How to close Guantanamo?

[mur'phon]

A small question for those who say Obama is going to close Gitmo. Or, more precisely, what to do with the inmates?

[JediMaster12]

Considering that there are some who were probably arrested without due cause and not given habeus corpus that might be the reason why they might be released. Technically speaking the immates at Gitmo were illegally detained under international and US law, especially those that were/are US citizens.

 

I did hear that some trials were being convened for the immates though it sounds like a last ditch effort on part of the Bush Admn. I really don't know what to think.

[Jedi_Man]

Well, you see, many of the people in Gitmo ( military slang for Guantanamo) are terrorist, and terrorist don't have a country to call home, unlike the Iraqi War wehre the Iraqi soldiers had a specific rules do to the fact they were called Iraqis.

The terrorists don't ahve a place were they could make something like a last ditch stand, since they are everywhere, so thats why many trials were postponed or never held, we are still learning what to do with the gray areas.

[jawathehutt]

The terrorists dont need a place to call home, there are safe houses in probably every single country on earth for them.

[Jae Onasi]

The military has plenty of places to take the 'enemy combattants', some places better than others.

[Tommycat]

A small question for those who say Obama is going to close Gitmo. Or' date=' more precisely, what to do with the inmates?[/quote']

 

We'll be sending them to your house. Thank you for volunteering

 

In all seriousness though. The problem isn't so much the closing of Gitmo as it is where do we send them. Some of the originating countries don't want them back. I think we'll see another president elected in(maybe more than one) before we see the Gitmo camp closed.

[TheRogueForums]

GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base. This is just a ploy by liberals to gain the "omg, those poor, poor terrorists. What on earth have we been doing? We haven't been pampering them, we're such terrible people," vote. Surprisingly enough, the majority of the country do not feel like that.

 

However, it's all political bulljive, and guess what? It'll float. After this election, I have lost all faith in the American voter. We, as a nation, were dumb enough to elect (not only) Clinton... TWICE... Bush... TWICE.... and now Obama? Wow. No wonder the entire planet thinks our education system is horrible.

 

What it boils down is: we're cattle. (well, perhaps that isn't so bad. I've always liked a good "Moo" every now and then.) And the politicians have the prods. The ones in power are telling us it's "bad" to detain those that wish us harm. Even though these guys want to take our lives, it's not ok for us to NOT give them the same treatment we would give AMERICANS. (double negative ftw) "It's a violation of the Geneva Convention," some liberals say.

 

<snipped flame bait>

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base. This is just a ploy by liberals to gain the "omg, those poor, poor terrorists. What on earth have we been doing? We haven't been pampering them, we're such terrible people," vote. Surprisingly enough, the majority of the country do not feel like that.

actually none of the detainees there have been convicted or even charged with a crime and most people do feel that way since it's pretty <snipped> barbaric.

 

Even though these guys want to take our lives, it's not ok for us to NOT give them the same treatment we would give AMERICANS. (double negative ftw) "It's a violation of the Geneva Convention," some liberals say.

yes those crazy liberals and their post-medieval mindset we should start shackling people in town squares and televising executions. your logic is essentially that we should take a cue from terrorists with regards to treatment of prisoners.

 

<snipped response to flame bait>

[jonathan7]

GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base. This is just a ploy by liberals to gain the "omg, those poor, poor terrorists. What on earth have we been doing? We haven't been pampering them, we're such terrible people," vote. Surprisingly enough, the majority of the country do not feel like that.

 

Yeah, America represents freedom; but won't give people due process, if these men are guilty of terrorism they should be tried in a court of law. Though, one suspects that the fact they haven't just means there are a lot of people wrongly held there. Nice to see innocent until proven guilty and freedom of speech reign still. What were we fighting this "War on Terror" (most moronic name ever btw) for? To defend out liberties? So this is how liberty dies, to a thundering of bombs?

 

What it boils down is: we're cattle. (well, perhaps that isn't so bad. I've always liked a good "Moo" every now and then.) And the politicians have the prods. The ones in power are telling us it's "bad" to detain those that wish us harm. Even though these guys want to take our lives, it's not ok for us to NOT give them the same treatment we would give AMERICANS. (double negative ftw) "It's a violation of the Geneva Convention," some liberals say.

 

Evidence? I wonder how you would feel if someone locks you up for 5 years without charge; the courts are there for a reason, its not about letting terrorists run free, it's about Justice. And just locking people up for no reason is not justice; if they are guilty they should be tried, and put in prison.

 

It is in violation of the Geneva Convention, (and funnily enough torture is against it too) but more than that, it is the greatest own goal in this history of anything. The fact it's there encourages people to become terrorists, because they are outraged at the injustice of it all.

 

And some of my best friends are fighting in Iraq right now - so don't tell me I don't realise the realities.

[Litofsky]

GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base. This is just a ploy by liberals to gain the "omg, those poor, poor terrorists. What on earth have we been doing? We haven't been pampering them, we're such terrible people," vote. Surprisingly enough, the majority of the country do not feel like that.

Wait, what? We've locked these men up for no reason other than suspected terrorism, and have given them no trial, and when someone tries to defend them, they're automatically against our country? In the Boston Massacre, our future President defended the British soldiers: does that automatically make him against our country? I say that the men in Guantanamo deserve a trial.

 

However, it's all political bulljive, and guess what? It'll float. After this election, I have lost all faith in the American voter. We, as a nation, were dumb enough to elect (not only) Clinton... TWICE... Bush... TWICE.... and now Obama? Wow. No wonder the entire planet thinks our education system is horrible.

I dare say that the rest of the world dislikes our education system for different reasons than for our voting habits.

 

What it boils down is: we're cattle. (well, perhaps that isn't so bad. I've always liked a good "Moo" every now and then.) And the politicians have the prods. The ones in power are telling us it's "bad" to detain those that wish us harm.

Generally, the term used is "Sheep People," or "Sheeple."

 

Even though these guys want to take our lives, it's not ok for us to NOT give them the same treatment we would give AMERICANS. (double negative ftw) "It's a violation of the Geneva Convention," some liberals say.

Though recently used, "An eye for an eye makes us all blind." If they kill us, and we kill them, what's happened? We're right back where we started, with a few less people.

[Astor]

GtMO has been around for decades. Almost a century. There is no reason to close the base.

 

The base may have been around since 1898, but 'Gitmo' has only been around since 2002. I don't think anyone has an actual problem with the US Navy Base - it's the presence of the detainment camp that people have issue with.

[ForeverNight]

Wait, what? We've locked these men up for no reason other than suspected terrorism, and have given them no trial, and when someone tries to defend them, they're automatically against our country? In the Boston Massacre, our future President defended the British soldiers: does that automatically make him against our country? I say that the men in Guantanamo deserve a trial.[/Quote]

 

Bad logic. Those were SOLDIERS, and as such they had every right to a trial and due process. The people that are in Gitmo, however, are TERRORISTS.

 

There is a difference between the two, a soldier wears a Uniform, owes allegiance to his/her country, has sworn an oath to protect their country, and, for the most part, follows the rules of war. Meanwhile, a terrorist does not wear a uniform, owe any allegiance to any country, sworn any oaths to protect a country, and follow the rules of war.

 

So, thus, they are NOT soldiers.

 

Ergo, the Geneva Convention does not apply to Terrorists.

 

So, I guess we can torture them now, without breaking the Geneva Convention.

 

Note: The "qualities of a soldier" are not meant to be an all encompassing definition

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Bad logic. Those were SOLDIERS, and as such they had every right to a trial and due process. The people that are in Gitmo, however, are TERRORISTS.

 

There is a difference between the two, a soldier wears a Uniform, owes allegiance to his/her country, has sworn an oath to protect their country, and, for the most part, follows the rules of war. Meanwhile, a terrorist does not wear a uniform, owe any allegiance to any country, sworn any oaths to protect a country, and follow the rules of war.

 

So, thus, they are NOT soldiers.

 

Ergo, the Geneva Convention does not apply to Terrorists.

 

So, I guess we can torture them now, without breaking the Geneva Convention.

 

Note: The "qualities of a soldier" are not meant to be an all encompassing definition

actually, if someone isn't tried and convicted of something they're civilians. i read that in a law book somewhere.

[Q]

Whether they're legitimate soldiers or not, they should at least be treated like POWs under the Geneva Accords.

 

We were not the People's Republic of Vietnam the last time I checked.

[ForeverNight]

Whether they're legitimate soldiers or not, they should at least be treated like POWs under the Geneva Accords.

 

We were not the People's Republic of Vietnam the last time I checked.

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Article 4

 

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

 

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

 

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

 

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

 

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

 

© That of carrying arms openly;

 

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

 

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

 

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

 

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

 

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

 

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

 

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

 

Source

 

Sorry, Terrorists aren't included in that definition of who the Accords apply to. So, I guess, I'm correct.

[Q]

I know they're not, but they should be treated like captured soldiers regardless; not for their benefit, but for ours.

[ForeverNight]

Huh?????

 

I'm afraid I don't follow.

[Astor]

Because maybe if they're treated humanely, they, and possible future generations won't be so inclined to blow up buses and buildings?

[TheRogueForums]

Off-topic, don't discuss infractions in here and don't debate moderation decisions less you would like to be further in trouble for breech of rules, ok? -- j7

 

Right. I would LOVE for people to go to Iraq and experience suppressive fire from a school house or clearly marked hospital, and THEN get back to me on how these foreign nationals deserve to have the Geneva Convention applied to them, even though they are not uniformed soldiers, and clearly have no regard for the accords of the Geneva Convention.

 

Now, not every single person in GitMO is an enemy combatant. Some have merely been suspected of terrorism, or aiding terrorists. For those people, yes, trials SHOULD be applied, in a fair court of law, not a military tribunal. However, for the enemy combatants, those who took shots at me, my brothers and sisters, and other NATO forces... military tribunal, if anything. These people knew what they were doing when they engaged us. You do NOT fire a weapon at someone, unless you intend to kill them. Most (not all) of these detainees are in GitMO because they fired at us. They intended to kill us. They should suffer the consequences of such action.

 

Just so we're clear, this post has been made on 100% recycled forum php, not intended to cause any harm, grief, or otherwise unhappy feelings to anyone who may, or may not be reading it.

[Q]

Huh?????

 

I'm afraid I don't follow.

Do you think that we're any better than they are when we hold them unlawfully and torture them like that? I never said that I thought that they deserve to be treated humanely, but I think that they should be, regardless. We're not animals.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Forgive me. I used the word "loony," and that has somehow earned me an infraction, apparently. Heh. At any rate, allow me to re-post the "flame-bait ridden" section of my post, only without the word "loony."

lightweight.

 

Right. I would LOVE for people to go to Iraq and experience suppressive fire from a school house or clearly marked hospital, and THEN get back to me on how these foreign nationals deserve to have the Geneva Convention applied to them, even though they are not uniformed soldiers, and clearly have no regard for the accords of the Geneva Convention.

yeah, that's still not relevant to the topic at hand. we haven't proved that many of the detainees at guantanamo bay have done anything, and even if they have, that doesn't mean we can treat them however we wish.

 

Just so we're clear, this post has been made on 100% recycled forum php, not intended to cause any harm, grief, or otherwise unhappy feelings to anyone who may, or may not be reading it.

actually it would be made by php and made on mysql

[GarfieldJL]

The military has plenty of places to take the 'enemy combattants', some places better than others.

 

Such as? A lot of the military bases in the US also have schools for little kids nearby cause quite a few military people have families. Furthermore if you let them in the US proper you're setting up a circus as they demand all these legal tricks to try to accuse the troops of not reading them their miranda rights among other things when the military captured them on a battlefield in some cases while still being shot at.

 

 

Anyways I'm going to have to agree with RogueForums on some of his/her points, not all of them but some of them. It's easy to sit here and complain that someone should have done this or that from a couple thousand miles away. But quite frankly if you think you can do a better job, how bout you go volunteer to join the military.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Such as? A lot of the military bases in the US also have schools for little kids nearby cause quite a few military people have families. Furthermore if you let them in the US proper you're setting up a circus as they demand all these legal tricks to try to accuse the troops of not reading them their miranda rights among other things when the military captured them on a battlefield in some cases while still being shot at.

damn those pesky "rights"! the u.s. has military bases all over the world, and while this may shock you, many of them aren't near schools. the u.s. has a larger defense budget than any other nation in the world and you're saying the military doesn't have anyplace to put prisoners?

 

Anyways I'm going to have to agree with RogueForums on some of his/her points, not all of them but some of them. It's easy to sit here and complain that someone should have done this or that from a couple thousand miles away. But quite frankly if you think you can do a better job, how bout you go volunteer to join the military.

you're concurring with a logical fallacy.

[Web Rider]

Now, not every single person in GitMO is an enemy combatant. Some have merely been suspected of terrorism, or aiding terrorists. For those people, yes, trials SHOULD be applied, in a fair court of law, not a military tribunal. However, for the enemy combatants, those who took shots at me, my brothers and sisters, and other NATO forces... military tribunal, if anything. These people knew what they were doing when they engaged us. You do NOT fire a weapon at someone, unless you intend to kill them. Most (not all) of these detainees are in GitMO because they fired at us. They intended to kill us. They should suffer the consequences of such action.

So, then if you were captured by the enemy you think they should be able to treat you however they want? Because clearly, you are an enemy combatant to them, you fired weapons with the intent to kill them.

 

That's the problem with not following the rules, is you make it OK for everyone else to not follow the rules. You can't complain about their cruelty if you are just as cruel.

[jonathan7]

Right. I would LOVE for people to go to Iraq and experience suppressive fire from a school house or clearly marked hospital, and THEN get back to me on how these foreign nationals deserve to have the Geneva Convention applied to them, even though they are not uniformed soldiers, and clearly have no regard for the accords of the Geneva Convention.

 

You know it's a common thing in war to de-humanise the enemy, but the above behaviour is no better than the terrorists. Further more I didn't join the military so it's not my job to get shot at, further more I fail to see how the military getting shot at has anything to do with due process. If enemy combatants are caught in war, the are POW's; if they have broken any laws then they should be tried.

 

Now, not every single person in GitMO is an enemy combatant. Some have merely been suspected of terrorism, or aiding terrorists. For those people, yes, trials SHOULD be applied, in a fair court of law, not a military tribunal. However, for the enemy combatants, those who took shots at me, my brothers and sisters, and other NATO forces... military tribunal, if anything. These people knew what they were doing when they engaged us. You do NOT fire a weapon at someone, unless you intend to kill them. Most (not all) of these detainees are in GitMO because they fired at us. They intended to kill us. They should suffer the consequences of such action.

 

Shocking fact, not all Iraqi's want us in there country - I'd imagine if your wife and kids had just been blown up by a stray missile you would be too happy with an army.

 

Anyways I'm going to have to agree with RogueForums on some of his/her points, not all of them but some of them. It's easy to sit here and complain that someone should have done this or that from a couple thousand miles away. But quite frankly if you think you can do a better job, how bout you go volunteer to join the military.

 

Sorry, at any point have I criticised the armed forces? It's nothing to do with them that people are locked up at Gitmo, a soldiers job is by definition to follow orders (precisely why I would never be a soldier, following orders without question is not something a member of the intelligentsia does). It's the politicians fault that Gitmo exsists, though I dare say some of the supervisors etc should answers charges for Gitmo. The only difference between the good guys and the bad guys in the world, is how the good guys treat the bad guys in defeat. Though having faced down someone with a gun, I know exactly how I would react.