How to close Guantanamo?

[GarfieldJL]

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.

 

They are in better living conditions than people whom end up staying a night at the local YMCA, and far better conditions that people in prison.

 

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.

 

Last I checked their conditions are better than what we see in prisons and we've tried to return them to their countries of origin, but their home countries won't take them back.

[mimartin]

I’m really glad someone has checked on the conditions of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo first hand. I will sleep better knowing they are better off there than in a local prison. I guess my fears of weatherboarding were unfounded. The evil mainstream media portrayed it as torture, but I guess it is just the name given to some fancy form of water message. Good to know.

[GarfieldJL]

I’m really glad someone has checked on the conditions of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo first hand. I will sleep better knowing they are better off there than in a local prison. I guess my fears of weatherboarding were unfounded. The evil mainstream media portrayed it as torture, but I guess it is just the name given to some fancy form of water message. Good to know.

 

Only a handful of people have been waterboarded, probably less than 20 people and those were high profile members of the leadership of Al Qaeda.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Only a handful of people have been waterboarded, probably less than 20 people and those were high profile members of the leadership of Al Qaeda.

well, as long as we think they're terrorists and someone high ranking says so and they keep the torture count under let's say 2 dozen, i dont see an issue here.

[mimartin]

Only a handful of people have been waterboarded, probably less than 20 people and those were high profile members of the leadership of Al Qaeda.

Can anyone find the key word in this sentence?

 

 

The entire point is there is no way to know how may have been tortured. It could be 1 or it could be 200. There is no oversight so no way of knowing the exact number.

 

[Web Rider]

They are in better living conditions than people whom end up staying a night at the local YMCA, and far better conditions that people in prison.

you clearly are unaware of prison conditions. They are quite good.

 

Last I checked their conditions are better than what we see in prisons and we've tried to return them to their countries of origin, but their home countries won't take them back.

 

Last I checked, you can't just waltz into gitmo and check on how the bad guys are. From what I've read and heard, it's pretty horrible, and every last one of them would rather be in prison where they are afforded actual rights, than in Gitmo.

[GarfieldJL]

Last I checked, you can't just waltz into gitmo and check on how the bad guys are. From what I've read and heard, it's pretty horrible, and every last one of them would rather be in prison where they are afforded actual rights, than in Gitmo.

 

Last I checked a lot of them would jump at the chance to slit the throat of an American.

 

Seriously, I haven't seen any public outcry concerning prisons in China, in my opinion this is just another attempt to blame America for the world's problems.

[mimartin]

China does something I find apprehensible, so it makes it all right if we do it too.

 

If I am more concern with what America does when compared to what China does there is a reason… I am an American. As such, I hold my country to a higher standard than the rest of the world.

 

These debates are really starting to worry me. It sounds like a bunch three year olds. “But mommy, China (or CBS, MSNBC…) did it first.” Whatever happened to personal responsibility and holding yourself to a higher standard than you do others?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Last I checked a lot of them would jump at the chance to slit the throat of an American.

first off, that has nothing to do with this. and secondly, after the way the u.s. has treated them, i can't blame them

 

Seriously, I haven't seen any public outcry concerning prisons in China,

you aren't paying attention then.

 

These debates are really starting to worry me. It sounds like a bunch three year olds. “But mommy, China (or CBS, MSNBC…) did it first.” Whatever happened to personal responsibility and holding yourself to a higher standard than you do others?

pre-9/11 mindset

[Litofsky]

Article 4

 

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...

 

<snipped>

 

Source

 

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

 

Actually, I propose that you are wrong, under the assumption that these 'terrorists' are fighting to free their land from US forces/influence. I'm not condoning their actions- far from it (I'm of the 'diplomatic solutions' opinions), but, rather, suggest that they are doing what they figure necessary to save their land. Do (we) not have troops stationed in (their) homes, occupying their nation?

 

'They,' of course, is a subjective term, but, in this case, I would say that the word 'they' means a belligerent against the US and allies.

[GarfieldJL]

Actually, I propose that you are wrong, under the assumption that these 'terrorists' are fighting to free their land from US forces/influence. I'm not condoning their actions- far from it (I'm of the 'diplomatic solutions' opinions), but, rather, suggest that they are doing what they figure necessary to save their land. Do (we) not have troops stationed in (their) homes, occupying their nation?

 

That would fly if they were actually from the countries they were fighting in. Most of them are from other countries and trained in yet another country. They aren't fighting to liberate their country they are fighting to impose their warped ideology on people.

 

Face it there are some people you can't negotiate with.

 

'They,' of course, is a subjective term, but, in this case, I would say that the word 'they' means a belligerent against the US and allies.

 

Considering they weren't in uniform, under the military code I believe they can technically be shot as spies.

[mimartin]

Face it there are some people you can't negotiate with.[/Quote] or debate with.

[TheRogueForums]

Oh, that's true enough. Someone comes in and posts a non liberal opinion on the matter, and gets blasted.

[Web Rider]

Last I checked a lot of them would jump at the chance to slit the throat of an American.

I'm pretty sure you'd do the same to them.

 

Seriously, I haven't seen any public outcry concerning prisons in China,

There's quite a bit of it. Coming from INSIDE China? That's hard to tell since the Chinese government prevents 99% of all information they don't like from leaving the country.

 

in my opinion this is just another attempt to blame America for the world's problems.

Gitmo is not "the world's problems" it's an American problem. Therefore, it is of higher concern to ME as an American, than prisons in china.

 

That and quite honestly, I have no expectation of China being democratic or upholding anything remotely resembling freedom. While on the other hand, I do hold America to that expectation of upholding freedom, liberty, civil rights, justice, fairness, ect...

 

 

Like I said before, you want to fight on their level, fine, but don't expect to be able to be self-righteous about it.

[jonathan7]

Oh, that's true enough. Someone comes in and posts a non liberal opinion on the matter, and gets blasted.

 

This isn't a liberal conservative matter, your advocating locking people up indefinably without trial, and by extension of what happens at Gitmo, arguing that torture is acceptable. Perhaps the over-whelming reaction in this thread, has something to do with the fact that is wrong, opposed to anything else. I can see several centrists and conservatives who have disagreed with Gitmo in this thread, suggesting it has nothing to do with a "non-liberal" opinion.

 

Considering they weren't in uniform, under the military code I believe they can technically be shot as spies.

 

Someone hasn't reviewed military etiquette since WW2. Though at least if they were shot; they'd of had a trail of some description.

 

Furthermore what China does is irrelevant, China doesn't represent "Freedom" so I don't expect the Chinese Government to behave well. China is entirely irrelevant to this discussion; all Gitmo does, is give the terroists more valuable and more effective ammunition than any that uses gun power.

[TheRogueForums]

Ok, to the thread topic- should GitMO be closed. I say no. It's an invaluable tool for us (the US). Should it be overhauled? Yes. Should the media and other public watchdogs be there? Of course not. It's a matter of national security. Perhaps a government-sanctioned oversight, but not something public. The media have no place, in my opinion, in matters of warfare.

 

On to the matter of the rights of the detainees. They are not American citizens. They should not be afforded American rights. However, that said, they should also not be treated like animals. Mentally... they are... well.. "not nice people." I know, I helped put some of them there. But biologically, they ARE humans, and should be treated as such. I say we treat them no better or worse than they would be treated in their countries of origin.

[Astor]

Ok, to the thread topic- should GitMO be closed. I say no. It's an invaluable tool for us (the US).

 

If you're talking about the Naval Base, I agree.

 

On to the matter of the rights of the detainees. They are not American citizens. They should not be afforded American rights.[/Quote]

 

Then they should also not be placed in American Prisons.

 

However, that said, they should also not be treated like animals. Mentally... they are... well.. "not nice people."

 

And some of them are mentally... well.. 'innocent people'

[mimartin]

Should the media and other public watchdogs be there?

Who suggested that the media or other public watchdogs be there?

 

I know checks and balances have become foreign balances over the past eight years, but there should be Congressional oversight. There should be independent international oversight in the treatment of prisons. After all, we expect the same when our citizens are being held by a foreign government.

[mur'phon]

Face it there are some people you can't negotiate with.

 

Disagreed, though often it should be combined with other actions.

 

Should the media and other public watchdogs be there? Of course not. It's a matter of national security. Perhaps a government-sanctioned oversight, but not something public. The media have no place, in my opinion, in matters of warfare.

 

As a conservative, do you trust the goverment enough to let it only be acountable to itself in this matter?

 

Anyway, I'm still waiting for a good answer from the "Obamaniacs" to the thread question.

[GarfieldJL]

Disagreed' date=' though often it should be combined with other actions.[/quote']

 

Remember they Negotiated with Hitler and in doing so they emboldened him.

 

 

As a conservative, do you trust the goverment enough to let it only be acountable to itself in this matter?

 

Depends on who is in charge, if it were someone like Ronald Reagan in charge, I would trust the government a lot more than I will come January. I do not trust Obama at all, I would trust Hillary Clinton more than I'd trust Obama, and I think Hillary is a pathological liar.

 

Anyway, I'm still waiting for a good answer from the "Obamaniacs" to the thread question.

 

Should be interesting to see the response.

[EnderWiggin]

Remember they Negotiated with Hitler and in doing so they emboldened him.

 

So? I fail to see how this is relevant.

 

Should be interesting to see the response.

 

It doesn't matter to me where you put them (to an extent.) TBH, the Gitmo prison isn't the problem, it's what's occurring there. In other words, maybe you don't need to move them from there at all, just give them due process and actually charge them with a crime, instead of keeping whoever the hell you want in solitary confinement or doing hard labor.

 

Or move them to a high security military prison here in the US. Just treat them like they're humans. I'm sure you'd agree, Murphon, originally being from a country where the maximum sentence is 21 years... right?

_EW_

[mur'phon]

Remember they Negotiated with Hitler and in doing so they emboldened him.

 

Remember, I said it should often be combined with other actions, which might include a cruise misile:D

 

Depends on who is in charge, if it were someone like Ronald Reagan in charge, I would trust the government a lot more than I will come January. I do not trust Obama at all, I would trust Hillary Clinton more than I'd trust Obama, and I think Hillary is a pathological liar.

 

And since such rules tend to be in place for quite some time, it makes sence to not give them that power in the first place. As for myself, I don't trust the government no matter who is in charge.

 

Ender: The problem is that you have some detainees which will be close to impossible to get sentenced due to lack of evidence, or how it was obtained, despite being very likely to commit terrorist acts if they walk free. So how do you deal with them? Or, to decide how you deal with them, what will you call them? POW, civilians or something else? My question was directed at those who believe Gitmo will magically disapear leaving a bad taste. Sure, there are answers, but they are all in shades of grey.

Oh, and kudos for doing your homework:)

[mimartin]

It doesn't matter to me where you put them (to an extent.) TBH, the Gitmo prison isn't the problem, it's what's occurring there. In other words, maybe you don't need to move them from there at all, just give them due process and actually charge them with a crime, instead of keeping whoever the hell you want in solitary confinement or doing hard labor.

QFT

 

The reason they are being held on Guantanamo is not for security, they are there so the American Government can violate its own laws. Like EnderWiggin,I have no problem with keeping Guantanamo open provided there are changes to the treatment of the inmates. I just want to end the reasons we are using Guantanamo instead of another prison under the jurisdiction of the American judicial system.

 

Oh, I'm under the opinion since Guantanamo is an American Military Base, it is American soil so all American laws apply there.

 

Unlike Bush, I hope Obama does not take the easy way out and transfer the detainees to another country that will even treat them more barbarically.

[vanir]

Qliveur said pretty much everything that was on my mind, once again

 

Smart guy.

[Tommycat]

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

 

I really wish this were true. Unfortunately the terrorists(note: I did not say all detainees) will claim they were treated horribly whether or not it is true. The future generations will not have a higher opinion of us because of our treatment of prisoners.

 

Fact is, many of the detainees are from other countries that will not take them back. Basically they aren't guilty enough to put on trial, but are not legal to be placed back on our soil. So we try to get the originating country to take them back. They refuse. So, what do we do with them?

 

Some of the detainees were captured during the war in Afghanistan/Iraq. Those countries have neither the facilities nor the desire to deal with the detainees. By keeping them at Gitmo we actually might be preventing them from receiving a far worse treatment.

 

As to affording them the benefits of POW's. If they want to be treated like soldiers, they need to act like soldiers, rather than terrorists. Firing from the cover of civilians, lessens my desire to treat them like a soldier. Firing from hospitals and schools to draw us into possibly killing civilians, or just letting them shoot at us, really makes me not want to treat them like a soldier. They do not afford our captured soldiers the protections of the GC. Basically they are not following the rules of warfare, so they do not get afforded the protections granted for following the rules of warfare.