How to close Guantanamo?

[jonathan7]

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.

 

It is precisely because of what they do to our boys when they catch them that what we do with them is so important. If we are to represent "Good" then our behaviour must be beyond reproach as far as possible; all war does is bring out the "best" in evil men, and the worst in good ones. Nietzsche was most defiantly correct when he observed; "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you". See the problem with war, is slowly it eats away at people, how far do you need to go to defeat the enemy? And before you know it you have become the very thing you are trying to defeat. In other words, in fighting to defeat the monster, you yourself turned into a monster. That is why our treatment of the detainees is so important; especially if they are guilty. They may have done horrific acts, but in treating them like humans, in giving them a trial etc, you prove what you are fighting for; coming down the their level, makes you no better than them, so what are you fighting for?

[Tommycat]

It is precisely because of what they do to our boys when they catch them that what we do with them is so important. If we are to represent "Good" then our behaviour must be beyond reproach as far as possible; all war does is bring out the "best" in evil men, and the worst in good ones. Nietzsche was most defiantly correct when he observed; "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you". See the problem with war, is slowly it eats away at people, how far do you need to go to defeat the enemy? And before you know it you have become the very thing you are trying to defeat. In other words, in fighting to defeat the monster, you yourself turned into a monster. That is why our treatment of the detainees is so important; especially if they are guilty. They may have done horrific acts, but in treating them like humans, in giving them a trial etc, you prove what you are fighting for; coming down the their level, makes you no better than them, so what are you fighting for?

 

By no means am I saying that we should sink to their levels. The GC were put in place to protect the legitimate soldiers. They were also put in place to give a reason NOT to violate them. By violating them you forgo those protections. Basically meaning that we CAN do with those detainees captured that were not covered by the GC, whatever we wish. Not saying that we SHOULD, just that we CAN. HUGE difference there. I personally think we should treat them better than they treat ours, but not give them so much protection that we are chained to rules that have no application.

[jonathan7]

By no means am I saying that we should sink to their levels. The GC were put in place to protect the legitimate soldiers. They were also put in place to give a reason NOT to violate them. By violating them you forgo those protections. Basically meaning that we CAN do with those detainees captured that were not covered by the GC, whatever we wish. Not saying that we SHOULD, just that we CAN. HUGE difference there. I personally think we should treat them better than they treat ours, but not give them so much protection that we are chained to rules that have no application.

 

That holds no logic, the only reason you wouldn't want to be tied to the Geneva Convention, would be so you could torture detainee's. The fact that Gitmo doesn't tie itself to the GC, is already slipping to what the terrorists do, and water boarding is certainly only just above what they do to our boys when they are captured. Most concerning is the instince by some morons in your government (Rumsfeld) that torture is useful, it is a psychologically proven fact that you don't get reliable intelligence from individuals who have been subjected to torture; everyone has a breaking point, and once that is reached an individual will tell you what they think you want to hear.

 

On-topic, Gitmo shouldn't be closed, it should be brought under the Geneva Convention, and all those there should just be put through due process, and those who are innocent let go.

[Tommycat]

That holds no logic, the only reason you wouldn't want to be tied to the Geneva Convention, would be so you could torture detainee's. The fact that Gitmo doesn't tie itself to the GC, is already slipping to what the terrorists do, and water boarding is certainly only just above what they do to our boys when they are captured. Most concerning is the instince by some morons in your government (Rumsfeld) that torture is useful, it is a psychologically proven fact that you don't get reliable intelligence from individuals who have been subjected to torture; everyone has a breaking point, and once that is reached an individual will tell you what they think you want to hear.

 

On-topic, Gitmo shouldn't be closed, it should be brought under the Geneva Convention, and all those there should just be put through due process, and those who are innocent let go.

 

Having been through SERE training myself, I know about how useless torture is at gaining useful information. There are however information gathering techniques that fall into a gray area of "torture" while not being actual torture(note: waterboarding is not one of them, but sleep dep is). But there are other areas of protections provided by the GC that have nothing to do with torture that these persons should not need to be afforded(though actually are). All in all we really treat them(for the most part at least) better than most treat their POW's. The negatives have been exaggerated by the media(not because of liberal bias or anything, but because as one media talking head said, "You don't report on a house that isn't burning"), but the detainees there are getting better treatment than people think.

 

I have to say though, that I really do not think much needs to be changed. Get rid of the ineffective means of information gathering.

 

Of course, there is also the possibility that there is no torture going on, and the reported cases are actually a method of injecting fear into the detainees. But I wouldn't count on it.

[EnderWiggin]

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.

 

I don't care if they're very likely to commit acts if they walk free. If we don't have enough evidence to charge them, we have no grounds to hold them. That's how the justice system works.

Oh, and kudos for doing your homework:)

 

Thanks

 

_EW_

[TheRogueForums]

That's how the justice system works.

The American "Justice" system, as we know it, is broken. If a bugler can sue a home owner, for the home owner shooting the bugler in the kneecap, as he broke into that home... then, yeah, our system is utter phail. A woman sued AND won a case against McDonalds, because she was driving... with hot coffee... and burned herself. The justice system is a joke. Besides, this is NOT a civilian justice issue- this is a military issue. If ANYTHING, they should be held accountable to the UCMJ.

[EnderWiggin]

The American "Justice" system, as we know it, is broken. If a bugler can sue a home owner, for the home owner shooting the bugler in the kneecap, as he broke into that home... then, yeah, our system is utter phail. A woman sued AND won a case against McDonalds, because she was driving... with hot coffee... and burned herself. The justice system is a joke. Besides, this is NOT a civilian justice issue- this is a military issue. If ANYTHING, they should be held accountable to the UCMJ.

 

 

I was talking about justice, the principle, and American rights, the concept. Not the specific execution of it. And not only do you list a few incidents, totally glossing over the point that it's like 0.0000000001% of the total cases are against the theory of the system, you then provide rebuttal to your own points, stating that it's not a civilian issue, but rather a criminal/military case.

 

_EW_

[mimartin]

this is NOT a civilian justice issue- this is a military issue.

 

This is a human rights issue!

 

The same issue we try to dictate onto other countries, now we are guilty of violating the very same issue. Every administration as far back as I can remember has criticized China for violating human right, by holding prisoner indefinitely, not telling the prisoner what they are changed with, not giving the prisoner a trial and practicing torture on prisoners.

 

It does not matter that they are not citizen. They are human.

[mur'phon]

I don't care if they're very likely to commit acts if they walk free. If we don't have enough evidence to charge them, we have no grounds to hold them. That's how the justice system works.

 

And that is one way to deal with it, though I doubt Obama will do it because 1: Americans are unlikely to love him for freeing "potential" terrorists in America, and 2: Americans are certain to hate him if one of them goes boom.

Not saying it's the wrong (or right) way to deal with the issue, just that I don't see it happening in practice.

[mimartin]

And that is one way to deal with it' date=' though I doubt Obama will do it because 1: Americans are unlikely to love him for freeing "potential" terrorists in America[/quote']Why not? At least the so-called "Obamaniacs" would still love him. After all, the Bush fanboys still seem to love him even after he condoned such inhumane acts as waterboarding.

 

Yes, the Bush Administration admits it did use waterboarding. It just denies it was torture at the time it was used. Let us see the United States government called waterboarding torture when Japan and Vietnam used it against our troops. It is considered torture now by U.S. law, but there was times in between according to the Bush Administration were it was legal and not considered torture. Besides, they were very careful when performing it.

Human rights advocates and legal scholars say the practice constitutes torture under U.S. laws and international treaties, but Bush administration officials say it was used under careful standards and controls and was not torture under U.S. laws at the time.[/Quote] Link

 

 

You don’t think us “Obamaniacs” can be just as loving to Obama if he does the right and humane thing as the Bush fayboys are when he did the wrong and inhumane thing.

 

Sorry if I don’t agree with Bush Administration’s assessment of who a “potential” terrorist are. Considering they have over a million people U.S. citizens on a “watch list” including a setting U.S. Senator and myself.

 

2: Americans are certain to hate him if one of them goes boom.

Yes, they world.

 

I’ve always been under the impression that this countries legal system was designed by our founding fathers to protect the innocent. When we put money in the equation by offering bounties to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq we tainted the results to if we are capturing criminals or just someone that is disliked. There should be a hearing to ascertain their guilt. Then a trial and then if no evidence is presented other wise they should be released back to their country of origin. If their country will not take them, then we should find a country that will.

 

If they are found guilt, then they should be sentenced.

 

I really do not care if this is done by a military court or a civilian court. I do not question the U.S. military’s integrity. For that matter I’d rather it be a military court instead of a court proceeding under a political appointee civilian judge.

[Tommycat]

Why not? At least the so-called "Obamaniacs" would still love him. After all, the Bush fanboys still seem to love him even after he condoned such inhumane acts as waterboarding.

 

Actually, quite a few of us stopped liking him for that reason. I defend him where (I feel) he deserves defense. But as for liking him, I stopped liking him a while back. I dunno, maybe I'm not so much a Bush fanboy as I thought. Heck if the Dems weren't playing the tax cut roll back card I would probably have voted for them. I have a hard time voting for anyone that says they will increase my taxes.

 

At any rate, I think you'd find that should one of those persons get released and perform a terrorist act, it would be very damaging for the Dems in general. Actually it would be damaging to the whole "Close Gitmo" cause in general, and anyone in favor of it(which is admittedly mostly Dem, but also many Reps as well). Then again, there is the old quote by Ben Franklin,

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Web Rider]

Actually it would be damaging to the whole "Close Gitmo" cause in general, and anyone in favor of it(which is admittedly mostly Dem, but also many Reps as well). Then again, there is the old quote by Ben Franklin,

 

Only as damaging as it is to the prison system when a newly released inmate commits a crime again. More damaging I suppose because Gitmo is a one-of-a-kind thing. If we actually tired them and give them a real charge, this argument might go somewhere, but the "you're in prison 'cause we said so, suck it." argument the government has been using isn't exactly going to move anyone towards any sort of in or out.

[Tommycat]

Only as damaging as it is to the prison system when a newly released inmate commits a crime again. More damaging I suppose because Gitmo is a one-of-a-kind thing. If we actually tired them and give them a real charge, this argument might go somewhere, but the "you're in prison 'cause we said so, suck it." argument the government has been using isn't exactly going to move anyone towards any sort of in or out.

 

Not really comparable. The prison system is completely different, and the trials let enough people out before they hit that that tends to draw more attention. However, if we do put those in Gitmo on trial and release some that we really have no reason besides some odd ball justification, you know everyone that supports Gitmo will be watching very closely. There isn't nearly as much attention being paid to prisons, or ex cons. I just don't see Obama taking that risk. At least not in his first term.

[Web Rider]

I think the only reason we think it's not comparable is because we aren't as paranoid about what ex-cons can do. So they kill a person, couple kids even, yeah that's horrible, but it's not like we don't see it on the 6 o'clock once a week at least. But these guys are terrorists oooooo, scaaaaarrrryyy, I mean, it's not like white people like McVeugh(sp) can't blow people up too. And they do it here in the States not to our troops in another country.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

The American "Justice" system, as we know it, is broken. If a bugler can sue a home owner, for the home owner shooting the bugler in the kneecap, as he broke into that home... then, yeah, our system is utter phail. A woman sued AND won a case against McDonalds, because she was driving... with hot coffee... and burned herself. The justice system is a joke. Besides, this is NOT a civilian justice issue- this is a military issue. If ANYTHING, they should be held accountable to the UCMJ.

If you're referring to that old woman, she offered to settle with McDonalds for the amount of her medical expenses, which isn't that ridiculous since at the time McDonalds was serving their coffee at dangerously high temperatures (iirc it was around 30-40 degrees hotter than any other chain was serving their coffee). She won the case since McDonalds knew serving coffee that hot was dangerous and continued to do so anyway.

[Tommycat]

If you're referring to that old woman, she offered to settle with McDonalds for the amount of her medical expenses, which isn't that ridiculous since at the time McDonalds was serving their coffee at dangerously high temperatures (iirc it was around 30-40 degrees hotter than any other chain was serving their coffee). She won the case since McDonalds knew serving coffee that hot was dangerous and continued to do so anyway.

 

Yeah, it's funny that the case often cited as a failure of the justice system is actually a case where justice was served. McDonalds served that coffee so hot that it gave her 3rd degree burns. They refused to pay for her medical expenses, and knew they were serving it dangerously hot.

 

Now the cases of people gaining thousands off of stores for "slip and fall" scams. THAT is a real failure.

[ForeverNight]

That holds no logic, the only reason you wouldn't want to be tied to the Geneva Convention, would be so you could torture detainee's. The fact that Gitmo doesn't tie itself to the GC, is already slipping to what the terrorists do, and water boarding is certainly only just above what they do to our boys when they are captured. Most concerning is the instince by some morons in your government (Rumsfeld) that torture is useful, it is a psychologically proven fact that you don't get reliable intelligence from individuals who have been subjected to torture; everyone has a breaking point, and once that is reached an individual will tell you what they think you want to hear.

 

On-topic, Gitmo shouldn't be closed, it should be brought under the Geneva Convention, and all those there should just be put through due process, and those who are innocent let go.

 

See Below.

 

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.

 

I think you missed something:

 

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

 

Source is the same as the first time I quoted the Convention.

 

Since Terrorists do not "conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" then they AREN'T covered by the convention.

 

As for this being covered under the UCMJ, well I think the people this would affect would really dislike that turn of events, it's much more flexible in how stuff is done -more under the "Crime Control" model of a justice system- than the US Justice System proper....

 

But, if that's how they are wanting to be treated -like soldiers- than I'm more than happy to oblige them, assuming that they live up to their end of the bargain. You know, actually act like soldiers.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

See Below.

 

 

 

I think you missed something:

 

 

 

Source is the same as the first time I quoted the Convention.

 

Since Terrorists do not "conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" then they AREN'T covered by the convention.

 

As for this being covered under the UCMJ, well I think the people this would affect would really dislike that turn of events, it's much more flexible in how stuff is done -more under the "Crime Control" model of a justice system- than the US Justice System proper....

 

But, if that's how they are wanting to be treated -like soldiers- than I'm more than happy to oblige them, assuming that they live up to their end of the bargain. You know, actually act like soldiers.

I think you're kind of missing the point. They may not fit into the definition of a soldier, but that doesn't mean they should be tortured since a) torture only serves to bring the U.S. down to the level people like Osama bin Laden say we are on, inciting more to become terrorists; b) torture has been proven to be an ineffective interrogation technique; and c) it isn't the Dark Ages.

[EnderWiggin]

I think you're kind of missing the point. They may not fit into the definition of a soldier, but that doesn't mean they should be tortured since a) torture only serves to bring the U.S. down to the level people like Osama bin Laden say we are on, inciting more to become terrorists; b) torture has been proven to be an ineffective interrogation technique; and c) it isn't the Dark Ages.

 

Listen to reason when it passes by; this is the most coherent and lucid thing I've ever seen Jaymack post

 

_EW_

[ForeverNight]

That may be, however I am making the point that they are not under any circumstances covered by Geneva, since a Terrorist goes after Civilian targets to make the most terrifying impression they can. And, as Jae pointed out in another thread, purposely targeting Civilians is against the laws and customs of war.

 

I don't know if they should be tortured. But, if the information needed is needed at that very moment in order to avert a catastrophe then I say go ahead and do it. If that case cannot be made... then, well, it matters on how badly the information is needed and what is done with it, and then if it was proven that they are indeed terrorists.

[jonathan7]

That may be, however I am making the point that they are not under any circumstances covered by Geneva, since a Terrorist goes after Civilian targets to make the most terrifying impression they can. And, as Jae pointed out in another thread, purposely targeting Civilians is against the laws and customs of war.

 

I don't know if they should be tortured. But, if the information needed is needed at that very moment in order to avert a catastrophe then I say go ahead and do it. If that case cannot be made... then, well, it matters on how badly the information is needed and what is done with it, and then if it was proven that they are indeed terrorists.

 

That why innocent farmers are locked up in Gitmo then?

 

I have already pointed out that it is a psychological FACT, that intelligence gathered under torture is not reliable, ever. You can ignore this, and pretend the world works as Jack Baur would have you think, however the facts are very different. As once you have "cracked" someone they will tell you whatever you want to hear, to make you stop them torturing. So if someone is going to give good intelligence torture isn't needed.

 

But fine, play little legal games with Geneva Convention. Though how do you establish if someone is a terrorist or not, without a court to view the evidence? The legal system, stands or falls on innocent until proven guilty. You'll forgive me for not trusting the UK and US governments, after say Iraq the Global Economic melt down etc...

 

But just to play your little game; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

[EnderWiggin]

 

But just to play your little game; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

 

_EW_

[Web Rider]

That may be, however I am making the point that they are not under any circumstances covered by Geneva, since a Terrorist ....

...is a title assigned to an enemy fighter by the perceived "good guys" for committing acts abstractly assigned as "terror" or designed to inspire "terror" "they" call "us" terrorists just as much as we call them. This vague definition makes just about every soldier in the world, and thus every nation, into a terrorist and a terrorist nation.

 

and then if it was proven that they are indeed terrorists.

As I said, who is a terrorist is something that is rather abstractly applied based on a rather abstract definition of what a "terror" act is.

[Tommycat]

...is a title assigned to an enemy fighter by the perceived "good guys" for committing acts abstractly assigned as "terror" or designed to inspire "terror" "they" call "us" terrorists just as much as we call them. This vague definition makes just about every soldier in the world, and thus every nation, into a terrorist and a terrorist nation.

 

 

As I said, who is a terrorist is something that is rather abstractly applied based on a rather abstract definition of what a "terror" act is.

 

Negative. Terrorists can be easily defined by their actions of targeting civilians, and using civilians as cover. The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as:

 

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Failing to follow the rules of warfare as defined by the Geneva Conventions places them in the category of terrorists.

[GarfieldJL]

This is a human rights issue!

 

You want to complain about human rights, why don't I see you raising issue about China's prison system or the Iranian Justice system?

 

The same issue we try to dictate onto other countries, now we are guilty of violating the very same issue. Every administration as far back as I can remember has criticized China for violating human right, by holding prisoner indefinitely, not telling the prisoner what they are changed with, not giving the prisoner a trial and practicing torture on prisoners.

 

First of all, these guys were shooting at our soldiers in Afghanistan and they weren't wearing any uniform, technically we could have just shot them as spies.

 

It does not matter that they are not citizen. They are human.

 

They are also fanatics that are bent on killing any American they can.