FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Closing the Military Prison at Guantanamo





Moonspider
Yesterday (May 21) President Obama stated during a speech,
President Obama wrote:
Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.
Source: Obama Defends Plan to Close Gitmo

Would Leavenworth or the Supermax prison in the United States be any less a rallying cry for our enemies, especially when President Obama also suggested that some prisoners will have to be held indefinitely without trial?

Do our allies truly hesitate to help us because of Guantanamo?

I too believe the military prison at GITMO should be closed. Like President Bush said in June of 2006:
President Bush wrote:
I’d like to close Guantanamo. But I also recognize that we’re holding some people that are darned dangerous, and that we’d better have a plan to deal with them in our courts. No question, Guantanamo sends, you know, a signal to some of our friends – provides an excuse, for example, to say, ‘The United States is not upholding the values they’re trying (to) encourage other countries to adhere to.’ My answer to them is, is that we are a nation of laws. Eventually these people will have trials and they will have counsel and they will be represented in a court of law.
Source: Bush: ‘I’d like to close Guantanamo Bay’

However, to indicate, as President Obama did yesterday, that our enemies will be any less hateful of us or that our allies will suddenly be more willing to help us in the Global War on Terror is, I think, naïve or disingenuous (depending on whether he truly believes it or not). Our enemies will find other rallying cries and their recruiting efforts will be no less after the closing of GITMO than it was prior. And some of our allies will find other excuses after the prison closes.

Respectfully,
M
gandalfthegrey
What the ****** is Dick Cheney doing coming out of retirement to be the republican patriotic attack dog on this issue, and why the hell are fellow Democrats supporting him and the Republicans?!?

Guantanamo should be closed. The detainees should be given fair trials (albeit in secret to protect national security).
ocalhoun
gandalfthegrey wrote:
What the ****** is Dick Cheney doing coming out of retirement to be the republican patriotic attack dog on this issue, and why the hell are fellow Democrats supporting him and the Republicans?!?

Who said anything about Cheney?
Quote:

Guantanamo should be closed. The detainees should be given fair trials (albeit in secret to protect national security).

How can you be sure secret trials are fair trials?
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
Yesterday (May 21) President Obama stated during a speech,
President Obama wrote:
Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.
Source: Obama Defends Plan to Close Gitmo

Would Leavenworth or the Supermax prison in the United States be any less a rallying cry for our enemies, especially when President Obama also suggested that some prisoners will have to be held indefinitely without trial?

Do our allies truly hesitate to help us because of Guantanamo?

I too believe the military prison at GITMO should be closed. Like President Bush said in June of 2006:
President Bush wrote:
I’d like to close Guantanamo. But I also recognize that we’re holding some people that are darned dangerous, and that we’d better have a plan to deal with them in our courts. No question, Guantanamo sends, you know, a signal to some of our friends – provides an excuse, for example, to say, ‘The United States is not upholding the values they’re trying (to) encourage other countries to adhere to.’ My answer to them is, is that we are a nation of laws. Eventually these people will have trials and they will have counsel and they will be represented in a court of law.
Source: Bush: ‘I’d like to close Guantanamo Bay’

However, to indicate, as President Obama did yesterday, that our enemies will be any less hateful of us or that our allies will suddenly be more willing to help us in the Global War on Terror is, I think, naïve or disingenuous (depending on whether he truly believes it or not). Our enemies will find other rallying cries and their recruiting efforts will be no less after the closing of GITMO than it was prior. And some of our allies will find other excuses after the prison closes.

Respectfully,
M
I believe the reason Obama said that is because he is about to ask Congress for a lot of money to fund the closing of Gitmo, which I think he has discovered is going to be much more than had originally been estimated. After the factfinding exercise, he discovered that there are no suitable prisons available in the United States to accommodate the detainees, and who knows, they may have to build new facilities to accommodate the Gitmo detainees in the US. I find that pretty shortsighted, as the moment when Obama learned that the detainees were better off in Gitmo as there were no existing prisons in the US that can offer what Gitmo does, he should have conceded that possibly Gitmo would be better from a financial point of view. I am disappointed as I think his speech was completely political and self-serving and not in the interest of either the detainees, or the US. If he had really been concerned about the detainees, their processing would have been expedited as a Number 1 priority, rather than stopping everything so that he can figure out what the politically correct thing is to do. The processing basically came to a stop in January, all we've seen from Obama are speeches and fumbling around.
silverdown
Both bush and obama are right but it just a matter of who will take the right step to make the choice on what to do. If it is a security problem close it if i not keep it open however it could be costly. No matter what president we get we all will find the same reason to dislike the president it comes with the job. Some may even hate him just because he is african american, plus no one thought one would be president either. I think if the choice is right and has alot of support anything can be done. If it has really be and dangerous criminals dont close it keep the locked up. Again it a hard choice to make.
deanhills
silverdown wrote:
Both bush and obama are right but it just a matter of who will take the right step to make the choice on what to do. If it is a security problem close it if i not keep it open however it could be costly. No matter what president we get we all will find the same reason to dislike the president it comes with the job. Some may even hate him just because he is african american, plus no one thought one would be president either. I think if the choice is right and has alot of support anything can be done. If it has really be and dangerous criminals dont close it keep the locked up. Again it a hard choice to make.
Possibly Obama now has more respect for the difficulties Bush had to face. Not easy to make the detainees just go away, and if Gitmo is to be closed it makes the problem a million times more complicated.
lagoon
I can't believe you want us in Britain to take these prisoners.

Why would we, exactly?
Solon_Poledourus
lagoon wrote:
I can't believe you want us in Britain to take these prisoners.

Why would we, exactly?
Who exactly are you talking to/about?

I think if GITMO does close(which is unlikely), every nation involved in the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as the intelligence gathering that led to the capture and detention of the prisoners, should "man-up" and take responsibility in housing some of these guys in their nations as well. Yeah yeah, I know it was an American led effort, but a few other countries had just as much gusto in this crap as us.

I think it's funny how everyone is washing their hands of it all now, and putting it all on the US. I distinctly remember other world leaders jumping on board this train without being forced...
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
lagoon wrote:
I can't believe you want us in Britain to take these prisoners.

Why would we, exactly?
Who exactly are you talking to/about?

I think if GITMO does close(which is unlikely), every nation involved in the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, as well as the intelligence gathering that led to the capture and detention of the prisoners, should "man-up" and take responsibility in housing some of these guys in their nations as well. Yeah yeah, I know it was an American led effort, but a few other countries had just as much gusto in this crap as us.

I think it's funny how everyone is washing their hands of it all now, and putting it all on the US. I distinctly remember other world leaders jumping on board this train without being forced...

Agreed. Looks as though the detainees have become hot potatoes however. Wonder whether they have asked Sweden to help out and what their response has been? Sweden seems to be traditionally a country that looks after the world's humanitarian aliens Smile
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
Yesterday (May 21) President Obama stated during a speech,
President Obama wrote:
Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.
Source: Obama Defends Plan to Close Gitmo

Would Leavenworth or the Supermax prison in the United States be any less a rallying cry for our enemies, especially when President Obama also suggested that some prisoners will have to be held indefinitely without trial?

Do our allies truly hesitate to help us because of Guantanamo?

I too believe the military prison at GITMO should be closed. Like President Bush said in June of 2006:
President Bush wrote:
I’d like to close Guantanamo. But I also recognize that we’re holding some people that are darned dangerous, and that we’d better have a plan to deal with them in our courts. No question, Guantanamo sends, you know, a signal to some of our friends – provides an excuse, for example, to say, ‘The United States is not upholding the values they’re trying (to) encourage other countries to adhere to.’ My answer to them is, is that we are a nation of laws. Eventually these people will have trials and they will have counsel and they will be represented in a court of law.
Source: Bush: ‘I’d like to close Guantanamo Bay’

However, to indicate, as President Obama did yesterday, that our enemies will be any less hateful of us or that our allies will suddenly be more willing to help us in the Global War on Terror is, I think, naïve or disingenuous (depending on whether he truly believes it or not). Our enemies will find other rallying cries and their recruiting efforts will be no less after the closing of GITMO than it was prior. And some of our allies will find other excuses after the prison closes.

Respectfully,
M


The Obama-bashing is old hat by now, but it is a surprise that you would be ignorant of the fact that Obama's statement, "It is a rallying cry for our enemies", is based on what military professionals on the ground in the Middle East have long said about Gitmo.

It's also a surprising to hear you publicly undermining the decisions on the conduct of the wars by the Commander in Chief, and to insult him by calling him naive or, basically, a liar. I bet America's enemies are glad to see that.

In the short time he's had in office he's shown the only best of intentions toward the troops and his obligations as Commander in Chief, and a huge majority of Americans can see that's true. But I guess some people made up their mind before he ever got into office.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


The Obama-bashing is old hat by now,

This coming from the person who still is bashing Cheney!
Rolling Eyes
Quote:

It's also a surprising to hear you publicly undermining the decisions on the conduct of the wars by the Commander in Chief, and to insult him by calling him naive or, basically, a liar.

It seems to me I remember another recent commander in chief who's decisions about the conduct of wars were publicly undermined, and who also was not only called a liar, but was accused of masterminding the murder of many citizens in order to make that lie believable... Now, who was that?
Quote:

In the short time he's had in office he's shown the only best of intentions toward the troops and his obligations as Commander in Chief,

It does take more than just good intentions, you know.
Quote:
and a huge majority of Americans can see that's true.

A huge majority of Americans are also very, very stupid... Coincidence?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
In the short time he's had in office he's shown the only best of intentions toward the troops and his obligations as Commander in Chief, and a huge majority of Americans can see that's true. But I guess some people made up their mind before he ever got into office.
Perhaps you are taking Obama too personally Handfleisch. He is President of the United States. Not God. He is also new to the position. The world has to look differently at him now than when he was campaigning for President. Then solutions must have looked much simpler than what they are now. Agreed that he has had the best of intentions, but so have all the Presidents before him. It is not personal. He is just doing his job. Since he is a public figure people have different opinions about how he is performing on the job. Sort of their democratic right to have an opinion about his performance.
handfleisch
Heckle and Jeckle, right on cue.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Heckle and Jeckle, right on cue.
So who is Heckle and who is Jeckle? Not quite sure what you mean with this.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
The Obama-bashing is old hat by now, but it is a surprise that you would be ignorant of the fact that Obama's statement, "It is a rallying cry for our enemies", is based on what military professionals on the ground in the Middle East have long said about Gitmo.


‘Tis not my intention at all to “bash” the President of the United States. Please point out the statements you consider "bashing." I am merely attempting to have a frank discussion about the closing of GITMO.

handfleisch wrote:
It's also a surprising to hear you publicly undermining the decisions on the conduct of the wars by the Commander in Chief, and to insult him by calling him naive or, basically, a liar. I bet America's enemies are glad to see that.


I am not questioning his decision. As I said, “I too believe the military prison at GITMO should be closed.” However, I am questioning his reasoning. If I were advising President Obama, I would have told him to tell the public that he is closing the prison because it is the right thing to do. Period. His other arguments are weak, and therefore make him look weak. He’s the president of the United States. My advice to him would be not to make excuses, which is what he did. Be strong and forthright. Tell the American people that closing GITMO is morally right. End of discussion. Next question.

Be the leader you were elected to be. You don’t need to explain every decision you make, especially when your only explanation(s) can be shot full of holes.

Furthermore, it provides ammunition to his opponents, namely Republicans. When he makes excuses like that it translates to, “people hate us because we did this.” Which is akin to, “She was raped because she did this or dressed like that.” You should never blame the victim for a crime committed against them, which whether he intends to do so or not is how President Obama comes across when he makes such comments.

His arguments are weak for the following reasons:

  1. The prison at GITMO did not exist prior to World Trade Center bombing #1 or 9/11. It did not exist prior to the attack on the USS Cole. It did not exist prior to the Khobar Tower bombing.
  2. There have been no further attacks on U.S. soil since the opening of the prison at GITMO.
  3. He implied that closing GITMO would reduce terrorist recruitment. This does not make sense because the threat of radical Islam and terrorist attacks from it predates GITMO. Therefore root causes of their efforts are unrelated to GITMO.
  4. GITMO is not the sore spot when it comes to organizations like Al Qaeda. Keeping prisoners period, wherever they are, is a source of contention with our enemies. Take Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind cleric). Does it matter to Al Qaeda that he is in a North Carolina prison facility instead of GITMO? Did it matter before GITMO existed? Of course not.
  5. Did any allies, when denying assistance to the United States in the GWOT, specifically state that they could not render the requested aid because of the existence of a prison at GITMO? If they did I missed it.


handfleisch wrote:
In the short time he's had in office he's shown the only best of intentions toward the troops and his obligations as Commander in Chief, and a huge majority of Americans can see that's true. But I guess some people made up their mind before he ever got into office.


At no point did I even insinuate anything (positive or negative) about President Obama’s attitude toward the military. My goal here was and is to have a straight forward discourse on the subject of closing the GITMO prison. I have not called anyone names or made any derogatory comments about anyone. In fact, I have supported the President’s position. Furthermore, I did not say anything in writing here that I would not have respecfully said to his face in the Oval Office were I an advisor to the President.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
This was an excellent posting Moonspider. I learned quite a bit from it, thanks. I particularly liked this point of view, as it is spot on:

Moonspider wrote:
He’s the president of the United States. My advice to him would be not to make excuses, which is what he did. Be strong and forthright. Tell the American people that closing GITMO is morally right. End of discussion. Next question.

Be the leader you were elected to be. You don’t need to explain every decision you make, especially when your only explanation(s) can be shot full of holes.

Furthermore, it provides ammunition to his opponents, namely Republicans. When he makes excuses like that it translates to, “people hate us because we did this.” Which is akin to, “She was raped because she did this or dressed like that.” You should never blame the victim for a crime committed against them, which whether he intends to do so or not is how President Obama comes across when he makes such comments.

His arguments are weak for the following reasons:

  1. The prison at GITMO did not exist prior to World Trade Center bombing #1 or 9/11. It did not exist prior to the attack on the USS Cole. It did not exist prior to the Khobar Tower bombing.
  2. There have been no further attacks on U.S. soil since the opening of the prison at GITMO.
  3. He implied that closing GITMO would reduce terrorist recruitment. This does not make sense because the threat of radical Islam and terrorist attacks from it predates GITMO. Therefore root causes of their efforts are unrelated to GITMO.
  4. GITMO is not the sore spot when it comes to organizations like Al Qaeda. Keeping prisoners period, wherever they are, is a source of contention with our enemies. Take Omar Abdel-Rahman (the blind cleric). Does it matter to Al Qaeda that he is in a North Carolina prison facility instead of GITMO? Did it matter before GITMO existed? Of course not.
  5. Did any allies, when denying assistance to the United States in the GWOT, specifically state that they could not render the requested aid because of the existence of a prison at GITMO? If they did I missed it.
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:


‘Tis not my intention at all to “bash” the President of the United States. Please point out the statements you consider "bashing." I am merely attempting to have a frank discussion about the closing of GITMO.
...
# The prison at GITMO did not exist prior to World Trade Center bombing #1 or 9/11. It did not exist prior to the attack on the USS Cole. It did not exist prior to the Khobar Tower bombing.
# There have been no further attacks on U.S. soil since the opening of the prison at GITMO.
# He implied that closing GITMO would reduce terrorist recruitment. This does not make sense because the threat of radical Islam and terrorist attacks from it predates GITMO. Therefore root causes of their efforts are unrelated to GITMO.

Respectfully,
M


You're quibbling. You said Obama was either naive or a liar ("disingenuous") in his reasons for an important military decision. I call that bashing the Commander in Chief during a time when we got troops on the ground.

Your list of logic points are grade-school fallacies. B comes after A therefore B occurs because of A, no attacks since 9/11 proves Gitmo works, and it always rains when Joe sneezes so his sneezing causes rain. I am surprised you would repeat this kind of silly reasoning put out by the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly. And again, military pros on the ground, which is where the president got his info, say Gitmo is a major recruiting tool for terrorists. End of story, really.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


You're quibbling. You said Obama was either naive or a liar ("disingenuous") in his reasons for an important military decision. I call that bashing the Commander in Chief during a time when we got troops on the ground.

That has been going on for years. What you actually have a problem with is someone bashing your idol.
Quote:

Gitmo is a major recruiting tool for terrorists. End of story, really.

But not the only tool, and not the most important. They recruited before Gitmo, and they'll continue to recruit after it.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
You're quibbling. You said Obama was either naive or a liar ("disingenuous") in his reasons for an important military decision. I call that bashing the Commander in Chief during a time when we got troops on the ground.


We simply disagree. I don't consider that bashing, just honesty. Like I said, it's nothing I wouldn't say to him were I an adviser. And as a leader I would expect no less candor from my own advisers. Advisers who are not candid with me are of no value to me.

Added at a later time.
Just to clarify, if I worked directly for the president as an adviser these are things that I would only say to him in private. As an adviser to the president or member of his cabinet my public opinion would be 100% in line with his own words. Even if he chose to ignore my counsel, my public position would be his. And his position, even if I disagreed with it 100%, would I vociferously defend in public.
End edit

handfleisch wrote:
Your list of logic points are grade-school fallacies. B comes after A therefore B occurs because of A, no attacks since 9/11 proves Gitmo works, and it always rains when Joe sneezes so his sneezing causes rain. I am surprised you would repeat this kind of silly reasoning put out by the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly. And again, military pros on the ground, which is where the president got his info, say Gitmo is a major recruiting tool for terrorists. End of story, really.


Once again we disagree. The president or anyone else can say that the prison at GITMO increases terrorist recruitment. But I am willing to believe it only if I see statistically valid numbers supporting it. And until someone can produce that evidence his statement, while believable to laymen, is a very weak argument. You also equated my arguments to the classic ice cream/crime rate argument in statistics. Unlike ice cream and crime rates (or your sneezing and rain take on the argument), my points are related.

Furthermore, I did not mean to imply that no attacks since 9/11 demonstrates that the prison works. My point is that there is no evidence that it's existence makes matters worse.

Imprisoning these terrorists anywhere will be a recruiting tool, which is why I mentioned the blind cleric. It doesn't matter where the prison is.

Respectfully,
M


handfleisch wrote:
...military pros on the ground, which is where the president got his info, say Gitmo is a major recruiting tool for terrorists. End of story...

BTW, since when did you take the word of military leaders at face value? Wink

M
Solon_Poledourus
Have people forgotten that there have been attacks since 9/11? They just haven't been in America. If GITMO worked so well, the attacks would have fallen "world-wide", not just in the US. And yet, I remember England being attacked, as well as other countries. So the attacks actually increased. Just because they didn't occur in our back yard, doesn't mean they didn't occur.
Moonspider
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Have people forgotten that there have been attacks since 9/11? They just haven't been in America. If GITMO worked so well, the attacks would have fallen "world-wide", not just in the US. And yet, I remember England being attacked, as well as other countries. So the attacks actually increased. Just because they didn't occur in our back yard, doesn't mean they didn't occur.


The implication by President Obama was that the prison at GITMO directly affected the United States' ability to wage the GWOT by increasing terrorist recruitment and decreasing the willingness of allies to cooperate with the U.S. in the GWOT. Therefore, terrorist attacks outside the U.S. against non-U.S. targets cannot support his argument. I don't think the terror bombings in London had any relation to the prison at GITMO. Did it? How many terrorists there join the cause because of GITMO? Were the attacks directly aimed at closing GITMO?


Once again, I never argued that the prison at GITMO "worked." I support the president's position but believe his arguments for closing it to be weak, unrealistic and therefore counterproductive for him politically.

Which reminds me, usually terrorist organizations demand the release of prisoners, not their relocation to a different facility right?

Respectfully,
M
Solon_Poledourus
Moonspider wrote:
I don't think the terror bombings in London had any relation to the prison at GITMO. Did it? How many terrorists there join the cause because of GITMO? Were the attacks directly aimed at closing GITMO?
I totally agree, I don't think GITMO directly effects terrorist actions one way or another. I was only trying, maybe unsuccessfully, to say that GITMO doesn't work to stop terrorist activities, nor will the closing of it have much impact on recruitment.
Moonspider wrote:
Once again, I never argued that the prison at GITMO "worked." I support the president's position but believe his arguments for closing it to be weak, unrealistic and therefore counterproductive for him politically.
I think he might be placating the left with his reasoning for closing GITMO. While I think it's a good decision, I really don't know if it will have the desired effect.
Moonspider wrote:
Which reminds me, usually terrorist organizations demand the release of prisoners, not their relocation to a different facility right?
At this point, I think we are dealing with a loosely knitted group. I'm pretty sure they don't give two $hits about their comrades in our prisons, because they are working as individual cells, and are perfectly capable of operating even after key members are captured or killed.
deanhills
I thought the inmates of Gitmo were detainees not prisoners. There is a difference. Technically they can't really qualify for the status of prisoner until they have had a trial, or are awaiting a trial. As far as I know the majority have not had trial dates set yet. Wish the bickering of politicians would stop, and they would focus on what needs to be done. Whether Gitmo should be closed or not should come second to the urgency to process the detainees.
ocalhoun
Since simply moving the detainees to a different prison would be equally meaningless, why not just rename Guantanamo, and be done with it?
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
Since simply moving the detainees to a different prison would be equally meaningless, why not just rename Guantanamo, and be done with it?
It would be just as useful as putting them in Leavenworth.

We just had another suicide in GITMO. This is the part that makes me sad. I think it's been about 5 guys now to commit suicide(I could look it up... ). They did not martyr themselves, as that would require fulfilling a religious duty or fighting the war for Islam. Generally, the "shahid"(martyr) would have to kill an enemy to be considered a warrior for Islam, and suicide is strictly forbidden within this faith. These guys are all Muslim, and apparently pretty devout ones at that.

This being the case, is there any doubt that the conditions there are inhumane? Some of these guys are willing to face punishment from Allah in the afterlife for one of the worst sins in Islam, rather than continue living in those conditions and being seen as heroes to a portion of their peers. It makes me wonder, at least.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Since simply moving the detainees to a different prison would be equally meaningless, why not just rename Guantanamo, and be done with it?
It would be just as useful as putting them in Leavenworth.

We just had another suicide in GITMO. This is the part that makes me sad. I think it's been about 5 guys now to commit suicide(I could look it up... ). They did not martyr themselves, as that would require fulfilling a religious duty or fighting the war for Islam. Generally, the "shahid"(martyr) would have to kill an enemy to be considered a warrior for Islam, and suicide is strictly forbidden within this faith. These guys are all Muslim, and apparently pretty devout ones at that.

This being the case, is there any doubt that the conditions there are inhumane? Some of these guys are willing to face punishment from Allah in the afterlife for one of the worst sins in Islam, rather than continue living in those conditions and being seen as heroes to a portion of their peers. It makes me wonder, at least.
So why is Obama creating all these delays by focussing on nitpicking stuff instead of processing the detainees? Surely the suicide has to be a good point to make? No more delays. Twisted Evil
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
So why is Obama creating all these delays by focussing on nitpicking stuff instead of processing the detainees? Surely the suicide has to be a good point to make? No more delays.
I think only Obama can answer this question. He has a few options, none of which would benefit him politically:

1 - Release the detainees. Assuming they all had a safe home to go back to, some of them(maybe even most) might be really dangerous characters. If any of them turned up in the future as having killed an American, Obama would be lynched.

2 - Move the detainees to another prison. Redundant, to say the least. Redundant, to say the least. Redundant, to say the least.

3 - Give the detainees trials. Any evidence of their guilt or innocence up to this point is inadmissible or too old to be corroborated. They would have to be RE-investigated for any crimes or connection to criminal organizations. Since it's been 5 years or more since their capture, this would take years and years, during which time, the detainees would still be... detainees. Even assuming we could expedite their trials, each and every one found innocent would have a really good case for a counter law suit against the United States government.

All of these scenarios spell doom for Obama, politically. My guess is he knows this, and is frantically trying to figure out another way to approach the situation.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So why is Obama creating all these delays by focussing on nitpicking stuff instead of processing the detainees? Surely the suicide has to be a good point to make? No more delays.
I think only Obama can answer this question. He has a few options, none of which would benefit him politically:

1 - Release the detainees. Assuming they all had a safe home to go back to, some of them(maybe even most) might be really dangerous characters. If any of them turned up in the future as having killed an American, Obama would be lynched.

2 - Move the detainees to another prison. Redundant, to say the least. Redundant, to say the least. Redundant, to say the least.

3 - Give the detainees trials. Any evidence of their guilt or innocence up to this point is inadmissible or too old to be corroborated. They would have to be RE-investigated for any crimes or connection to criminal organizations. Since it's been 5 years or more since their capture, this would take years and years, during which time, the detainees would still be... detainees. Even assuming we could expedite their trials, each and every one found innocent would have a really good case for a counter law suit against the United States government.

All of these scenarios spell doom for Obama, politically. My guess is he knows this, and is frantically trying to figure out another way to approach the situation.
I was not even getting to that part. I thought processing was the most important priority at this stage, i.e. look at the complaint, decide if there is a case, and if not, let the detainee go, or at least let the detainee know that subject to finding a suitable place to go to, he has been processed and ready to be released. Get rid of hopelessness and show purpose and direction. Obviously some cannot be released, and they know who they are, but there has to be a number in the borderline category who are sure to be released, just don't know what is going on, and getting pretty desperate and hopeless as a result. If I were a detainee and I did not know what is going to happen to me I would be more inclined to stop hoping and hang myself, than if someone coming to me to let me know that I am due for release, but the paperwork needs to be finalized first. Surely that part is doable?
ocalhoun
Solon_Poledourus wrote:

3 - Give the detainees trials. Any evidence of their guilt or innocence up to this point is inadmissible or too old to be corroborated. They would have to be RE-investigated for any crimes or connection to criminal organizations. Since it's been 5 years or more since their capture, this would take years and years, during which time, the detainees would still be... detainees. Even assuming we could expedite their trials, each and every one found innocent would have a really good case for a counter law suit against the United States government.

So why wasn't '3' done, as the slow, but sure progress was going towards? Why stop that process for months? What if that suicidal detainee would have been released, if not for the delay?
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
So why wasn't '3' done, as the slow, but sure progress was going towards? Why stop that process for months? What if that suicidal detainee would have been released, if not for the delay?
They might actually be doing that. Re-investigating the detainees could be what's taking so long. But then, maybe they are just stalling, hoping for some miracle. I dunno.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
So why wasn't '3' done, as the slow, but sure progress was going towards? Why stop that process for months? What if that suicidal detainee would have been released, if not for the delay?
They might actually be doing that. Re-investigating the detainees could be what's taking so long. But then, maybe they are just stalling, hoping for some miracle. I dunno.
No Solon, after the deadline in May they asked for a postponement of three months. They are stalling. And it is political.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
No Solon, after the deadline in May they asked for a postponement of three months. They are stalling. And it is political.
That's what they say. But I have little faith in the truth of politicians words that come through the media. For all I know, they could be slowly executing the prisoners and making them look like suicides. That's probably not true, but I doubt what they tell us is completely factual either.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
That's what they say. But I have little faith in the truth of politicians words that come through the media. For all I know, they could be slowly executing the prisoners and making them look like suicides. That's probably not true, but I doubt what they tell us is completely factual either.
That is of course true too. I'm almost certain however this has to do with politics, particularly Obama's relationship with the military. Typical political game of you pat my back I pat your back, and you are right of course, we will never hear the details about it.
Related topics
Is the End of the World here?!
Triple suicide at Guantanamo Bay
collapse of USA
Torture and the US
Socrates on Democracy
President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on Torture
White House is the Insane Asylum
DO YOU SUPPORT US STAY IN IRAQ?
Hilary Clinton to be next President of U.S.
Are Americans stupid?
Wikileaks.... US government blocking free speach
What you think about our president?
Bush could be next on the war crimes tribunal list
Obama's first 6 months, a list of accomplishments
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.