just on what 'group' they belonged to without any evidence.

 

[DawnCt1]

- trading security measures to the benefit of those hostile to the US - on behalf of some global human rights crusade. IMO it's the absolute wrong thing.

Very well said!

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

You might want to read this.
http://www.wingsofjustice.com/05/06/woj05002.html

Just another anti-Bush, anti-Republican website voicing its opinion. See their "about" section on their home page.

The Russian "gulags" were forced labor camps that killed millions of people. Amnesty International hurts its own credibility and supposed non-biased standing with such hyperbolic and insulting comparisons.

Keep the detention camp in place. I agree with those who would like to see more "processing" of these people (though its a very tough call as to what to do as some that we've released are found to be attacking us again), but these "gulag" comparisons are way over the top.

 

[wvrevy]

Getting back to Guantanamo, technically there may be cause to keep these people indefinitely under the Geneva Conventions. However, if the United States of America is going to do so, there'd better be no doubt about their status. It should be easily established -- in which case, a military tribunal or a court of law should have no problem determining that. Holding someone as an enemy combatant not in compliance with the Geneva Conventions is a very serious matter and ought not to be done without considerable evidence.

The United States of America is a nation ruled by law. Designating these folks as enemy combatants not in compliance with the Geneva Conventions without establishing that publicly is a dangerous road to follow.

Personally, even if a military tribunal or court finds that to be the case, I still think we ought to accord them protections specified in the Geneva Conventions even if they are not entitled to them. It's just the right thing to do.

We may have disagreed on a lot of things, j, but I wanted to quote the above again just to make certain that everyone reads it.

VERY well said !

 

[dcentity2000]

*sighs*

Let's summarise this again.

Bush and Blair made direct representations that there was solid evidence of WMDs in Iraq and that there was a threat to the western world from Saddam. They did so throughpertaining to be reciting a fact as shown in quotes such as:

"The threat that Saddam Hussein poses is an issue in its own right, because the reason why the UN Security Council passed these resolutions was precisely because we know the threat that there is from the weapons of mass destruction that he has."
Prime Minister Tony Blair

"He's got weapons of mass destruction"
Pesident George W. Bush Jnr

"His weapons of mass destruction program is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction program is not shut down. It is up and running... The intelligence picture (the intelligence services) paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."
Prime Minister Tony Blair

"Saddam Hussein is a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, and yet he deceived the world. He's got them... We know he's got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons."
Pesident George W. Bush Jnr

"We are asked now seriously to accept that in the last few years -- contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence -- Saddam decided unilaterally to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd."
Prime Minister Tony Blair

"He's a man who has told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he does."
Pesident George W. Bush Jnr

"I have always said to people throughout that our aim has not been regime change, our aim has been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction."
Prime Minister Tony Blair

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Pesident George W. Bush Jnr

""On weapons of mass destruction, we know that the regime has them, we know that as the regime collapses we will be led to them. We pledged to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and we will keep that commitment."
Prime Minister Tony Blair

"We cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
Pesident George W. Bush Jnr

I especially liked the notion that there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised" according to Bush and that "our aim has been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction" according to Blair.

Now, the official memo to Number 10 Downing Street calls the intelligenct "flimsy" and "weak". Weapons inspectors declared that there were no WMDs there.

So far no evidence to the contrary has been discovered or revealed asides from a "biological weapons facility" which turned out to be a burnt out caravan.

Now, as for the definition of a "lie":

"A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it. Thus a true statement may be a lie if the speaker thinks it is false. Fictions, though false, are not lies. Depending on definitions, a lie can be a genuine falsehood or a selective truth, a lie by omission..."
Source: Wikipædia

Since George Bush and Tony Blair were both warned that:

1. There were no WMDs
2. Intelligence was "flimsy"

we can conclude one of a number of things.

1. The two leaders had cause for doubt and were therefore lying
2. The two leaders paid no attention to the intelligence and/or the reports, showing a distinct, lethal and fatal flaw in their leadership
3. Both leaders chose to omit the contrary evidence and thus were lying by omission
4. Both leaders assumed that their beliefs nullified the reports, showing another distinct, fatal and disasterous flaw in their leadership
5. A UFO landed on earth and dropped of agents Blair and Bush to bring chaos to the world in time for an invasion of epic proportions

Doesn't look good folks.

Now, camp X-Ray.

Shows some intelligence in the Bush administration somewhere at least. I mean, locating it off site so that the anti-torture international agreements are nullified was a stroke of genious. Sadistic, cruel and very terrorist like, but genious nonetheless.



Rich::

 

[DisDuck]

JER... Show one shred of evidence that any Gitmo released prisoner was recaptured in Iraq or Afghanistan by name and include source.

 

[jrydberg]

Frankly, this lying discussion is getting absurd and I will no longer pursue discussions on that vein -- I've addressed all these points before. I'm sure some of you will take that as a sign of victory. Do as you please, but that is not my intent. I have said my bit over and over and over again, only to have the relevant parts completely ignored. I've had about all I can take of the games. Have at it. Call him a liar. Doesn't make it true.

 

[Teejay32]

Here ya go DisDuck:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html

 

[DisDuck]

jryd.. I can understand your frustration. I sometimes feel the same way on other topics. But could you bear with me for just one more question?

Suppose person A gives some information to person B with the caveat that this information is 'right now' inconclusive. Then person B tells you that information but without the caveat, what would your reaction be? Would you believe it as 'fact' or as 'supposition' or 'false'?

I am in no way calling person B a liar, etc. just curious on how you would perceive this information.

If you wish to answer thanks for the reply. If not then that is OK also. Your right to not reply.

 

[DisDuck]

Thanks for the article. What I did not get from the article was why they were arrested in the first place. If it was for being either a terrorist or taliban then there should have been enough evidence to detain them. The article seems to indicate that either insufficient evidence to continue to hold them or in the teenager's case he was persuaded to give up the errors of his way.

Now here in the US some people suspected of criminal acts are released for insufficient evidence then they go ahead, commit another cirme and are re-arrested. Should we detain everyone (US citizen) suspected of a crime indefinitely because maybe they might commit another crime and be rearrested?

These particular detainees actually support the reason why trials should be held and due rights accorded. Maybe the circumstancial evidence against these detainees might have held up in a trial and therefore they would have not been released. The government never even tried that path. Since they were released anyway, of what harm would it have been allow them their 'day' in court. It certainly would have helped in the PR 'war'.

 

[ThAnswr]

Frankly, this lying discussion is getting absurd and I will no longer pursue discussions on that vein -- I've addressed all these points before. I'm sure some of you will take that as a sign of victory. Do as you please, but that is not my intent. I have said my bit over and over and over again, only to have the relevant parts completely ignored. I've had about all I can take of the games. Have at it. Call him a liar. Doesn't make it true.

No the true absurdity is to argue that deliberately making a misstatement is not a lie.

Jrydberg, you're smarter than this.

 

[ThAnswr]

None. The CIA deemed it inconclusive, not false; the British stand behind the claim, and Tenet opined about its insertion into the SOTU, but also defended the claim itself by referencing Joe Wilson's own words. It's neither false nor misleading, and is factually correct...Iraq sought contacts to purchase uranium in Africa one day. BFD already.

On Guantanamo prisoners - "protections" imply some sort of contract from one party to another. We don't have one. Extending these rights to them is a gift on our part, twofold, with the Constitution and the Geneva accords. Those committed to terrorism will use it against us. It's a losing proposition, kind of on the idea of not profiling airline passengers - if we miss the next Arab shoe bomber, at least we can feel good about ourselves for not appearing to be racist. I don't subscribe to that kind of moral superiority. We have protections because we do have an implied contract in this country - the country protects its citizens, the citizens defend the country. No one has the right to arbitrarily and fundamentally alter that - trading security measures to the benefit of those hostile to the US - on behalf of some global human rights crusade. IMO it's the absolute wrong thing.

Keep putting a finer and finer point on all of this. That's how we got to this mess in Guantanamo.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Frankly, this lying discussion is getting absurd and I will no longer pursue discussions on that vein -- I've addressed all these points before. I'm sure some of you will take that as a sign of victory. Do as you please, but that is not my intent. I have said my bit over and over and over again, only to have the relevant parts completely ignored. I've had about all I can take of the games. Have at it. Call him a liar. Doesn't make it true.

Again, you are starting from an incorrect definition of lying. Your definition of lying would let most of the people convicted of securities fraud off the hook (Ken Lay would love your definition). The better definition of lying is one that recognizes the real world (i.e. the legal) definition of lying.

Bush made the statement about Niger yellowcake when it was clear to the US intelligence community that the statement was wrong and misleading. He did so to pump up or to "fixed the facts and intelligence" to justify the war in Iraq. The CIA had determined that the Brittish charges were not trustworthy and that it was a mistake for Bush to use such charges in his SOTU. Making a statement where one does not have a reasonable basis to believe that such statement is true and where one has been told that the statement is false is lying under the legal definition of fraud that is common to most penal codes.

Bush lied and thousand have died. It has become clear that Bush has fixed the facts and the intelligence to justify the war and the lies about Niger yellowcake was part of the plot.

We need to agree to disagree. You are stuck on your definition and I am stuck on using what I strongly believe is the better definition and the definition that comports with the real world (at least according to the law).

 

[Teejay32]

Thanks for the article. What I did not get from the article was why they were arrested in the first place. If it was for being either a terrorist or taliban then there should have been enough evidence to detain them. The article seems to indicate that either insufficient evidence to continue to hold them or in the teenager's case he was persuaded to give up the errors of his way.

Now here in the US some people suspected of criminal acts are released for insufficient evidence then they go ahead, commit another cirme and are re-arrested. Should we detain everyone (US citizen) suspected of a crime indefinitely because maybe they might commit another crime and be rearrested?

These particular detainees actually support the reason why trials should be held and due rights accorded. Maybe the circumstancial evidence against these detainees might have held up in a trial and therefore they would have not been released. The government never even tried that path. Since they were released anyway, of what harm would it have been allow them their 'day' in court. It certainly would have helped in the PR 'war'.

I don't think they're all Taliban. But for those who are...I'm not sure we can prosecute people for fighting with the Taliban anyway. Reason being, that's one of the things the Geneva convention was addressing, protection of people from sham trials. The twisty part is where the Taliban was not recognized as a legitimate government in Afghanistan, and they're fighting the real recognized gov't...but that's not necessarily a crime under US law either. (I've lost my legal expert so I can't ask.)

I know it's a black hole, but we didn't create it. Maybe it's time for the international community to address how to treat illegal stateless combatants before demanding their release, hmm?

 

[ThAnswr]

I don't think they're all Taliban. But for those who are...I'm not sure we can prosecute people for fighting with the Taliban anyway. Reason being, that's one of the things the Geneva convention was addressing, protection of people from sham trials. The twisty part is where the Taliban was not recognized as a legitimate government in Afghanistan, and they're fighting the real recognized gov't...but that's not necessarily a crime under US law either. (I've lost my legal expert so I can't ask.)

I know it's a black hole, but we didn't create it. Maybe it's time for the international community to address how to treat illegal stateless combatants before demanding their release, hmm?

The Bush administration did create the black hole of Guantanamo prison and the black hole in Iraq. This is their doings, not anyone elses.

Of course, now let's bring in the international community. Maybe Bush could start with "Old Europe". And then he could work his way through the list of "if you aren't with us, you're with the terrorists". Sooner or later, somebody is bound to have an idea Bush can use to cover his *** over bad planning, bad intelligence, etc.

Bush and his group made the most of the political opportunities that came their way without thinking what was to come later. You can call Bush a liar or an incompetent, but either way, that sack of crap ought to be removed from office.