Source:
http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20090125652310.html
(Sorry, US military only)
| Quote: |
While torture and abuse come to mind when we think of Guantanamo, meanwhile, such stories do not stand the light of inspection.
The most recent story that military judge Susan Crawford deems "torture," the abuse of Muhammad al Qahtani, was mitigated by independent FBI and DOD investigations. Qahtani endured tough procedures in fall 2002. He was one of only two detainees put through "special interrogation techniques" that were authorized for a brief three-month period, then rescinded.
Indisputably, Qahtani was treated badly, although it stretches the definition of torture to apply that label. We need to keep two points in mind: There was unbelievable pressure on Guantanamo interrogators to learn of follow-on attacks to 9/11. Suppose we later learned that Qahtani knew of new plots? Reaction would be overwhelming that he should have been forced to disclose his information.
Second, the Qahtani incident was isolated and corrected. Among the more than 24,000 interrogations that took place from 2002 to 2005, the FBI reported only three instances of abuse or improper behavior by interrogators. Personnel were disciplined; there has been no repeat of such behavior.
The most disturbing myth surrounding Guantanamo is that American service men and women abuse detainees routinely. Attempting to learn the truth of such allegations inspired me to make my first visit to the facility and ultimately led to four more visits and my book detailing the facts of Guantanamo.
Considering that Guantanamo is one of the most inspected, highly supervised and stringently disciplined facilities in the world, I'm surprised it continues to be so misrepresented. I toured Guantanamo five times over the past three years and was greeted with absolute transparency. "Where do you want to go, what do you want to see?" authorities asked. "We'll take you any where with no notice." I took them up on their offer and walked all of the blocks, hospital, library, food prep, and interrogations.
I conducted scores of private interviews of service members and civilians, alone, with no command oversight. Detainees are fed 4,200 calorie, halal-prepared meals each day. They get special treats for Muslim feasts. A detainee at Guantanamo sees medical personnel on average four times a month.
American service men and women are subject to constant abuse. They are doused with noxious body-fluid "cocktails," assaulted physically and endure vicious name-calling filled with racial epitaphs and profanity. Nevertheless they soldier on. Rates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from duty at Gitmo are staggering. It is a combat zone where one side only the detainees are permitted to attack. |
What? You mean Guantanamo isn't a horrible place where torture is routine and continues to this day? Incredible. What can possibly be OK about a place where people are locked up for 5 years without a trial?
And its not as bad because the most extreme forms of torture only happened sometimes? And it was approved? I'm pretty sure 3 months wouldn't feel like a brief period if you were being tortured.
cheers,
david
| davidfromoz wrote: |
| What can possibly be OK about a place where people are locked up for 5 years without a trial? |
Where else would you have us put them? I'm just curious. | davidfromoz wrote: |
And its not as bad because the most extreme forms of torture only happened sometimes? And it was approved? I'm pretty sure 3 months wouldn't feel like a brief period if you were being tortured.
|
Well, also that it was only ever used on two inmates, and that it doesn't continue on to this day at all.
In other words, it was a bad decision, but it had a limited effect, and it was reversed quickly (by bureaucratic standards).
So, closing the prison to prevent torture is pointless: torture is already prevented there and has been for years.
| davidfromoz wrote: |
What can possibly be OK about a place where people are locked up for 5 years without a trial?
|
And closing the prison is only delaying the trails more. | Xanatos wrote: |
| Where else would you have us put them? I'm just curious. |
I would have sent them to trial. | davidfromoz wrote: |
| Xanatos wrote: | | Where else would you have us put them? I'm just curious. |
I would have sent them to trial. |
And after that? Its not like they would have been sent free.Well lets see:
The Universal Declaration of Human Right, the US constitution (recently backed up by the Supreme Court) say that they deserve a trial.
Are you suggesting they should be ignored in this case?
cheers,
david
| davidfromoz wrote: |
| Xanatos wrote: | | Where else would you have us put them? I'm just curious. |
I would have sent them to trial. |
OK, so now let us imagine they are put on trial, and the very reason that they got to where they got is that they are so good at not allowing evidence to exist in the first place. Now they go to trial, are of course found innocent, and where do they go after that? Straight to the United States to bomb a few places, another horror story like Mumbai perhaps. And that is OK? Is this what you want? | deanhills wrote: |
| davidfromoz wrote: | | Xanatos wrote: | | Where else would you have us put them? I'm just curious. |
I would have sent them to trial. |
OK, so now let us imagine they are put on trial, and the very reason that they got to where they got is that they are so good at not allowing evidence to exist in the first place. Now they go to trial, are of course found innocent, and where do they go after that? Straight to the United States to bomb a few places, another horror story like Mumbai perhaps. And that is OK? Is this what you want? |
Err...you could use exactly the same argument for domestic criminals. Presumably the more successful criminals become so because of their ability to stay out of jail. Your solution, therefore, would be to imprison them without trial, indefinitely. Personally I would prefer to live in a society which did not do such things.
Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such. | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | davidfromoz wrote: | | Xanatos wrote: | | Where else would you have us put them? I'm just curious. |
I would have sent them to trial. |
OK, so now let us imagine they are put on trial, and the very reason that they got to where they got is that they are so good at not allowing evidence to exist in the first place. Now they go to trial, are of course found innocent, and where do they go after that? Straight to the United States to bomb a few places, another horror story like Mumbai perhaps. And that is OK? Is this what you want? |
Err...you could use exactly the same argument for domestic criminals. Presumably the more successful criminals become so because of their ability to stay out of jail. Your solution, therefore, would be to imprison them without trial, indefinitely. Personally I would prefer to live in a society which did not do such things.
Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such. |
There is definitely a difference between a common criminal who kills and a trained terrorist of the variety we have seen during Setp11 and in Mumbai recently. There is no comparison! 
I would imagine those that are admitted to GITMO would be of the latter variety! If they were your common criminal they would have been detained in a total different way.Well, I see absolutely no difference and I would be astonished if you could define one.
We dealt with trained killers in the IRA for years (and still do). They are treated as CRIMINALS and they are tried and imprisoned just as other criminals would be.
It is true that, as part of the peace agreement, many IRA (and loyalist) terrorists were freed or had their sentences reduced, but that is not really the point. We tried dealing with the IRA as 'extra-judicial' combatants by interning them without trial. It was a political disaster as well as morally repugnant and we learned our lesson. The US has, hopefully, now learned the same lesson.
As for those incarcerated at GITMO - you really don't have a clue, nor do I. We rely on partial evidence statements from the military. I do know that one UK citizen freed from GITMO was a Pakistani taxi driver - hardly an international terrorist mastermind.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| As for those incarcerated at GITMO - you really don't have a clue, nor do I. |
Exactly. I wonder who has a clue? Apparently they do not even know what they have in GITMO? One thing I am sure off however is that most of them are ugly villians. It will be a very tough decision to set them free. Who will be taking the responsibility for that?This issue definitely is a complicated and difficult one. It will be interesting to see what Obama ends up doing about this.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | As for those incarcerated at GITMO - you really don't have a clue, nor do I. |
Exactly. I wonder who has a clue? Apparently they do not even know what they have in GITMO? One thing I am sure off however is that most of them are ugly villians. It will be a very tough decision to set them free. Who will be taking the responsibility for that? |
Well, again it depends on your definitions. Is someone who is prepared to kill and be killed in the cause of a religion or nationalism more 'ugly' than someone who is prepared to kill for money? You tell me.
The thing that frightens western minds is that some of these people are willing to die, whereas most criminals would try to avoid that at all costs. That does not, to my mind, make them more morally/ethically repugnant, just potentially more dangerous.
I really don't know what your basis is for being sure that 'most of them are ugly villains'. Without evidence (which requires a trial) then all I know is that there are possibly some very bad people there and possibly some innocent ones. That is why we have 'innocent until proven guilty' - unfortunately the US chose not to apply it to these particular detainees. | Bikerman wrote: |
| We rely on partial evidence statements from the military. I do know that one UK citizen freed from GITMO was a Pakistani taxi driver - hardly an international terrorist mastermind. |
And we know now that one other prisoner who was released was Al-Qaeda's #2 man in Yemen, and has now rejoined the group.
Exactly an international terrorist mastermind.
The problem is, how do we sort them out correctly on spotty evidence and unreliable testimony? | deanhills wrote: |
| OK, so now let us imagine they are put on trial, and the very reason that they got to where they got is that they are so good at not allowing evidence to exist in the first place. Now they go to trial, are of course found innocent, and where do they go after that? Straight to the United States to bomb a few places, another horror story like Mumbai perhaps. And that is OK? Is this what you want? |
I think you have summed up the main topic of the ongoing discussion nicely.
I believe the right to trial and justice for all is important. I believe that the government shouldn't be able to designate them as "nasty criminals" and lock them away on that basis alone. The rule of law and human rights are important.
So I think the people at Guantanamo should be bought to trial. If they are found innocent they should be let go. You can justify locking anybody up for any reason and for any length of time if there is no process, no trial and no justice.
The prospect of another Mumbai or 9/11 (or Bali) is still there even if we don't let them go. But, personally, for me, I view freedom, human rights and justice too important to be sacrificed in the name of preventing such events.
Furthermore, if we are to ask moderate people to rise up against things like Mumbai, 9/11, shelling of Israel then we must be equally critical of our failing in the west. I'd like to live in a world where the Muslim world is against all of those things since I think they are wrong. But how can the west request such things without condemning Guantanamo, the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Gaza?
Lets up our standards and say to the world that human rights are important irrespective of whether they are American, Palestinian, Pakistani, Israeli or Indian? People deserve to live free from fear or persecution or sudden unexpected violence.
cheers,
davidOh, but ocalhoun, you forget. OBVIOUSLY the true statistics on how much torture and inhumane treatment occurred was underreported and distorted to make the numbers appear smaller. By Republicans.
| sondosia wrote: |
Oh, but ocalhoun, you forget. OBVIOUSLY the true statistics on how much torture and inhumane treatment occurred was underreported and distorted to make the numbers appear smaller. By Republicans.
|
This has absolutely nothing to do with republicans or democrats or whatever party. I'm not saying that the numbers aren't distorted, they might be, but to blame it all on one particular group is just the same as saying all muslims are terrorists. But I suppose this is a whole separate issue. | sondosia wrote: |
Oh, but ocalhoun, you forget. OBVIOUSLY the true statistics on how much torture and inhumane treatment occurred was underreported and distorted to make the numbers appear smaller. By Republicans.
|
True, this report might be an understatement of the real problem. The point, though, is that most reports are vast overstatements, and quite false in implying that human rights abuses continue to this day. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| sondosia wrote: | Oh, but ocalhoun, you forget. OBVIOUSLY the true statistics on how much torture and inhumane treatment occurred was underreported and distorted to make the numbers appear smaller. By Republicans.
|
True, this report might be an understatement of the real problem. The point, though, is that most reports are vast overstatements, and quite false in implying that human rights abuses continue to this day. |
That is so true. As the perception was that human rights abuses were the rule, not the exception, in fact one could not recognize the military as people from the United States. Some of the excesses were obviously wrong and broke US military rules, and are being dealt with, but I am almost certain most of it is right. The US Military aren't idiots. They are trained for years and years and have military rules and regulations and they usually deal with those who break the rules. I feel the media have given a biased view that is contrary to the real truth and harmful to the image of the US abroad. It is not only Bush who created problems for the image, but mostly the media and their biased sensational reporting.Brutality, Rape, Hate for Islam
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004409
| Quote: |
| Former Gitmo Guard Tells All |
So, we have people claiming both stories... Which one is true. Do me a favor and actually ask yourself that, instead of assuming the one you agree with is true.
Also, when did all the things in that article happen?
Handfleish, what is the purpose of putting "Brutality, Rape, Hate for Islam" in HUGE letters? I did not see those headings in Scott Horton's article? I am certain that the author, Scott Horton, being an Attorney, would have taken offense to your labelling his article. The content was written in a totally different tone. Whether I believe the contents of course is another matter. The Gitmo Guard could have been paid for his story. Scott Horton is obviously as smooth as anything. However, at least the article is well written and he has the appearance of some credentials.
Last edited by deanhills on Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:49 am; edited 1 time in total | deanhills wrote: |
That is so true. As the perception was that human rights abuses were the rule, not the exception, in fact one could not recognize the military as people from the United States. |
I believe that locking those people up without trial is a human rights abuse. So human rights abuse is hardly the exception. Its the very reason for existence of the facility.
I understand the argument that these are dangerous people who can't be let loose. Even have some sympathy for it. But I believe we have courts to make that kind of judgment.http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004409
Last edited by handfleisch on Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:38 pm; edited 2 times in total | davidfromoz wrote: |
I believe that locking those people up without trial is a human rights abuse. So human rights abuse is hardly the exception. Its the very reason for existence of the facility.
I understand the argument that these are dangerous people who can't be let loose. Even have some sympathy for it. But I believe we have courts to make that kind of judgment. |
OK, then what would your suggestion be for dealing with suspected villians like that, who are quite good at covering themselves from proof? What would you like the US to do when apprehended? Bring them into the US for a trial? Thereby of course telling the terrorist organization where to find him, as well as offering an opportunity for making a terrorist statement at the trial by terror? It will be the equivalent of the Palestinian-Israeli last war. Those alleged terrorists on trial will be given the status of victims, the US military/security forces will be put on trial, and the media will exploit it as they wish. Do you think that would be in the interest of US safety and security, not to wonder about the legal bills at the end of those circuses.Democracy lesson time. Here's how democratic countries put people on trial:
| Quote: |
Terror trial: 'suicide bombers plotted to blow up trans-Atlantic airliners', court hears
As many as 18 suicide bombers plotted to commit a murderous terror attack "on an almost unprecedented scale" by blowing themselves up on trans-Atlantic airliners, a court heard.
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/4680387/Terror-trial-suicide-bombers-plotted-to-blow-up-trans-Atlantic-airliners-court-hears.html
That's it. Let justice be served, put them on trial in a courtroom (which is the same place the creators, perpetrators, the medical personnel and the torturers of Guitmo should be). | handfleisch wrote: |
|
Nice drawing Handfleisch. Whoever did the drawing has real talent for sure. 
Wonder how much it is going to cost the taxpayers of the UK? Who is going to pay for all of it? Last I heard was that they were short of cash.
The part I like best is that they got caught, so the self-esteem of the British Intelligence Services, together with whoever was behind catching them, which has to have been a multi-country and network effort, must have received a great boost. Makes me feel safer for sure. Thanks for the info.Typically such trials cost in the high hundred-thousands to low millions. Compare and contrast with the cost of GITMO (in both financial terms and in terms of world opinion). I would suggest that a few million quid spent on this type of trial is very well spent indeed.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Typically such trials cost in the high hundred-thousands to low millions. Compare and contrast with the cost of GITMO (in both financial terms and in terms of world opinion). I would suggest that a few million quid spent on this type of trial is very well spent indeed. |
Never mind the fact that "trials are too expensive" is a (ridiculous) argument worthy of brutal dictatorships, not democracies.http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004409
Update: Former Gitmo guard, now whistleblower, live interview on Rachel Maddow show
We need more honest and brave people like this guy to come forward about the crimes of Gitmo and the Bush era
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrdQ6s5zKl4
Edited to fix link, etc
Last edited by handfleisch on Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:37 pm; edited 1 time in total | deanhills wrote: |
| davidfromoz wrote: |
I believe that locking those people up without trial is a human rights abuse. So human rights abuse is hardly the exception. Its the very reason for existence of the facility.
I understand the argument that these are dangerous people who can't be let loose. Even have some sympathy for it. But I believe we have courts to make that kind of judgment. |
OK, then what would your suggestion be for dealing with suspected villians like that, who are quite good at covering themselves from proof? What would you like the US to do when apprehended? Bring them into the US for a trial? Thereby of course telling the terrorist organization where to find him, as well as offering an opportunity for making a terrorist statement at the trial by terror? It will be the equivalent of the Palestinian-Israeli last war. Those alleged terrorists on trial will be given the status of victims, the US military/security forces will be put on trial, and the media will exploit it as they wish. Do you think that would be in the interest of US safety and security, not to wonder about the legal bills at the end of those circuses. |
My suggestion is to send them to trial.
You make valid points Dean. Its a messed up situation. I don't like to put words into your mouth, but your argument is that human rights are not being violated routinely. Then you seem to say "we don't have any choice, so we have to violate human rights to protect ourselves". So are human rights being violated or not? I think yes.
Yes, I do think its in USA's interests to respect human rights. If you believe its OK for USA to lock people up for reasons undeclared and untested, then do you think its OK for other countries to do it too? Would it be OK for North Korea to lock up a bunch of Americans because it judges them to be a threat? Would it be OK for China to do that? How about Iran?
If USA, one of the worlds strong supporters of freedom and liberty, were to deem them only available to certain classes of people, then the world will have taken a big step backwards. | davidfromoz wrote: |
| You make valid points Dean. Its a messed up situation. I don't like to put words into your mouth, but your argument is that human rights are not being violated routinely. Then you seem to say "we don't have any choice, so we have to violate human rights to protect ourselves". So are human rights being violated or not? I think yes. |
True. It is messed up and of course you are right. Human rights are being violated. But how human are they? Some of them are evil monsters. They must be laughing at people who are worried about human rights. Bottomline, when you involve yourself with terrorists, you get tainted by them. Like in the old days with the guillotine and that guy who had to cut off heads with the guillotine got blood all over him and must have had nightmares of rolling heads and eyes staring at him. I'm beginning to think that it would be much more sensible for the security services to deal with these terrorists finally so that they will never be found again, and so that the sensitivities of people who are pure, will not be upset. Looks as though we need two kinds of protection here. Sorting out these evil terrorists, and protecting innocent people from having to witness Gaetamo scenarios.Wow...anyone so ready to throw around words like 'evil' and who starts implying that some people are 'inhuman' is someone I don't want to be around.
I suggest you look at the justifications for various atrocities throughout history (including the holocaust). You will see exactly the sort of language you use here...
You, of course, are 'tainted' by the acts of your government. Perhaps we should make you 'disappear' so you don't offend the sensibilities of those citizens of countries who are not responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan...?
PS - Terry Pratchett writes a lot of wise words in his Discworld books. I urge you to think hard about the following words from Granny Weatherwax | Quote: |
| There's no greys, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. |
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:39 pm; edited 1 time in total | Bikerman wrote: |
Wow...anyone so ready to throw around words like 'evil' and who starts implying that some people are 'inhuman' is someone I don't want to be around.
I suggest you look at the justifications for various atrocities throughout history (including the holocaust). You will see exactly the sort of language you use here... |
Who was responsible for the Holocaust? ONLY the Germans who were actively involved in it, and/or those who knew about it in the West, and were doing nothing about it? Serbia and Croatia were the same. We have two sides here. The lives of potential innocent victims being targetted by evil people, and those who have already died violent deaths at the hands of those same people.
What are you prepared to do to make sure that those killers don't kill again? If you would catch the likes of those guys who did brutal damage in Mumbai in December, and you know that they are plotting and planning their next even bigger and better planned target, but not sure where it is, and you find those evil guys. What do you do? Sit back and say they have human rights and therefore you cannot touch them? And since you cannot touch them, it is OK for the terror to continue? Does not make sense to me Chris. We are not dealing with reasonable people here. But with fanatic killer machines. In another thread you said that if someone attacked you that you would retaliate. This is the same in a different way. Your attackers are doing it completely differently, with surprise kamakaze operations. The West have the right to defend themselves, and regretfully given the nature of the evil characters they have to deal with, it may not always look very pleasant.
Last edited by deanhills on Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:43 pm; edited 1 time in total1) You don't know WHO at Guantanamo bay has done WHAT - let alone if they are evil.
2) Anytime someone starts talking about people being 'not human' it should scare anyone in their right mind
3) I have not said that anyone should be let off. I have said (repeatedly) that the way to deal with criminals is to put them in front of a jury using the properly constituted judicial system.
4) Anytime someone starts talking about 'necessary evils' it should scare anyone in their right mind.
| Bikerman wrote: |
1) You don't know WHO at Guantanamo bay has done WHAT - let alone if they are evil.
2) Anytime someone starts talking about people being 'not human' it should scare anyone in their right mind
3) I have not said that anyone should be let off. I have said (repeatedly) that the way to deal with criminals is to put them in front of a jury using the properly constituted judicial system.
4) Anytime someone starts talking about 'necessary evils' then is should scare anyone in their right mind. |
Who is talking about necessary evils? I am talking about the right to defend against evil, which may mean defense by stealth. As much as evil was perpetrated through stealth. The people who do the best at tracking down hackers, are hackers themselves. Same with this evil characters. It has to take special kind of people to track them down. People who may be a bit like them. We owe them a lot Chris. As I can assure you, most of them must be damaged for the rest of their lives. They have seen too much bad stuff. We just get to read about this and make our judgments. They live nightmares for the rest of their lives, Vietnam style.You talk as though you had some special knowledge. The people who see most atrocities are the front-line troops, not the shadowy security services. It is they who are most damaged by what they see.
We simply don't know how and why many of the GITMO inmates are there. I have followed the cases of the British detainees and the only statements we have from US authorities is that 4 of them were alleged to have trained at camps in Afghanistan. This is strongly denied by the families and although you might think 'they would say that wouldn't they', there appears to be good evidence that at least one of the families is telling the truth. Five prisoners were released in 2004 with no charges at all - I presume you think they should have been quietly bumped-off?
The simple fact is that GITMO is an affront to the civilised world. There is no way we can know who is guilty and what they are guilty of. To make a blanket assumption that the inmates are 'evil' and somehow not human is offensive and hugely dangerous.
| Bikerman wrote: |
You talk as though you had some special knowledge. The people who see most atrocities are the front-line troops, not the shadowy security services. It is they who are most damaged by what they see.
We simply don't know how and why many of the GITMO inmates are there. I have followed the cases of the British detainees and the only statements we have from US authorities is that 4 of them were alleged to have trained at camps in Afghanistan. This is strongly denied by the families and although you might think 'they would say that wouldn't they', there appears to be good evidence that at least one of the families is telling the truth. Five prisoners were released in 2004 with no charges at all - I presume you think they should have been quietly bumped-off?
The simple fact is that GITMO is an affront to the civilised world. There is no way we can know who is guilty and what they are guilty of. To make a blanket assumption that the inmates are 'evil' and somehow not human is offensive and hugely dangerous. |
It's pretty admirable of you to actually try to make people see reason on such things. It might help the general deterioration of debate that's been going on around this site -- Obama being compared to Hitler, dumb things like that. But it will take a lot of effort to get someone to see that in calling Gitmo prisoners "inhuman" (as you pointed out, this idea is where the Holocaust began) while being so ignorant about Gitmo in the first place (as you know, some of the prisoners got there by reported by personal enemies to get them out of the way, one case was a taxi driver who happened to drive by after a bombing, some were children and some turned themselves in expecting civilized treatment by the US only to get tortured) -- well, like I said, it's admirable you take the time to dialog with people who have such crazed ideas. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Obama being compared to Hitler, dumb things like that. |
Who compared Obama with Hitler? Handfleisch, you have a wonderful tendency to come to sensational conclusions that are completely removed from the truth! You put up a poster, I then said that the poster reminded me of posters I had seen before that had been published as part of Hitler's propoganda. My criticism was your perception of things as portrayed by the press quotes you are propogating all over Frihost, not Obama. Look at the posting below and there is no reference to Obama WHATSOVER, only the poster you had put up loudly and clearly for everyone "to get" (possibly you think everyone in Frihost is dumb as you always bold and enlarge the headings in those press quotes and seem to go to great lengths to make sure we don't miss them):
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-103311.htmlI'm starting to wonder if "take no prisoners" might be a better policy... 
| Bikerman wrote: |
Well, I see absolutely no difference and I would be astonished if you could define one.
We dealt with trained killers in the IRA for years (and still do). They are treated as CRIMINALS and they are tried and imprisoned just as other criminals would be.
It is true that, as part of the peace agreement, many IRA (and loyalist) terrorists were freed or had their sentences reduced, but that is not really the point. We tried dealing with the IRA as 'extra-judicial' combatants by interning them without trial. It was a political disaster as well as morally repugnant and we learned our lesson. The US has, hopefully, now learned the same lesson.
As for those incarcerated at GITMO - you really don't have a clue, nor do I. We rely on partial evidence statements from the military. I do know that one UK citizen freed from GITMO was a Pakistani taxi driver - hardly an international terrorist mastermind. |
well said .. we don't often agree,, but I agree with you on this one. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| I'm starting to wonder if "take no prisoners" might be a better policy... |
Personally, from a purely logical standpoint (and ignoring any intel benefit) I believe it would be a better policy to give no quarter to the enemy, the black flag for all. Taking and holding prisoners in this type of war creates more opportunities for propoganda, prolongs media exposure and coverage, increases the risk of adverse incidents whether by individuals or as part of local or corporate policy, and is legally complicated by the very nature of 4th Generation warfare.
However, in this conflict especially, intelligence gathering is vital. Thus taking prisoners, whether or not you value their lives as humans, is extremely important if for no other reason than intel.
I don't have any first-hand knowledge of operations, but my guess is that only senior members of cells or larger organizations will have any valuable knowledge. Most of the personnel encountered in the field would possess very limited and extremely time sensitive information, typically only of a tactical nature. Thus their intel value would be worth only about 48 to 72 hours, in my opinion.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | I'm starting to wonder if "take no prisoners" might be a better policy... |
Personally, from a purely logical standpoint (and ignoring any intel benefit) I believe it would be a better policy to give no quarter to the enemy, the black flag for all. Taking and holding prisoners in this type of war creates more opportunities for propoganda |
Summary executions? Hmm. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| I'm starting to wonder if "take no prisoners" might be a better policy... |
Agreed. Does not look good in black and white but perhaps it makes better sense 
The US should never have allowed Gaetamo to have happened in the way it did. It did lots of harm. And it is still not the end yet. They still have all those inmates in there and not knowing how to process them and where to start. It's going to be a nighmare and reminder of how not to do it for a very long time to come.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | I'm starting to wonder if "take no prisoners" might be a better policy... |
Personally, from a purely logical standpoint (and ignoring any intel benefit) I believe it would be a better policy to give no quarter to the enemy, the black flag for all. Taking and holding prisoners in this type of war creates more opportunities for propoganda, prolongs media exposure and coverage, increases the risk of adverse incidents whether by individuals or as part of local or corporate policy, and is legally complicated by the very nature of 4th Generation warfare.
However, in this conflict especially, intelligence gathering is vital. Thus taking prisoners, whether or not you value their lives as humans, is extremely important if for no other reason than intel.
I don't have any first-hand knowledge of operations, but my guess is that only senior members of cells or larger organizations will have any valuable knowledge. Most of the personnel encountered in the field would possess very limited and extremely time sensitive information, typically only of a tactical nature. Thus their intel value would be worth only about 48 to 72 hours, in my opinion.
Respectfully,
M |
You could not have put it better Moonspider. Wish I could express as well as you did. And with insights that I did not have including the intel value. Gaetamo was a total bungling exercise. Hopefully some lessons have been learned from it. Have no doubt that it will never be repeated again.Let me get this straight: Several of you are rooting for summary executions, "from a purely logistical standpoint," of POWs, enemy noncombatants, etc. Is that right?
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Let me get this straight: Several of you are rooting for summary executions, "from a purely logistical standpoint," of POWs, enemy noncombatants, etc. Is that right? |
I didn't say I favored it. I said from a purely logical standpoint it makes sense. However, I am not purely logical. There are laws based upon morals and morality based in beliefs absent laws, not to mention human emotions.
But, if one were to look at the problem from a simply logical perspective, aside from intelligence gathering (most of which would be of limited tactical value anyway) taking prisoners in this conflict is counterproductive.
Respectfully,
MLogic also dictates that you look at the consequences of that action in terms of the response of the enemy, the response of allies, and the end-game resolution of the conflict.
It is obvious, logically, that murdering enemy combatants would result in 'tit for tat'. It is also obvious, logically, that this would tend to reduce the willingness of any potential ally to place troops into the battle arena (for obvious political reasons). Finally it is obvious that such action would lead to greater bitterness and would, therefore, prolong ill-feeling and hostility once the conflict was resolved.
(That is quite apart from the ethical/moral considerations).
| Bikerman wrote: |
| It is obvious, logically, that murdering enemy combatants would result in 'tit for tat'. |
Isn't that what has been happening anyway, i.e. no need for 'tit for tat', as the terrorists have not been taking much of prisoners at all, and if they did, I seem to remind public executions? The one that comes immediately to mind is the journalist that was publicly beheaded in Pakistan? | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | It is obvious, logically, that murdering enemy combatants would result in 'tit for tat'. |
Isn't that what has been happening anyway, i.e. no need for 'tit for tat', as the terrorists have not been taking much of prisoners at all, and if they did, I seem to remind public executions? The one that comes immediately to mind is the journalist that was publicly beheaded in Pakistan? |
There have been many murders by terrorists - there have also been many 'prisoners' released, from the Iran hostages in 1981, to US and UK hostages in the Lebanon, through to the present day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, according to this new 'logic' the thing that all enemies of the US should do is immediately kill any US citizens they can get their hands on.... | Moonspider wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: | | Let me get this straight: Several of you are rooting for summary executions, "from a purely logistical standpoint," of POWs, enemy noncombatants, etc. Is that right? |
I didn't say I favored it. I said from a purely logical standpoint it makes sense. However, I am not purely logical. There are laws based upon morals and morality based in beliefs absent laws, not to mention human emotions.
But, if one were to look at the problem from a simply logical perspective, aside from intelligence gathering (most of which would be of limited tactical value anyway) taking prisoners in this conflict is counterproductive.
Respectfully,
M |
You said summary executioners of prisoners like those at Gitmo "would be a better policy" except that it would interfere with gathering intelligence. You said nothing about it being unspeakably immoral when you brought it up. This is suspect at best, not to mention irresponsible since it encourages the sinking of the debate to the lowest levels (all too common on these kinds of forums) of those who like to advocate murder and massacres as (final) solutions. (The Final Solution was also horrific madness presented as "purely logical".) There is little point in seriously mentioning such an evil option as mass murder that would supposedly work "from a purely logical perspective" if you are not advocating it. | Bikerman wrote: |
Logic also dictates that you look at the consequences of that action in terms of the response of the enemy, the response of allies, and the end-game resolution of the conflict.
It is obvious, logically, that murdering enemy combatants would result in 'tit for tat'. It is also obvious, logically, that this would tend to reduce the willingness of any potential ally to place troops into the battle arena (for obvious political reasons). Finally it is obvious that such action would lead to greater bitterness and would, therefore, prolong ill-feeling and hostility once the conflict was resolved.
(That is quite apart from the ethical/moral considerations). |
I see your point. However logically, I still see capturing enemy combatants as counter-productive in such a conflict as the one we are discussing. I believe capturing them, no matter how well you treat them, breeds the same ‘tit for tat’ mentality and also reduces the willingness of potential allies to join the longer the conflict persists (not to mention long conflicts tend to reduce such willingness due to political fatigue anyway). One could set prisoners up in splendid accommodations where they want for nothing but freedom and still they’d claim torture, abuse, and ill treatment because they are at war with their captors. And in a 4th Generation style war, such claims are perfect tools for waging war with their enemies while still in captivity while fueling the fire of resistance at home. So I think logically, capturing enemy combatants does not decrease the likelihood of generating further hostility but does increase legal and political complications. Disregarding all morality, killing enemy personnel in the field offers fewer problems and is much more easily covered up than the open and highly visible sore of prisons housing enemy combatants in legal ambiguity.
The only logical resolution I see is the extermination of one culture or the other, as often happens throughout history when cultures collide. One either ceases to exist or becomes so minute that its presence is relatively inconsequential. The only other outcome is persistent conflict for centuries.
I apologize, but this seems to have become more of a philosophical discussion than anything else, since you know where my true feelings lie.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | Let me get this straight: Several of you are rooting for summary executions, "from a purely logistical standpoint," of POWs, enemy noncombatants, etc. Is that right? |
I didn't say I favored it. I said from a purely logical standpoint it makes sense. However, I am not purely logical. There are laws based upon morals and morality based in beliefs absent laws, not to mention human emotions.
But, if one were to look at the problem from a simply logical perspective, aside from intelligence gathering (most of which would be of limited tactical value anyway) taking prisoners in this conflict is counterproductive.
Respectfully,
M |
You said summary executioners of prisoners like those at Gitmo "would be a better policy" except that it would interfere with gathering intelligence. |
No, I said, “Personally, from a purely logical standpoint (and ignoring any intel benefit) I believe it would be a better policy to give no quarter to the enemy, the black flag for all.” (Emphasis added.)
This means that one does not accept surrender. You inform your enemy prior to or during an engagement that no quarter will be given. Therefore their only hope for survival is to win the engagement, a fight to the death. But yes, if enemy forces attempt to surrender under such conditions they are killed. Morally it’s still murder in my opinion, but technically you are not executing prisoners since you are not taking any.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| You said nothing about it being unspeakably immoral when you brought it up. |
You are correct. I did not. However I did stipulate that I was trying to view it from a “purely logical standpoint.” There is no room for morals or emotions in logic, therefore my statement precluded the consideration of such.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| There is little point in seriously mentioning such an evil option as mass murder that would supposedly work "from a purely logical perspective" if you are not advocating it. |
Sure there is: for the sake of arguing. One does not have to agree with an opinion to argue in its favor. I often find that I learn more from debating on the side of something with which I don’t agree than I do from vehemently defending a position with which I do agree.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: | | There is little point in seriously mentioning such an evil option as mass murder that would supposedly work "from a purely logical perspective" if you are not advocating it. |
Sure there is: for the sake of arguing. One does not have to agree with an opinion to argue in its favor. I often find that I learn more from debating on the side of something with which I don’t agree than I do from vehemently defending a position with which I do agree. |
Well, fine. While it is interesting to argue on the side of something I don't agree with, personally I find it a waste of time to go so far as to argue for something wildly immoral, illegal, etc "for the sake of arguing". And it's also distracting from the main subject. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | There is little point in seriously mentioning such an evil option as mass murder that would supposedly work "from a purely logical perspective" if you are not advocating it. |
Sure there is: for the sake of arguing. One does not have to agree with an opinion to argue in its favor. I often find that I learn more from debating on the side of something with which I don’t agree than I do from vehemently defending a position with which I do agree. |
Well, fine. While it is interesting to argue on the side of something I don't agree with, personally I find it a waste of time to go so far as to argue for something wildly immoral, illegal, etc "for the sake of arguing". And it's also distracting from the main subject. |
Distracting from the main subject, yes.
Waste of time, no.I was watching the movie again - one of the best ones which I've seen so many times because of its superb acting and I liked the story - "A few good men" with Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise, Demi Moore and for the first time "got it" that the scene of the attack on the marine had been Gitmo Bay. Sort of a completely different way now of looking at it. What was interesting was how the marines were described regarding their extreme codes, as well as the indoctrination they have to receive "for their own protection", placing their lives in one another's hands. Amazing that a General can act so independently from the main stream policies in Washington though.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Amazing that a General can act so independently from the main stream policies in Washington though. |
1: Remember, that is just Hollywood.
2: Generals do have a lot of leeway though... To fire one requires an act of congress. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| 1: Remember, that is just Hollywood. |
Of course! I have previously considered that as well. My enjoyment has been the actual acting and the movie itself, regardless of the facts. This was at at time when Tom Cruise was really a good actor, and Jack Nicholson is of course priceless as usual.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| 2: Generals do have a lot of leeway though... To fire one requires an act of congress. |
I did not know this. Quite interesting. Looks as though they have a tenure of a kind, but can imagine they have to be worth their salt to be made a General in the first place. | deanhills wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | 2: Generals do have a lot of leeway though... To fire one requires an act of congress. |
I did not know this. Quite interesting. Looks as though they have a tenure of a kind, but can imagine they have to be worth their salt to be made a General in the first place. |
That's why when one really screws up, he's usually 'asked to step down' and 'voluntarily' retire. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | 2: Generals do have a lot of leeway though... To fire one requires an act of congress. |
I did not know this. Quite interesting. Looks as though they have a tenure of a kind, but can imagine they have to be worth their salt to be made a General in the first place. |
That's why when one really screws up, he's usually 'asked to step down' and 'voluntarily' retire. |
Sort of dignified and a face saver of sorts. Although I can imagine once he has stepped down he could be tried in his civilian capacity if someone of the public would have been involved?
What would happen to Bush if he got tried right now? Especially when he has already retired? Just can't imagine that he could be tried right now? Just have a feeling Obama will not permit it to happen, as that would be negative in the extreme and VERY undignified. | deanhills wrote: |
| Exactly. I wonder who has a clue? Apparently they do not even know what they have in GITMO? One thing I am sure off however is that most of them are ugly villians. It will be a very tough decision to set them free. Who will be taking the responsibility for that? |
This is a very scary statement. You are SURE of their guilt, without a trial or evidence. It makes me wonder if you base your findings on something other than what can be proven.
The fact is, without trials, we will never know of their innocence or guilt. For some people to suggest that a trial is pointless because these people are "good at hiding their tracks" is disgusting. If we start taking that road, then it's only a short way to treating our own citizens that way. Then we will truly be lost.
Only a trial can save us from this mess. And if they are criminals and happen to evade conviction, then we keep vigilant and get them next time. But our justice system cannot be compromised because of fear and prejudice, even if it costs lives. Otherwise we become what we are trying to protect ourselves from. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Only a trial can save us from this mess. And if they are criminals and happen to evade conviction, then we keep vigilant and get them next time. But our justice system cannot be compromised because of fear and prejudice, even if it costs lives. Otherwise we become what we are trying to protect ourselves from. |
Gitmo should never have happened. And now that there is a mess, I can't see another way than to have trials, but think about it for a little. Why have there not been trials to date? Is it possible that there is no evidence available? In the world that these guys operate in, aren't they trained not to leave evidence anywhere? Also, now that we know that there is a problem with lack of evidence, and guaranteed you are dealing with nasty guys here, who have a definite axe to grind now on top of it all, do you want to release those guys so that they can sort out their grievances in the United States?
I would have thought that since there has not been any trials and that these guys came from investigations into terrorism and El Qaeda that they had to be nasty. Sort of common sense. If they were not, I could not imagine why there would not have been trials and why they would have been put in isolated prisons. | deanhills wrote: |
| Is it possible that there is no evidence available? In the world that these guys operate in, aren't they trained not to leave evidence anywhere? Also, now that we know that there is a problem with lack of evidence, and guaranteed you are dealing with nasty guys here, who have a definite axe to grind now on top of it all, do you want to release those guys so that they can sort out their grievances in the United States? |
Wether or not they are trained to leave no evidence is irrelevant. We operate under a rule of law, and if we stop playing by our rules at any time then we are no better than the criminals. Another thing; how do you guarantee these guys are nasty? Without a trial, that statement means nothing. If we have given them an axe to grind because of their illegal internment at GITMO, then that is our fault and we need to make it right. It's a difficult situation, definately, but assuming that they are all vicious terrorists is not the right thing to do in a nation where people are innocent until proven guilty.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I would have thought that since there has not been any trials and that these guys came from investigations into terrorism and El Qaeda that they had to be nasty. Sort of common sense. If they were not, I could not imagine why there would not have been trials and why they would have been put in isolated prisons. |
First, you have to understand that the investigations into criminal activity turn up alot of names. Many people were detained simply because they had passing connections with known criminals. This does not make them criminals themselves, nor does it mean that they know the plans of the criminals we are searching for. I once knew a preacher who was selling illegal weapons, I had no idea what he was doing, but I'd hate to think that I could have been detained for 5 years just because I lived down the road from him and knew his name. | deanhills wrote: |
| I would have thought that since there has not been any trials and that these guys came from investigations into terrorism and El Qaeda that they had to be nasty. Sort of common sense. If they were not, I could not imagine why there would not have been trials and why they would have been put in isolated prisons. |
LOL...you have to be joking, right? What you are saying, in a nutshell is;
a) The legal process has been abused
b) This is proof that the abusers had good reason for their abuse.
I presume you have read Catch 22 ? Heller would be proud of your logic.
If you examine this logic then what you see is the primary assumption that the US is incapable of error. We see this clearly in the statement "If they were not, I could not imagine...". In my humble opinion that shows a lack of imagination, not a genuine debating point.
Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:04 pm; edited 1 time in totalOne thing that bothers me about this GITMO mess more than anything else is peoples' assumptions about the detainees there. As someone pointed out, one guy was just a cab driver. Hardly a vicious criminal worth locking up for half a decade. Here are a few others on the list:
•Mohammed el Gharani - a Chadian who was brought to Guantanamo at the age of 15. Although a federal court ruled in January 2009 that the government's evidence is too weak to justify el Gharani's continued confinement, he remains in Guantanamo.
•Mohammad Jawad - an Afghan brought to Guantanamo at the age of 16 or 17, who has been charged with attempted murder by a military commission. He was reportedly subjected to torture and other abuse while in US custody, and has attempted suicide at least once.
•Omar Khadr - a Canadian brought to Guantanamo at the age of 15, who has been charged with murder by a military commission. Previously held in prolonged solitary confinement, he also reports having been subjected to torture and abuse.
•Mohammad Khan Tumani - a Syrian brought to Guantanamo at the age of 17, who has as reportedly subjected to physical and psychological abuse . He has not been charged with an offense.
•Fahd Abdullah Ahmed Ghazni - a Yemeni brought to Guantanamo at the age of 17. Although he was cleared by the US government to leave Guantanamo more than a year ago, he remains in detention.
There is an article about it at Human Rights Watch. I wonder if these kids feel like things at GITMO aren't so bad. Or does the end justify the means? Let's play devil's advocate here.
I you are so certain about rule of law and that that is the only way. Why did Gitmo happen? I believe military policy is decided by the Government of the United States, and is very clear about rule of law. Which is pretty much along the lines of the last few postings in this thread, there is nothing that is unique about rule of law, it was there before Gitmo happened and it is still alive and well in the United States. So if we have a country with very clear policies about what needs to be done, how did Gitmo come to be? And MORE IMPORTANT, why is it Gitmo still there? And why are we not having trials right now? I would have imagined that after Obama's decision in January that everyone would have been immediately processed, we would have had open and transparent information of who all the inmates are and why they are there and when their trials would be. So why is Gitmo still where it is? And why the secrecy?
It is still there because, quite naturally, many countries are unwilling to take back the detainees. The US has repeatedly told the world that these are some of the most dangerous people on the planet. Now it transpires that many of the people detained have no proper files at all. As wiki states: | Quote: |
| A day later, Obama signed an Executive Order stating that Guantanamo Detention Camp would in fact be closed within the year. His plan encountered a setback, however, when incoming officials of his administration discovered that there were no comprehensive files concerning many of the detainees, so that merely assembling the available evidence about them could take weeks or months. |
Also, many of the detainees face torture and/or death in their homeland because of the slanderous nature of our accusations against them. In addition, to follow our rule of law, they basically have to start back at "zero" to collect any evidence against these people, as well as let them build a proper defense. It would be nice to just rush them right through the system and let them go home, but the system is slow and many of them no longer have homes to go to.
| deanhills wrote: |
| there is nothing that is unique about rule of law, it was there before Gitmo happened and it is still alive and well in the United States. |
Except for the kidnapping of innocent people and indefinate internment of people who have not been charged with a crime. Oh, and then there's the massive illegal domestic surveillance issues we have. Also, trying to get a person of Middle Eastern descent a fair trial in the US is just about as difficult a thing as you can do these days. But other than that, yeah, the rule of law is still alive and well here. | Bikerman wrote: |
It is still there because, quite naturally, many countries are unwilling to take back the detainees. The US has repeatedly told the world that these are some of the most dangerous people on the planet. Now it transpires that many of the people detained have no proper files at all. As wiki states: | Quote: | | A day later, Obama signed an Executive Order stating that Guantanamo Detention Camp would in fact be closed within the year. His plan encountered a setback, however, when incoming officials of his administration discovered that there were no comprehensive files concerning many of the detainees, so that merely assembling the available evidence about them could take weeks or months. |
|
So does one then have to come to the conclusion that the whole outfit was run by bungling idiots? I have a feeling that possibly the files have been culled for obvious reasons of confidentiality. Could also be a measure of "covering butt" and making things complicated and difficult for the "incoming officials". Looks as though they have succeeded with the latter | deanhills wrote: |
| So does one then have to come to the conclusion that the whole outfit was run by bungling idiots? |
Make no mistake. These are some of the smartest men around. That's the truly scary part.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I have a feeling that possibly the files have been culled for obvious reasons of confidentiality. Could also be a measure of "covering butt" and making things complicated and difficult for the "incoming officials". |
It's possible. The most likely scenerio, and possibly the most frightening, is that they actually thought they were making the world safer by doing things this way. Unfortunately, that's like fighting local crime by authorizing vigilante justice. You might get rid of some criminals, but then you have to deal with a bunch of trigger-happy citizens who see crime where there is none.
It creates a bigger threat to society than the original problem posed.
The thing is, we didn't need a new set of rules for dealing with terrorism. We already had a good system, and the World Trade Center tragedy didn't change that(I'm going to catch hell for that one). We have been capturing and convicting terrorists for a long time, and with success. Until the new rules came into play. Now we are detaining everyone who looks somewhat like an Arab in hopes that we can charge him with even a petty crime(as most of the so-called convictions have been since 2001), so that the DOJ can claim "X" ammount of "terrorism convictions". | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
and possibly the most frightening, is that they actually thought they were making the world safer by doing things this way. Unfortunately, that's like fighting local crime by authorizing vigilante justice. You might get rid of some criminals, but then you have to deal with a bunch of trigger-happy citizens who see crime where there is none.
It creates a bigger threat to society than the original problem posed. |
I can't agree. The only part I can agree with is that Gitmo was completely bungled and badly managed and should not have existed in the first place. I can only imagine that if people like you who feel so strongly about this really knew what was going on in nitty gritty operations where they have to deal with El Qaeda or not even El Qaeda but characters of similar intent who have as their objective the destruction of the United States, that perhaps you will be a million times more outraged. I for one sleep better at night and feel completely in the debt of those guys. They come from the same background as you, have learned the same "right and wrong" and it has to be brutal on them. One thing that is for sure is that they will never be the same again and those that return to normal civilian life will have great personal challenges to deal with. They may never be able to have normal lives again. One sometimes wonder what is worse, to have died in combat, or to have been involved in war operations where you had to kill people. The latter has to be a nightmare of a kind if you had been born and raised in a democratic country and where killing is regarded as the ultimate sin. | deanhills wrote: |
| I can't agree. The only part I can agree with is that Gitmo was completely bungled and badly managed and should not have existed in the first place. I can only imagine that if people like you who feel so strongly about this really knew what was going on in nitty gritty operations where they have to deal with El Qaeda or not even El Qaeda but characters of similar intent who have as their objective the destruction of the United States, that perhaps you will be a million times more outraged. |
Believe me, it does outrage me. But statistically, more danger is posed to me by my own fellow citizens than a foreign "terrorist network". My local law enforcement keeps me safe, and that helps me sleep at night. As far as knowing the "nitty gritty" of what's going on, I think we would all be more worried if we knew, not less. My outrage for international criminal organizations comes from the fact that networks such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not nearly as much a danger to me as the media would have me think. If the DOJ had enough evidence to convict the prisoners at GITMO of international terrorism, they would have been charging them with these crimes and trying them in Military Courts. The fact is, they don't have the evidence because it doesn't exist. They don't even have enough evidence to link Usama bin Laden with the World Trade Center attacks(look at the charges against him, the WTC attacks are not there, and a representative from the FBI has stated the fact that there is no evidence linking the two); now this is either a huge bungling by the FBI, CIA, DOJ and Dept of Homeland Security(not likely), or there just simply is no evidence. The same goes for the GITMO prisoners. No evidence = illegal imprisonment.
Now think about this: If there was a huge Columbian drug cartel problem, and the FBI just started breaking down the doors of known drug users/dealers and kidnapping them, jailing them, holding them for 5+ years without charging them for a crime, and using questionable interrogation techniques, would you agree with these tactics? I don't know the laws of your country, but here in the USA, we need evidence before we make an arrest. If a man has been arrested, it's only because they have enough evidence against him to do so, at which point he is also charged with a crime. Since these men at GITMO have not been charged, the arrests/kidnappings were unfounded and illegal. When my own government starts taking these actions, I can't support it, because I know what's right and wrong, and what's legal and illegal. I honestly don't know how you actually sleep better at night knowing that governments have trampled their own laws, not to mention human rights, with such boldness and disregard for their consequences. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| But statistically, more danger is posed to me by my own fellow citizens than a foreign "terrorist network". |
Wow! In which part of the world are you living in? 
| deanhills wrote: |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | | But statistically, more danger is posed to me by my own fellow citizens than a foreign "terrorist network". |
Wow! In which part of the world are you living in? |
Doesn't really matter - the same is true in any Western country - including the US.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36765.htmlInteresting article, but perhaps the perception of the article could be one of reverse exaggeration of threats along underestimation lines? Agreed there is an element of truth in it, I definitely think that is the case with the economic crisis, but what is needed is a more balanced view neither of overreacting, nor underestimating. Mumbai was definitely real! | deanhills wrote: |
| Interesting article, but perhaps the perception of the article could be one of reverse exaggeration of threats along underestimation lines? Agreed there is an element of truth in it, I definitely think that is the case with the economic crisis, but what is needed is a more balanced view neither of overreacting, nor underestimating. Mumbai was definitely real! |
Err...what part of the conclusion did you not understand? Let me repeat it for you:
| Quote: |
| Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered. |
Now, are you proposing that terrorists will be able to repeat 9/11 scale attacks more than annually? | deanhills wrote: |
| Wow! In which part of the world are you living in? |
Here is an example. The murder rate in Florida(where I live) from 2001 - 2007 was 6,868. The number of people who died from international terrorism in the entire USA between those same years is less than half that, and most of it was on September 11, 2001. Which is not an event that happens in this country every day, every year, or even every generation.
The threat of international terrorist attacks in the USA is highly overblown. That our media is heavily influenced by our government has alot to do with this. It's a scare tactic; when you inflate peoples fears, you can sell them anything as a cure. That's why people in this country didn't go ape-sh*t about our rendition policy, as they most surely should have. They were afraid, and they let it happen. Fear makes people irrational, such as the many cases in the US where people of Middle Eastern descent were kicked off of airlines because passengers and flight crew felt "unsafe". Allowing things like innocent people to be imprisoned in GITMO and the example with the airlines is accepted only in a culture built on irrational fear. Those that accept these actions are falling victim to such unfounded fears, whether they know it or not. You feel safer because the US government kidnapped innocent people(kids included), imprisoned them for 5 years or more, and used questionable interrogation techniques on them, without having produced any tangible evidence against them.
What if the prisoners in GITMO were all Canadian or American citizens? Would you still feel safer? | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
What if the prisoners in GITMO were all Canadian or American citizens? Would you still feel safer? |
Personally, yes. My job would help keep me safe from that.
As a hypothetical ordinary citizen, no. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| and most of it was on September 11, 2001. Which is not an event that happens in this country every day, every year, or even every generation. |
Perhaps for the very reason that the US declared war on terrorism immediately after the event and went to extreme lengths to ensure that its intelligence would be upgraded to the extent that that would not happen again. Perhaps one can take the analogy of nuclear armaments. You mostly have nuclear armaments to prevent war, rather than to make war. So US action regarding terrorism is focussed on preventing another Setpember 11, and so far it has been very successful. Thing is that these terrorists are always improvising and if one looks at Mumbai, these guys are much more sophisticated in their training and operations. I doubt that this threat is exaggerated.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| The threat of international terrorist attacks in the USA is highly overblown. |
Rubbish. Sorry, I do not have a better word to describe this. The United States is definitely a target for terrorism. No doubt about it. Perhaps you need to go and live in the Middle East for a while, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It may change the way you look at the USA. (Saying this I respect you for above average intelligence, and obviously you are a widely travelled person. However, living in closer proximity to the "threat" that is real, may alter how you look at things).
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| What if the prisoners in GITMO were all Canadian or American citizens? Would you still feel safer? |
A rediculous analogy in the extreme | deanhills wrote: |
| Perhaps for the very reason that the US declared war on terrorism immediately after the event and went to extreme lengths to ensure that its intelligence would be upgraded to the extent that that would not happen again. |
An upgrade of border and immigration security, as well as intelligence, was fine. I never contested that. I simply disagree with the means by which these things are done, and to what extent it's taken.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Rubbish. Sorry, I do not have a better word to describe this. The United States is definitely a target for terrorism. No doubt about it. |
Almost every country is a target for international crime. Statistically speaking, the US is one of the safest places to be to avoid such a threat. It was before September 11, and it still is to this day. The internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, in direct response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, is commonly viewed as a mark of shame on the American historical record. It was reactionary and paranoid. Did it keep a few spies from screwing the US? Maybe, but that doesn't justify it.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Perhaps you need to go and live in the Middle East for a while, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It may change the way you look at the USA. (Saying this I respect you for above average intelligence, and obviously you are a widely travelled person. However, living in closer proximity to the "threat" that is real, may alter how you look at things). |
12 months in Iraq in 2005-06 as a sub-contracted civilian Paramedic. It changed the way I see many things, but not in the way you might think.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
What if the prisoners in GITMO were all Canadian or American citizens? Would you still feel safer?
| deanhills wrote: |
A rediculous analogy in the extreme |
|
How so? Are Canadians and Americans exempt from the ability to commit acts of terror? We have had more attacks on American soil from home-grown terrorists than from those of foreign nations. So why not start rounding up our own people like cattle every time a Timothy McVeigh type person bombs a building?So, let's work with an example:
When attacking a suspected terrorist camp, several people surrender.
Upon taking a close look at the camp, it is obvious that terrorist activity takes place there, but also obvious that many people there have no willing affiliation with the terrorists.
After rounding up and processing the prisoners, a few were caught red handed, and a few are obviously not terrorists. The majority of them could be terrorists, or they could be ordinary people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Naturally, all of them claim to be perfectly innocent.
So, that leaves you with three options that I can think of:
1- Detain all of them without any evidence specifically incriminating any individual prisoner (denounced as a horrible decision here).
2- Kill all of them (obviously against Geneva conventions).
3- Let them all go (which defeats much of the purpose of attacking the camp to begin with).
Is there a fourth option I missed, or do we have to choose the lesser of three evils?
Of course there is a fourth option - the most obvious and correct option.
You detain everyone and then use due process (ie a trial). Where you have no evidence you free the person. Where you have some evidence then you present your evidence to a jury and you let the jury decide. It is what happens everyday in every civilised country in the world.
But in this example, there is no evidence against any individual, except for those few who were caught red-handed.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| But in this example, there is no evidence against any individual, except for those few who were caught red-handed. |
Then you prosecute those individuals. You can also lay charges of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, if there is sufficient evidence. If not then you let them go. It really is that simple. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| But in this example, there is no evidence against any individual, except for those few who were caught red-handed. |
And I am all for throwing the book at those people. But why are the rest held captive when there is no evidence against them? One option is to start a file on the suspects who we have no evidence against, the cut them loose. If they again turn up in connection with other shady characters in the future, then we have a "pattern of behavior", which would call for further investigation.
Questioning a suspects social and familial ties is necessary to any investigation, but these people are serving sentences longer than some rapists and murderers who actually have been charged and convicted of crimes. That's a terrible mistake to make in the course of an investigation.
Not to mention how wasteful it is. How many resources(money, soldiers, time, etc) have been used up to find exactly no evidence of criminal activity? And how long should it take? You can't very well detain somebody for the rest of their lives while "investigating" them. That goes against everything that our rule of law stands for, and it gets no results. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| That goes against everything that our rule of law stands for, and it gets no results. |
Worse than that, it causes more terrorists & has made the US less safe:
| Quote: |
| “Serving U.S. flag-rank officers… maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.” |
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812No, I think it is even worse than that. What you end up doing is creating a society of profound hypocrisy. You do the things that you accuse the terrorists of doing. You effectively remove any real distinction between you and them, and are left with empty sounding rhetoric about 'freedom' and 'democracy'.
The rule of law is central to any civilised society. When you abandon that, no matter what the circumstances, then you loose the right to be considered civilised.
What we see in GITMO is that right being put aside for a selective group of people. The talk of 'humane treatment' and 'at least we don't kill them' is sanctimonious bullshit.
| Bikerman wrote: |
No, I think it is even worse than that. What you end up doing is creating a society of profound hypocrisy. You do the things that you accuse the terrorists of doing. You effectively remove any real distinction between you and them, and are left with empty sounding rhetoric about 'freedom' and 'democracy'.
The rule of law is central to any civilised society. When you abandon that, no matter what the circumstances, then you loose the right to be considered civilised.
What we see in GITMO is that right being put aside for a selective group of people. The talk of 'humane treatment' and 'at least we don't kill them' is sanctimonious bullshit. |
I'm just wondering why nobody sees this. It wouldn't even matter if the people at GITMO were being pampered like a bunch of Club FED inmates, they are still being held captive for years on end with no charges aginst them. And that is illegal.
I know people hate these examples, but they apply: If the World Trade Center attacks were carried out by a bunch of guys with names like John Collins, Matthew Wadsworth, and Micheal Smith, would GITMO be full of Brittish guys? I seriously doubt it. We would have walked on eggshells to investigate their ties, and we never would have been able to hold them for 5 years or more with no evidence and no trials.
Just because we are a permanent member of the UNSC doesn't give us the right to trample the dignity and rights of human beings for the sake of colonialization under the guise of democracy. | Bikerman wrote: |
No, I think it is even worse than that. What you end up doing is creating a society of profound hypocrisy. You do the things that you accuse the terrorists of doing. You effectively remove any real distinction between you and them, and are left with empty sounding rhetoric about 'freedom' and 'democracy'.
The rule of law is central to any civilised society. When you abandon that, no matter what the circumstances, then you loose the right to be considered civilised.
What we see in GITMO is that right being put aside for a selective group of people. The talk of 'humane treatment' and 'at least we don't kill them' is sanctimonious bullshit. |
Yes, you're right, my point was one of practicality, which falls into the trap of thinking that torture would be okay if it somehow worked (which is doesn't, it backfires). | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| How so? Are Canadians and Americans exempt from the ability to commit acts of terror? We have had more attacks on American soil from home-grown terrorists than from those of foreign nations. So why not start rounding up our own people like cattle every time a Timothy McVeigh type person bombs a building? |
I'm not sure whether you were having fun with this one. Perhaps you are being sarcastic now?
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| One option is to start a file on the suspects who we have no evidence against, the cut them loose. If they again turn up in connection with other shady characters in the future, then we have a "pattern of behavior", which would call for further investigation. |
I'm sure that is what is being done, i.e. they would already have a file on the individual before they would have decided to apprehend him/her. If the terrorists were transparent and up front with their movements, possibly it would have been easier to follow this suggestion systematically, and cut them loose as you suggested if there were no evidence against them, but by nature of their activities they cannot be that easy to track. Their movements are chaotic, elusive, full of question marks and uncertainties.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | But in this example, there is no evidence against any individual, except for those few who were caught red-handed. |
Then you prosecute those individuals. You can also lay charges of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, if there is sufficient evidence. If not then you let them go. It really is that simple. |
I am almost certain that this process would be much more expensive than incarceration. Especially given that there is no evidence available (as per Ocalhoun's discussion). The option would either be to release them completely or not at all. I would imagine that catching them red-handed would be one in a million chance and possibly what it is about is to gather intelligence about terrorist cells and terrorist operations as a preventive measure. | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | But in this example, there is no evidence against any individual, except for those few who were caught red-handed. |
Then you prosecute those individuals. You can also lay charges of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, if there is sufficient evidence. If not then you let them go. It really is that simple. |
I am almost certain that this process would be much more expensive than incarceration. Especially given that there is no evidence available (as per Ocalhoun's discussion). The option would either be to release them completely or not at all. I would imagine that catching them red-handed would be one in a million chance and possibly what it is about is to gather intelligence about terrorist cells and terrorist operations as a preventive measure. |
So you put expense ahead of justice? I don't actually believe you are correct (how much has GITMO cost?) but even if you were then that would be a pretty shabby argument.
The point about 'catching people red-handed' is a red-herring. Most criminals are not caught red-handed, they are caught by a combination of forensic evidence, information from the public and 'inside' information. If the US cannot gather sufficient evidence for a trial then that reflects badly on its intelligence gathering, and is certainly no reason to lock 'everyone' up. You don't lock people up simply as a preventative measure - at least not in civilised countries. | Bikerman wrote: |
| You can also lay charges of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, if there is sufficient evidence. |
What exactly is sufficient evidence for these things then? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | You can also lay charges of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, if there is sufficient evidence. |
What exactly is sufficient evidence for these things then? |
There is plenty of precedent - the Crown Prosecution Service decides here - I presume your District Attorneys do the job in the US. Being present where a crime is being committed is certainly a start to possible charges of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. It really is no different from any other case. | Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | You can also lay charges of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, if there is sufficient evidence. |
What exactly is sufficient evidence for these things then? |
There is plenty of precedent - the Crown Prosecution Service decides here - I presume your District Attorneys do the job in the US. Being present where a crime is being committed is certainly a start to possible charges of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. It really is no different from any other case. |
What would happen with top security cases in the UK? Would they also be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service? | deanhills wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | You can also lay charges of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, if there is sufficient evidence. |
What exactly is sufficient evidence for these things then? |
There is plenty of precedent - the Crown Prosecution Service decides here - I presume your District Attorneys do the job in the US. Being present where a crime is being committed is certainly a start to possible charges of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. It really is no different from any other case. |
What would happen with top security cases in the UK? Would they also be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service? |
Absolutely - just like any other case. Now, of course, the security services might petition the government minister (either the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence, depending on the case) to make sure that certain evidence was not given in public (where, for example, it involved particular security operatives), and in such cases the courts might hide the identity of particular witnesses.
That does not mean, of course, that we are perfect. Recently a case of corruption, involving the BEA arms supplier was halted by the Government after pressure by the Saudis - a shameful event. We also have experience, similar to what the US has done in GITMO, in our history (internment without trial in Northern Ireland). The lesson we learned from that is - never again. | Bikerman wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | You can also lay charges of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, if there is sufficient evidence. |
What exactly is sufficient evidence for these things then? |
There is plenty of precedent - the Crown Prosecution Service decides here - I presume your District Attorneys do the job in the US. Being present where a crime is being committed is certainly a start to possible charges of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. It really is no different from any other case. |
What would happen with top security cases in the UK? Would they also be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service? |
Absolutely - just like any other case. Now, of course, the security services might petition the government minister (either the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence, depending on the case) to make sure that certain evidence was not given in public (where, for example, it involved particular security operatives), and in such cases the courts might hide the identity of particular witnesses.
That does not mean, of course, that we are perfect. Recently a case of corruption, involving the BEA arms supplier was halted by the Government after pressure by the Saudis - a shameful event. We also have experience, similar to what the US has done in GITMO, in our history (internment without trial in Northern Ireland). |
Thanks for the info Chris.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The lesson we learned from that is - never again. |
Wish that "never again" could be true, as humans do not always learn from history lessons, and are inclined to get carried away by the power and urgency of the need in the present moment to be secretive. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
How so? Are Canadians and Americans exempt from the ability to commit acts of terror? We have had more attacks on American soil from home-grown terrorists than from those of foreign nations. So why not start rounding up our own people like cattle every time a Timothy McVeigh type person bombs a building?
| deanhills wrote: | | I'm not sure whether you were having fun with this one. Perhaps you are being sarcastic now? |
|
No. I'm serious. Why were American citizens not rounded up and arrested and locked up by the dozens prior to catching men like McVeigh(among many others we have had in the States)? The reason is because the American people would not stand for this happening to our own citizens, because it is a crime against basic human rights. In addition to the fact that it yields ZERO results.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I'm sure that is what is being done, i.e. they would already have a file on the individual before they would have decided to apprehend him/her. If the terrorists were transparent and up front with their movements, possibly it would have been easier to follow this suggestion systematically, and cut them loose as you suggested if there were no evidence against them, but by nature of their activities they cannot be that easy to track. Their movements are chaotic, elusive, full of question marks and uncertainties. |
So, because they are difficult to track, and even more difficult to get evidence against, the solution should be to lock them up indefinately on suspicion alone? Think about that for a second, and try to name other countries that do that very same thing. Why not just start executing them as "examples" then? If you are so sure these guys are guilty, but just too tricky to leave a trail of evidence, then why not just kill them as a preventative measure? | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| If you are so sure these guys are guilty, but just too tricky to leave a trail of evidence, then why not just kill them as a preventative measure? |
Is that your recommendation? | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
If you are so sure these guys are guilty, but just too tricky to leave a trail of evidence, then why not just kill them as a preventative measure?
| deanhills wrote: | | Is that your recommendation? |
|
Are you serious?
I was asking that because you and many other people seem convinced that the reason those men are locked up in GITMO is because they are guilty, but simply too clever to have left any evidence of their crimes. Perhaps I should have worded my question better; "Would you support the execution of the prisoners in GITMO?"
If yes, then would you also support this same type of action being taken against American citizens being held on suspicion with no evidence?
If you wouldn't support their execution, then why? | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | If you are so sure these guys are guilty, but just too tricky to leave a trail of evidence, then why not just kill them as a preventative measure?
| deanhills wrote: | | Is that your recommendation? |
|
Are you serious?
I was asking that because you and many other people seem convinced that the reason those men are locked up in GITMO is because they are guilty, but simply too clever to have left any evidence of their crimes. Perhaps I should have worded my question better; "Would you support the execution of the prisoners in GITMO?"
If yes, then would you also support this same type of action being taken against American citizens being held on suspicion with no evidence?
If you wouldn't support their execution, then why? |
I cannot compare what is happening with GITMO with that of American citizens in the United States. I can't see the logic in putting them together. I have said previously, probably more than once, that GITMO should never have happened. What should have happened instead is not my call. Now that we have GITMO it is a really a problem because as much as you would like to treat all prisoners as innocent until they are guilty, and most likely harmless, perhaps there is a good chance that quite a number who are held captive are not harmless. If they were, I would imagine President Obama would have released all of them at the same time, or President Bush would have done the same when GITMO became public knowledge. So obviously some care has to be taken with the inmates and how they are going to do it is probably not going to be an easy solution along your lines, as obviously the reason they got there in the first place was insufficient evidence, or that is just a guess on my part. | deanhills wrote: |
| I cannot compare what is happening with GITMO with that of American citizens in the United States. I can't see the logic in putting them together. |
It was a hypothetical. The fact is, if we are not willing to treat our own suspected criminals in this fashion, then it's unacceptable to treat foreign suspects this way. I agree that the process of determining guilt and innocence will be a long and painful one, but the mistreatment of these human beings and their basic rights should not be brushed aside and seen as justifiable simply because it makes you feel safer. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | I cannot compare what is happening with GITMO with that of American citizens in the United States. I can't see the logic in putting them together. |
It was a hypothetical. The fact is, if we are not willing to treat our own suspected criminals in this fashion, then it's unacceptable to treat foreign suspects this way. I agree that the process of determining guilt and innocence will be a long and painful one, but the mistreatment of these human beings and their basic rights should not be brushed aside and seen as justifiable simply because it makes you feel safer. |
But it is OK to kill pirates when the circumstances are right.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-105582.html How do you know that some of the inmates in GITMO were not captured as a result of the same kind of situation as you mentioned during the above discussion about pirates?
It would also be interesting to find out whether the surviving pirate, who is a citizen of Somalia, was legally removed to the United States? Imagine if US pirates should attack a boat from Iran off the coast near Alaska, the Iranians shoot three US Citizens who happen to be pirates and who are holding the Iranian captain as hostage, and then move the fourth US citizen to Iran. What would the reaction of the US be?
I think your reference to "brushing aside basic rights" is glib. If it was really such an uncomplicated and straightforward situation as your postings imply, why are these guys still in prison and why are they not all outside waiting for a trial to happen? Bush has been history for almost four months now and we have not received any pertinent facts regarding the number of the inmates and who they are, what they did. During Bush one could have argued that this was because Bush is Bush, but now we have the world saviour Obama sitting on the crown. He did give notice that this may take some time (which already puts a question mark on the kind of inmates we are dealing with), but as far as I know only one inmate has been released yet. A doctor from Yemen. Why not more? | deanhills wrote: |
| But it is OK to kill pirates when the circumstances are right. |
Yes, they had an AK-47 pointed at a hostage. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that.
| deanhills wrote: |
| How do you know that some of the inmates in GITMO were not captured as a result of the same kind of situation as you mentioned during the above discussion about pirates? |
Because they would have been killed on the spot or put on trial already. Most of the GITMO prisoners don't even have charges pressed against them for lack of evidence. It's a very clear difference.
| deanhills wrote: |
| It would also be interesting to find out whether the surviving pirate, who is a citizen of Somalia, was legally removed to the United States? Imagine if US pirates should attack a boat from Iran off the coast near Alaska, the Iranians shoot three US Citizens who happen to be pirates and who are holding the Iranian captain as hostage, and then move the fourth US citizen to Iran. What would the reaction of the US be? |
I can't say how our government would react, but I'd react the same way I have about the other pirates. If they were attacking an Iranian ship in international waters, then they get what's coming to them. They knew the risks involved.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I think your reference to "brushing aside basic rights" is glib. If it was really such an uncomplicated and straightforward situation as your postings imply, why are these guys still in prison and why are they not all outside waiting for a trial to happen? Bush has been history for almost four months now and we have not received any pertinent facts regarding the number of the inmates and who they are, what they did. During Bush one could have argued that this was because Bush is Bush, but now we have the world saviour Obama sitting on the crown. He did give notice that this may take some time (which already puts a question mark on the kind of inmates we are dealing with), but as far as I know only one inmate has been released yet. A doctor from Yemen. Why not more? |
Human rights have been brushed aside. What's "glib" about that? This process taking time is not putting a question mark on the inmates, it's called being thorough. They may all very well be horrible and violent criminals, and now things are moving(albeit slowly) in the direction of finding these things out. The problem was that they were being held without charges for years. When charges are not filed, it's only because evidence is non-existent. If there was evidence in hand that could prove the guilt of these men, Bush would have put them on trial long ago. Even he wouldn't want to be remembered for this fiasco. But there was no evidence against them for years, and now we are trying to sort it all out. This will take time. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | But it is OK to kill pirates when the circumstances are right. |
Yes, they had an AK-47 pointed at a hostage. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. |
Apparently they were teenagers. Couldn't the snipers have aimed to wound, rather than kill?
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | How do you know that some of the inmates in GITMO were not captured as a result of the same kind of situation as you mentioned during the above discussion about pirates? |
Because they would have been killed on the spot or put on trial already. Most of the GITMO prisoners don't even have charges pressed against them for lack of evidence. It's a very clear difference. |
So why have charges not been pressed yet, now that GITMO is in the open and Obama has given instructions for this to happen?
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | It would also be interesting to find out whether the surviving pirate, who is a citizen of Somalia, was legally removed to the United States? Imagine if US pirates should attack a boat from Iran off the coast near Alaska, the Iranians shoot three US Citizens who happen to be pirates and who are holding the Iranian captain as hostage, and then move the fourth US citizen to Iran. What would the reaction of the US be? |
I can't say how our government would react, but I'd react the same way I have about the other pirates. If they were attacking an Iranian ship in international waters, then they get what's coming to them. They knew the risks involved. |
I wonder whether the events would have been interpreted that way though? Sentiment is against Iran. Possibly sentiment in Somalia may also be against the US. Anyway, this is an unknown quantity and I was playing devil's advocate.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
Human rights have been brushed aside. What's "glib" about that? This process taking time is not putting a question mark on the inmates, it's called being thorough. They may all very well be horrible and violent criminals, and now things are moving(albeit slowly) in the direction of finding these things out. The problem was that they were being held without charges for years. When charges are not filed, it's only because evidence is non-existent. If there was evidence in hand that could prove the guilt of these men, Bush would have put them on trial long ago. Even he wouldn't want to be remembered for this fiasco. But there was no evidence against them for years, and now we are trying to sort it all out. This will take time. |
How do you know that that time was needed under the Bush administration as well? They were working on getting evidence together? | deanhills wrote: |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | But it is OK to kill pirates when the circumstances are right. |
Yes, they had an AK-47 pointed at a hostage. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. |
Apparently they were teenagers. Couldn't the snipers have aimed to wound, rather than kill?
|
1: One might be left with enough fight left in him to kill the hostage, causing mission failure.
2: Soldiers simply aren't trained to shoot to wound. They are trained to wound or disable in hand-to-hand fighting, but if they're going to use deadly force, it will be deadly. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Solon_Poledourus wrote: | | deanhills wrote: | | But it is OK to kill pirates when the circumstances are right. |
Yes, they had an AK-47 pointed at a hostage. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that. |
Apparently they were teenagers. Couldn't the snipers have aimed to wound, rather than kill?
|
1: One might be left with enough fight left in him to kill the hostage, causing mission failure.
2: Soldiers simply aren't trained to shoot to wound. They are trained to wound or disable in hand-to-hand fighting, but if they're going to use deadly force, it will be deadly. |
Playing devil's advocate again, have to ask, were we in a war situation? | deanhills wrote: |
| Apparently they were teenagers. Couldn't the snipers have aimed to wound, rather than kill? |
Ocalhoun got that one.
| deanhills wrote: |
| So why have charges not been pressed yet, now that GITMO is in the open and Obama has given instructions for this to happen? |
No evidence = No charges. I can only imagine that this is a beaurocratic nightmare full of red tape and paperwork. Not to mention, Obama has to be careful about how he does this, or he risks being lambasted publicly for being too quick to free suspects.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I wonder whether the events would have been interpreted that way though? Sentiment is against Iran. Possibly sentiment in Somalia may also be against the US. Anyway, this is an unknown quantity and I was playing devil's advocate. |
Well, if you've seen the news, it's been a lose/lose situation for Obama anyway. The Republican party(as well as many on the other side) were about to crucify Obama for not doing anything, and after a successful operation, he still got blasted by alot of far right pundits for shooting "kids". Go figure.
| deanhills wrote: |
| How do you know that that time was needed under the Bush administration as well? They were working on getting evidence together? |
Maybe they were, we can only assume so. But in our legal system, you don't keep people imprisoned for years on end during your evidence gathering session. That should be done before you make an arrest. That's why it's called "the assumption of innocence until proven guilty".
| deanhills wrote: |
| Playing devil's advocate again, have to ask, were we in a war situation? |
Doesn't matter. If it were Americans holding hostages during a bank robbery in Oklahoma, they would have had the SWAT team do the exact same thing. [/quote] | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
The Republican party(as well as many on the other side) were about to crucify Obama for not doing anything, and after a successful operation, he still got blasted by alot of far right pundits for shooting "kids". Go figure.
|
Blasting the left is what far right pundits are for. ^.^ | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Blasting the left is what far right pundits are for. ^.^ |
True, and it works both ways. But I am in awe of how a Mr. Rush Limbaugh twisted the scenerio. I guess I shouldn't be, considering how completely biased he is towards everything. Here's the quote:
| Rush 'the pirate sympathizer' Limbaugh wrote: |
| "You know what we have learned about the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers that were wiped out at the order of Barack Obama, you know what we learned about them? They were teenagers. The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old. Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas." |
First of all, if a Republican was in office, he wouldn't be calling these murderous pirates "merchant marine organizers", "black teenagers", "inexperienced youths", or anything else of that nature. He would have called them what they are: Terrorists.
Second, if his hypothetical Republican were in office, he and all others of his ilk would have been chomping at the bit to whack these pirates, and they would all be giving themselves a big pat on the back for a job well done.
The blatant hypocrisy is astounding. I guess he has no problems with the black muslim teenagers in Iraq or Afghanistan getting killed, but then, those orders were originally given by a Republican. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| But in our legal system, you don't keep people imprisoned for years on end during your evidence gathering session. That should be done before you make an arrest. That's why it's called "the assumption of innocence until proven guilty". |
Great! Then set them free! Isn't Obama just prolonging the exact same pattern of not knowing what to do in the face of lack of evidence and not sure about what to do? I'm saying this along the lines of your argument as quoted above, which obviously cannot work in this instance as if it had been that simple, these guys would already have been processed when Bush was still around. Perhaps the headaches that Obama are having are the same ones that Bush had and they still don't know what to do with the guys.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Rush 'the pirate sympathizer' Limbaugh wrote: | | "You know what we have learned about the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers that were wiped out at the order of Barack Obama, you know what we learned about them? They were teenagers. The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old. Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas." |
First of all, if a Republican was in office, he wouldn't be calling these murderous pirates "merchant marine organizers", "black teenagers", "inexperienced youths", or anything else of that nature. He would have called them what they are: Terrorists.
Second, if his hypothetical Republican were in office, he and all others of his ilk would have been chomping at the bit to whack these pirates, and they would all be giving themselves a big pat on the back for a job well done.
The blatant hypocrisy is astounding. I guess he has no problems with the black muslim teenagers in Iraq or Afghanistan getting killed, but then, those orders were originally given by a Republican. |
Think we've discussed Rush in another thread, perhaps it is a bit unfair to make his talk representative of Republican talk. I am sure there are a great number of Republicans who do not like his talk at all and would refuse to be associated with him. | deanhills wrote: |
| Great! Then set them free! Isn't Obama just prolonging the exact same pattern of not knowing what to do in the face of lack of evidence and not sure about what to do? I'm saying this along the lines of your argument as quoted above, which obviously cannot work in this instance as if it had been that simple, these guys would already have been processed when Bush was still around. Perhaps the headaches that Obama are having are the same ones that Bush had and they still don't know what to do with the guys. |
Exactly. It's just harder to manage now that they have been there for so long. They need to process them and make sure that everything is done properly, or risk complete disaster.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Think we've discussed Rush in another thread, perhaps it is a bit unfair to make his talk representative of Republican talk. I am sure there are a great number of Republicans who do not like his talk at all and would refuse to be associated with him. |
Sadly, most of them fear him publicly. Those who have spoken out about his antics have quickly retracted their statements and apologized. He seems to have alot of power with the Republican voting base, so the Republican politicians walk on egg shells around him. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| He seems to have alot of power with the Republican voting base, so the Republican politicians walk on egg shells around him. |
Or perhaps they are just ignoring him! Can't imagine that they would walk on egg shells around him. What I can imagine is that they would be completely irritated by him.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Great! Then set them free! Isn't Obama just prolonging the exact same pattern of not knowing what to do in the face of lack of evidence and not sure about what to do? I'm saying this along the lines of your argument as quoted above, which obviously cannot work in this instance as if it had been that simple, these guys would already have been processed when Bush was still around. Perhaps the headaches that Obama are having are the same ones that Bush had and they still don't know what to do with the guys. |
Exactly. It's just harder to manage now that they have been there for so long. They need to process them and make sure that everything is done properly, or risk complete disaster. |
Perhaps you missed my point here? Obama created the impression that he ended GITMO. Perhaps "the ending" had already been in process at the time when he signed the papers for ending it. And after that Bush critics went on a sabattical under the heading of "these things take time"! | Bikerman wrote: |
No, I think it is even worse than that. What you end up doing is creating a society of profound hypocrisy. You do the things that you accuse the terrorists of doing. You effectively remove any real distinction between you and them, and are left with empty sounding rhetoric about 'freedom' and 'democracy'.
The rule of law is central to any civilised society. When you abandon that, no matter what the circumstances, then you loose the right to be considered civilised.
What we see in GITMO is that right being put aside for a selective group of people. The talk of 'humane treatment' and 'at least we don't kill them' is sanctimonious bullshit. |
What's horrible is how so many of the USA's leaders, from Cheney to Lieberman, keep trying to lead the US down further down this wretched path. Both of them were on TV this week saying how they want to show that torture is effective. By their logic, anything that is supposedly effective is OK. Torturing the children or wife of a suspect and making him watch -- probably effective, why not do it? If you throw right and wrong out the window, you end up in total depravity. And we have national leaders advocating it on TV. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | No, I think it is even worse than that. What you end up doing is creating a society of profound hypocrisy. You do the things that you accuse the terrorists of doing. You effectively remove any real distinction between you and them, and are left with empty sounding rhetoric about 'freedom' and 'democracy'.
The rule of law is central to any civilised society. When you abandon that, no matter what the circumstances, then you loose the right to be considered civilised.
What we see in GITMO is that right being put aside for a selective group of people. The talk of 'humane treatment' and 'at least we don't kill them' is sanctimonious bullshit. |
What's horrible is how so many of the USA's leaders, from Cheney to Lieberman, keep trying to lead the US down further down this wretched path. Both of them were on TV this week saying how they want to show that torture is effective. By their logic, anything that is supposedly effective is OK. Torturing the children or wife of a suspect and making him watch -- probably effective, why not do it? If you throw right and wrong out the window, you end up in total depravity. And we have national leaders advocating it on TV. |
Wonderful Handfleisch. Obama made a decision to release the prisoners from GITMO and he signed it in JANUARY 2009. Why aren't there any trials yet? Why the hold-up? Where's the action? Remember, their rights have been badly violated. Obama got quite a lot of mileage out of that while he was running for President in showing how bad the Bush Government had handled that. And now it's his chance to sort it out, his turn, and I see very very VERY little action in that regard. Why are you harping on people who cannot make a difference, instead of asking Obama what is going on. Obama is the President now. And GITMO is now his reponsibility, not Cheney's and not Lieberman's. | handfleisch wrote: |
| If you throw right and wrong out the window, you end up in total depravity. |
Yes, right and wrong shouldn't be thrown out the window, but we do need to thoroghly examine why we think things are right or wrong, and establish a firm basis for determining things like, "Is it okay to make the guilty suffer in order to prevent suffering of many 'innocents'?"
| Quote: |
| And we have national leaders advocating it on TV. |
They have freedom of speech too, you know. What would you do? Force them to be silent?Someone who knows is making similar points about Cheney -- former Brig. General Janis Karpinski, one of the scapegoats of Abu Ghraib, is nailing Cheney for his recent comments. Cheney is getting out there and defending his torture program now, but was he silent when low-level people were going to jail for it. Why didn't he take credit (blame) when everyone was saying it was just a few bad apples?
| Quote: |
They were well aware, these people, Rumsfeld, Sanchez, all of them and were well aware of these policies and these memorandums while these soldiers were being accused....five years ago. And if it was okay Mr. Former Vice President, if you're saying that this was necessary today and that it produced good intelligence..where were you five years ago stepping up to the plate and saying hold on, we can't discuss this because this is classified information, but these soldiers did not design these techniques? Where were all of those heros then to step up to the plate and defend these soldiers and to defend me? These were soldiers that were serving in a combat zone that were good Americans and remain good Americans and that were so unfairly blamed. Five years this month to get these memos released, declassified and released and people still trying to say that what happened at Abu Ghraib was different than what these memorandums were directing. No! It is not! |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybv3VG4RNzk | handfleisch wrote: |
| Cheney is getting out there and defending his torture program now, |
He's admitted that it was 'his' program now? Really?
Because you can defend something without being responsible for it. | handfleisch wrote: |
| Someone who knows is making similar points about Cheney -- former Brig. General Janis Karpinski, one of the scapegoats of Abu Ghraib, is nailing Cheney for his recent comments. Cheney is getting out there and defending his torture program now, but was he silent when low-level people were going to jail for it. Why didn't he take credit (blame) when everyone was saying it was just a few bad apples? |
Looks as though you are playing on only one string on your guitar handfleisch. The only one you apparently have? | deanhills wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: | | Someone who knows is making similar points about Cheney -- former Brig. General Janis Karpinski, one of the scapegoats of Abu Ghraib, is nailing Cheney for his recent comments. Cheney is getting out there and defending his torture program now, but was he silent when low-level people were going to jail for it. Why didn't he take credit (blame) when everyone was saying it was just a few bad apples? |
Looks as though you are playing on only one string on your guitar handfleisch. The only one you apparently have? |
How typical of the Deanhills-dominated Frihost forums. Someone who questions holding trials because they are too expensive, who suggests that suspects are all guilty without trials anyway, who thinks nuclear weapons could be used to shoot down scary asteroids -- in other words, someone who is overloading his one functioning brain cell -- thinks the above is a decisive critique.
It's ingenious the way stupidity is poured onto every discussion here. Cue Bikerman to come and play this paternal role: "Now, now, Deanyboy, did you do your homework?" | handfleisch wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | Someone who knows is making similar points about Cheney -- former Brig. General Janis Karpinski, one of the scapegoats of Abu Ghraib, is nailing Cheney for his recent comments. Cheney is getting out there and defending his torture program now, but was he silent when low-level people were going to jail for it. Why didn't he take credit (blame) when everyone was saying it was just a few bad apples? |
Looks as though you are playing on only one string on your guitar handfleisch. The only one you apparently have? |
How typical of the Deanhills-dominated Frihost forums. Someone who questions holding trials because they are too expensive, who suggests that suspects are all guilty without trials anyway, who thinks nuclear weapons could be used to shoot down scary asteroids -- in other words, someone who is overloading his one functioning brain cell -- thinks the above is a decisive critique.
It's ingenious the way stupidity is poured onto every discussion here. Cue Bikerman to come and play this paternal role: "Now, now, Deanyboy, did you do your homework?" |
Let's keep on topic Handfleisch. You were talking about Cheney and I indicated (probably unsuccessfully) that you are overly focussing on someone who is no longer making any policies. Obama was appointed President in January. You still have not answered a question that I have repeated a number of times: why have there not been any trial dates set yet for the GITMO prisoners? Given that Obama has signed their release in January and we are already almost at the end of April, I have not seen any urgent activities going round for preparing trial dates. Have you? | deanhills wrote: |
Let's keep on topic Handfleisch. You were talking about Cheney and I indicated (probably unsuccessfully) that you are overly focussing on someone who is no longer making any policies. |
I ignore your questions in general because you don't seem to take in the answers. Others like Bikerman will show you the basic facts or points that you are wrong on, then you will pop up again later repeating the same errors, and given that the errors tend to support ugly views like trials of suspects in Gitmo are too expensive, I don't bother.
This time, again, your point is worth disregarding: Cheney has been on the Republican PR station Fox News twice in one week, cheerleading for torture. Brig. General Janis Karpinski, a major player in the torture scandals, spoke out against Cheney this week. That's why I mentioned him, because he is in the news, because the subject is torture, which his administration championed and he still does. The subject of the Bush administration's appalling introduction and use of torture, the ongoing revelations via declassified documents, and the possibility of investigations and trials, are all going to be a live subject for a long time. | handfleisch wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: |
Let's keep on topic Handfleisch. You were talking about Cheney and I indicated (probably unsuccessfully) that you are overly focussing on someone who is no longer making any policies. |
I ignore your questions in general because you don't seem to take in the answers. Others like Bikerman will show you the basic facts or points that you are wrong on, then you will pop up again later repeating the same errors, and given that the errors tend to support ugly views like trials of suspects in Gitmo are too expensive, I don't bother.
This time, again, your point is worth disregarding: Cheney has been on the Republican PR station Fox News twice in one week, cheerleading for torture. Brig. General Janis Karpinski, a major player in the torture scandals, spoke out against Cheney this week. That's why I mentioned him, because he is in the news, because the subject is torture, which his administration championed and he still does. The subject of the Bush administration's appalling introduction and use of torture, the ongoing revelations via declassified documents, and the possibility of investigations and trials, are all going to be a live subject for a long time. |
You seem to persist in making it personal and focussing on me and Cheney all the time. This is supposed to be a debate Handfleisch and the thread is about GITMO prisoners. I specifically asked about the status of GITMO prisoners under Obama. You have ignored that question twice. I believe you made a personal attack on me two postings ago, which I chose to ignore - I choose not to respond to personal "answers" like that as they are not relevant to the debate. I asked the question below in my last comment as well as in previous postings and you still have not answered it:
| Quote: |
| why have there not been any trial dates set yet for the GITMO prisoners? Given that Obama has signed their release in January and we are already almost at the end of April, I have not seen any urgent activities going round for preparing trial dates. Have you? |
| deanhills wrote: |
| why have there not been any trial dates set yet for the GITMO prisoners? Given that Obama has signed their release in January and we are already almost at the end of April, I have not seen any urgent activities going round for preparing trial dates. |
Try a newspaper or google news. | handfleisch wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | why have there not been any trial dates set yet for the GITMO prisoners? Given that Obama has signed their release in January and we are already almost at the end of April, I have not seen any urgent activities going round for preparing trial dates. |
Try a newspaper or google news. |
You still have not answered the question.I'll answer it then. Obama, shortly after being sworn in, ordered a 120 day suspension(to resume sometime in May) of the trials so that his staff can review all the pending cases of the GITMO prisoners individually, this has been reported on by many news outlets.
Here's a link.
I'm guessing that(among other things) they might be concerned with some of the evidence against these guys being overblown in order to hasten the process and guarantee prosecutions, thus justifying their imprisonment for so long in the first place. But that's just a guess.
I know it seems very easy to think that once he ordered the place shut down that they'd have the lights off and all their gear packed up, prisoners released or prosecuted, and the doors locked in just a few days, but Government just doesn't move that fast. Come mid-May, if there are still no trials, or no new information on what's going on, then we can start getting all antsy in the pantsy. In the mean time, a general date has been set and they are (supposedly)working towards that goal.
Not much we can do for now except wait. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
I'll answer it then. Obama, shortly after being sworn in, ordered a 120 day suspension(to resume sometime in May) of the trials so that his staff can review all the pending cases of the GITMO prisoners individually, this has been reported on by many news outlets.
Here's a link.
I'm guessing that(among other things) they might be concerned with some of the evidence against these guys being overblown in order to hasten the process and guarantee prosecutions, thus justifying their imprisonment for so long in the first place. But that's just a guess.
I know it seems very easy to think that once he ordered the place shut down that they'd have the lights off and all their gear packed up, prisoners released or prosecuted, and the doors locked in just a few days, but Government just doesn't move that fast. Come mid-May, if there are still no trials, or no new information on what's going on, then we can start getting all antsy in the pantsy. In the mean time, a general date has been set and they are (supposedly)working towards that goal.
Not much we can do for now except wait. |
Thanks Solon. I've also done searches following the obvious ones that were around in January and February this year when Obama signed off on Gitmo. My question was why the delay? This question is also asked by people who are very keen to see those prisoners released and who feel that Obama is moving slower than he should especially given that some of the prisoners have been incarcerated for almost 7 years and when Obama was doing his election campaign and signing off on Gitmo as a first priority in January, expectations were created that are giving people cause for worry. People who have been campaigning for the release of the prisoners have started to write long letters to Obama.
There are not that many articles available on the latest, however I found lots of information at a Website of Andy Worthington from the UK. I spent some time reading through it. It is the kind of Website where one obviously knows where his bias is, but it has factual information that is presented in a sober and objective way:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk
I also caught a few online newspaper reports, the one below is a good FAQ one:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/02/23/q-resettlement-guantanamo-bay-detainees
It would appear that Obama has the prisoners more or less sorted out, in fact they were sorted out in January, or more sorted out than indicated. Obama also issued a report that the Gitmo prison was in good condition (this was criticized by quite a number of people including Andy Worthington above) and Obama's only criticism in the report was the isolation of the inmates. Andy Worthington also feels that Obama could have moved faster with the release of prisoners than he has and that Obama can be faulted for some of the decisions he has made to date.
The newspaper reports in the last few months indicate that Obama is trying to find a home for the Gitmo prisoners first before transferring them. There are still 245 prisoners, same ones of January. There probably is a good reason for it, but I still wonder why the Yemeni doctor who was scheduled for release months ago, is still in Gitmo prison for example. Why is the processing time so long as I can't see any problems with him returning to Yemen. He would probably receive a warm reception as a hero. There are 61 inmates that have a reason for delay as they have been identified as ones that cannot be returned to their countries. Obama has tried to find alternative places for relocation for them in Europe, UK and Australia. The Australians said yes in principle subject to their immigration laws, however to date has rejected every case that has been submitted to them for screening as not meeting their immigration specifications. The European Union said yes in principle, but Austria said very clearly "NO" to accepting any of the prisoners. UK will be accepting one so far. There is also a group of Chinese inmates at Gitmo (included in the 61) who cannot be returned to China. Then there is of course challenges in the US itself as ironically Gitmo rights for prisoners are now of a better quality than the prisons that have been earmarked for relocating Gitmo prisoners. So certain adjustments will have to be made for them. The ones on top of the list for relocating to US prisons are inmates implicated in the Sept11 terrorist attacks. I can imagine that move is probably going to be a huge security operation.Well let's hope there are good reasons for the delay. Give it till the date set, and then see what happens. As for the transfer of prisoners, that's another issue which is complicated, as you stated most countries don't want the prisoners even if they are cleared of any charges. Many can't go back home out of fear of being treated worse there. And the ones who are "implicated" in anything, even the Sept.11 attacks, still need to get a trial before we deem them guilty of anything.
After the May deadline, if trials do not begin for these guys, I will be just as impatient as anyone else. But a deadline was given, for whatever reasons, so there's not much we can do at this point.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
Well let's hope there are good reasons for the delay. Give it till the date set, and then see what happens. As for the transfer of prisoners, that's another issue which is complicated, as you stated most countries don't want the prisoners even if they are cleared of any charges. Many can't go back home out of fear of being treated worse there. And the ones who are "implicated" in anything, even the Sept.11 attacks, still need to get a trial before we deem them guilty of anything.
After the May deadline, if trials do not begin for these guys, I will be just as impatient as anyone else. But a deadline was given, for whatever reasons, so there's not much we can do at this point. |
Sounds like good advice. Will check up on Andy Worthington again during course of May.
Wonder when they will start with the prisons in Iraq. As when I was clicking around I picked up on someone pointing out the irony of focussing on 245 prisoners at Gitmo, when there were 1000 in much worse predicament in Iraq. For similar reasons, i.e. prisoners aren't properly identified so they do not know what to do with them and cannot release them. Standards of their treatment also vary a lot. Can imagine the prisons that are not under US control have to be in terrible shape, and they can still be operating along pre-existing Sadam Hussein ways. | deanhills wrote: |
| Wonder when they will start with the prisons in Iraq. As when I was clicking around I picked up on someone pointing out the irony of focussing on 245 prisoners at Gitmo, when there were 1000 in much worse predicament in Iraq. For similar reasons, i.e. prisoners aren't properly identified so they do not know what to do with them and cannot release them. Standards of their treatment also vary a lot. Can imagine the prisons that are not under US control have to be in terrible shape, and they can still be operating along pre-existing Sadam Hussein ways. |
I agree, we should be looking into all those prisons too. The unfortunate part of having such a powerful military as we have in the US, is that they can sometimes be overly aggressive. There's really no way to avoid it, without having a weak military. Sadly, this can result in some pretty inhumane actions sometimes. When they are instructed by their officers that the enemy can be anyone; men, women, and even children, and they don't wear uniforms, and they use guerrilla tactics, it puts our soldiers in a very tough position on deciding how to treat the potentially innocent. So they err on the side of personal safety, and sometimes innocent people get caught up in the mix.
It's our policy makers duty to decide, after people are captured, how to proceed with investigations, trials, and punishments. And this is where the mistakes are being made. They are giving the green light to treat every captured individual as an enemy, before there is even any evidence of enemy affiliation. This muddies the waters of further investigations, making it difficult to go back and find evidence of guilt or innocence, because much of the evidence(one way or the other) has been tainted by harsh treatment which is justified with bad policy. So they are forced to start back at square one.
And the integrity of America becomes a casualty of war. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Wonder when they will start with the prisons in Iraq. As when I was clicking around I picked up on someone pointing out the irony of focussing on 245 prisoners at Gitmo, when there were 1000 in much worse predicament in Iraq. For similar reasons, i.e. prisoners aren't properly identified so they do not know what to do with them and cannot release them. Standards of their treatment also vary a lot. Can imagine the prisons that are not under US control have to be in terrible shape, and they can still be operating along pre-existing Sadam Hussein ways. |
I agree, we should be looking into all those prisons too. The unfortunate part of having such a powerful military as we have in the US, is that they can sometimes be overly aggressive. There's really no way to avoid it, without having a weak military. Sadly, this can result in some pretty inhumane actions sometimes. When they are instructed by their officers that the enemy can be anyone; men, women, and even children, and they don't wear uniforms, and they use guerrilla tactics, it puts our soldiers in a very tough position on deciding how to treat the potentially innocent. So they err on the side of personal safety, and sometimes innocent people get caught up in the mix.
It's our policy makers duty to decide, after people are captured, how to proceed with investigations, trials, and punishments. And this is where the mistakes are being made. They are giving the green light to treat every captured individual as an enemy, before there is even any evidence of enemy affiliation. This muddies the waters of further investigations, making it difficult to go back and find evidence of guilt or innocence, because much of the evidence(one way or the other) has been tainted by harsh treatment which is justified with bad policy. So they are forced to start back at square one.
And the integrity of America becomes a casualty of war. |
I have a feeling that Gitmo would have ensured that the prisons that present day US military are involved in in Iraq would be as good as can be expected, although assistance may be needed from a staffing point of view. Think my worries are more about those that are outside the reach of the US military in Iraq. Remember, this is the Middle East and Saddam Hussein perfected torture in all of its prisons. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
When they are instructed by their officers that the enemy can be anyone; men, women, and even children, and they don't wear uniforms, and they use guerrilla tactics, it puts our soldiers in a very tough position on deciding how to treat the potentially innocent. So they err on the side of personal safety, and sometimes innocent people get caught up in the mix.
|
It's a sad effect of some of the worst terrorist tactics. They have been known to strap explosives to a very small child, wire those explosives to a remote-control detonator, and tell the child to run up and hug a US soldier. Being innocently ignorant, the child does run up and give a soldier a hug. As soon as the child is close enough, though, the terrorist pushes the button on the remote control...
The soldiers learned the hard way that when a child is running towards you, and won't stop when told to, the only safe thing to do is shoot the child. | ocalhoun wrote: |
The soldiers learned the hard way that when a child is running towards you, and won't stop when told to, the only safe thing to do is shoot the child. |
Just imagine what that has to do to a soldier, wonder whether a person who has to shoot a child would ever recover from that in his life time! | ocalhoun wrote: |
| The soldiers learned the hard way that when a child is running towards you, and won't stop when told to, the only safe thing to do is shoot the child. |
It's definately a sad and difficult situation. Also, this "war on terror" denotes the first major use of women as suicide bombers, which was something new to US/European soldiers. It's a terrible tragedy, and it has another effect: the innocent civilians in those countries hear stories of our soldiers shooting unarmed women and children, and while technically true, the details are perverted and delivered to bolster untrust, outrage, and even more violence against our soldiers.
I've never had to kill a kid, but I've had to watch a few die up close, and still haven't fully recovered. I can't imagine the mental and emotional toll this kind of thing takes on a soldier who is just trying to help the very people he ended up shooting.
The good news is that we recognize the effects of this type of tragedy, and have better treatment than we did in the past. Alot of veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from having done very similar things, and went untreated, accounting for thousands of soldiers coming home with emotional scars that went untreated, driving them to crime, violence, and many suicides.Looks as though Gitmo made its way to News Headlines again (maybe they got it from Frihost And Solon was right. They had a deadline of 20 May and are now trying to postpone it for three months - that will be 7 months by August with not a single court case or release of prisoner happening. That is really a bummer since the release of detainees will continue to be frozen for that long period of time. At least under Bush detainees were being released during his last months. I found the following quote of an ethics professor at Georgetown University right on:
| Quote: |
Paul F. Rothstein, a Georgetown University legal ethics professor, said the dilemma highlights differences between campaign rhetoric and the realities of the courtroom.
"Once you become president and see the whole panoply of issued that you face, some of the things that seemed easy to promise or talk about during the campaign sometimes appear more difficult," Rothstein said Saturday. "Elections are fought on big slogans without much nuance or detail. I think we want a president who responds to what he sees when he actually gets in there and sees the whole picture, rather than one who adheres rigidly to what he said before."
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_trials;_ylt=ApmKvtUd3v0R8TFenQqYB4q9IxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJuamxpZ2U5BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNTAzL3VzX2d1YW50YW5hbW9fdHJpYWxzBGNwb3MDNwRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA29mZmljaWFsc2dpdA-- | deanhills wrote: |
Looks as though Gitmo made its way to News Headlines again (maybe they got it from Frihost And Solon was right. They had a deadline of 20 May and are now trying to postpone it for three months - that will be 7 months by August with not a single court case or release of prisoner happening. That is really a bummer since the release of detainees will continue to be frozen for that long period of time. At least under Bush detainees were being released during his last months. I found the following quote of an ethics professor at Georgetown University right on:
| Quote: | Paul F. Rothstein, a Georgetown University legal ethics professor, said the dilemma highlights differences between campaign rhetoric and the realities of the courtroom.
"Once you become president and see the whole panoply of issued that you face, some of the things that seemed easy to promise or talk about during the campaign sometimes appear more difficult," Rothstein said Saturday. "Elections are fought on big slogans without much nuance or detail. I think we want a president who responds to what he sees when he actually gets in there and sees the whole picture, rather than one who adheres rigidly to what he said before."
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090503/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_guantanamo_trials;_ylt=ApmKvtUd3v0R8TFenQqYB4q9IxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTJuamxpZ2U5BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNTAzL3VzX2d1YW50YW5hbW9fdHJpYWxzBGNwb3MDNwRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA29mZmljaWFsc2dpdA-- |
I guess you now have your answer. Obama railed against Bush's policies and now he's considering adopting them. I guess that's the "change you can believe in."
| Quote: |
Indefinite Detention Weighed
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The proposal being floated with members of Congress is another indication of President Barack Obama's struggles to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.
On Wednesday, the president reversed a recent administration decision to release photos showing purported abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Obama cited concern that releasing the pictures could endanger U.S. troops. Mr. Obama ordered government lawyers to pull back an earlier court filing promising to release hundreds of photos by month's end as part a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The decision to block the detainee photos contrasts with the administration's release last month of Bush-era Justice Department memorandums outlining the interrogation tactics used on prisoners by the Central Intelligence Agency. The release of the memos set off a heated political fight, with supporters of the Bush administration accusing the Obama White House of endangering the country and some of the current president's supporters calling for criminal probes of those responsible for the interrogation policies.
The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.
Sen. Lindsay Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court.
Sen. Graham said he wants to work with the administration to pass legislation to increase judicial oversight of military commissions, but noted the legal difficulties that would arise.
"This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" Sen. Graham said.
The White House had no comment Wednesday about its detainee deliberations.
The idea of a new national security court has been discussed widely in legal circles, including by Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Neal Katyal, a former Georgetown law professor and now Obama Justice Department official.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, at a hearing last month, hinted at the administration's deliberations, saying that there were "50 to 100 [detainees] probably in that ballpark who we cannot release and cannot trust, either in Article 3 [civilian] courts or military commissions."
The administration's move to block the release of military detainee photos was welcomed by Republicans in Congress and by some military family groups but condemned by the ACLU and others.
Mr. Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had all raised concerns with the White House about releasing the detainee photos. Mr. Gates and the commanders worried that the pictures would spur new anti-American violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
Source = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124223286506515765.html | jmi256 wrote: |
| I guess you now have your answer. Obama railed against Bush's policies and now he's considering adopting them. I guess that's the "change you can believe in." |
Right, and in the meanwhile he seriously scored brownie points while he was campaigning for President, casting himself in the role as "saviour". At least when Bush was around, Gitmo detainees were still being processed. Right now the whole process is frozen. 
4 months in and Obama hasn't saved the world yet? He must be a bad President then!
Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like Obama, or believe he is the next bast thing to sliced bread. But this reminds me of how Bush was treated in early 2001. Everyone called him a "lame duck" President, said he did nothing, yadda yadda. The man was only in office for a few months when he was labelled a lame duck, and the same people who said that wasn't fair are now calling Obama a snake in the grass after only 4 months. What a crock of sh*t.
He inheireted a war on 2 fronts, an economy that was in the toilet, and he had to deal with living up to the expectations of every single black person in America. Give the guy a break already.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
4 months in and Obama hasn't saved the world yet? He must be a bad President then!
Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like Obama, or believe he is the next bast thing to sliced bread. But this reminds me of how Bush was treated in early 2001. Everyone called him a "lame duck" President, said he did nothing, yadda yadda. The man was only in office for a few months when he was labelled a lame duck, and the same people who said that wasn't fair are now calling Obama a snake in the grass after only 4 months. What a crock of sh*t.
He inheireted a war on 2 fronts, an economy that was in the toilet, and he had to deal with living up to the expectations of every single black person in America. Give the guy a break already. |
He is learning as well as he comes relatively inexperienced with international politics. Perhaps as he starts to get his hands really dirty, without wishing it to be the case and he has to differentiate between what he does not like to be done (the ideal) and what needs to be done in the national interest, he may turn out more positive. Thing is however, first impressions always last the longest. | deanhills wrote: |
| He is learning as well as he comes relatively inexperienced with international politics. Perhaps as he starts to get his hands really dirty, without wishing it to be the case and he has to differentiate between what he does not like to be done (the ideal) and what needs to be done in the national interest, he may turn out more positive. Thing is however, first impressions always last the longest. |
I agree. First impressions last the longest, but judgement should be reserved for judges. I can say that I personally don't support his direction, but I can't condemn the man after such a short period of time. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | He is learning as well as he comes relatively inexperienced with international politics. Perhaps as he starts to get his hands really dirty, without wishing it to be the case and he has to differentiate between what he does not like to be done (the ideal) and what needs to be done in the national interest, he may turn out more positive. Thing is however, first impressions always last the longest. |
I agree. First impressions last the longest, but judgement should be reserved for judges. I can say that I personally don't support his direction, but I can't condemn the man after such a short period of time. |
I doubt that the "judgment" is "that" personal. It has to do with decisions by the President (whether it is Obama or any one else who happens to be President is less important) that have been less popular. I.e. Gitmo that may have to be dealt with as it had under Bush, borrowing 1.2 trillion US dollars, tax decisions that do not go down well as realistic and practical, lots of expenditure when we were told there would be less of that. People are asking good questions about decisions that have been made by the President.I agree, people have been rightfully questioning his policies. I'm not arguing against that part. I just think that his job may not have seemed as difficult to him as it truly is while he was campaigning, and due to the changes happening in the nation and world, he has to change his game plan. Unfortunately, when people see him change his strategy, they cruicify him for it. I could argue all day about what I think he is doing wrong, but I am not in his position, and I don't know all the details of why he does what he does. I just think he needs more time before we criticize too harshly.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Obama's only criticism in the report was the isolation of the inmates. |
Which is absolutely essential if you want valid intelligence data gathered...
You have to cross-reference their stories with each other to make sure they are true, and you can't do this if they've had an opportunity to talk to each other about what to say.
If you let them all communicate with each other, you can't trust anything they tell you, so all intelligence information gained would be useless. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Obama's only criticism in the report was the isolation of the inmates. |
Which is absolutely essential if you want valid intelligence data gathered...
You have to cross-reference their stories with each other to make sure they are true, and you can't do this if they've had an opportunity to talk to each other about what to say.
If you let them all communicate with each other, you can't trust anything they tell you, so all intelligence information gained would be useless. |
Gitmo detainee supporters expected much more from Obama, and were actually critical that his only criticism was the isolation of the inmates. Refer article below by Andy Worthington:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/02/23/obamas-humane-guantanamo-is-a-bitter-joke/
Obama's tone has changed quite a bit since he became President. Which to me is a good sign as probably when one campaigns one tends to be much more idealistic and in absence of nitty gritty facts may have less insight. He is probably doing the cross-referencing of stories now, but those with whom he had been allied during his election campaign may be disappointed.
