Obama Closes Gitmo

[GarfieldJL]

Obama knew that gitmo was a direct violation of the laws this country was built on, and that it needed to be closed. The prisoners will be given fair trial, and if that means being released because they weren't treated properly and given their rights, then so be it. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to sink to the level of terrorists to try and defeat them. There are other, more effectual ways to find terrorists and bring them to justice. If this is anyone's fault, it's Bush's for opening the prison to this in the first place.

 

Technically we could have just had them executed as spies and saboteurs. Since none of them were in uniform.

 

 

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

Seems to me that a fair trial is only a legal nightmare to you. To me, it's doing what we are democratically bound to do as a nation.

 

It isn't possible to give a fair trial, because some of the evidence is classified, some would be thrown out, they were captured on the battlefield, they aren't from the country we captured them in. This is a war, and the troops can't call a timeout to conduct a forensic investigation on a battlefield.

 

Heck a judge can have them released because the troops didn't read them their miranda rights as soon as they captured them.

[Adavardes]

Gitmo was chosen for it's remote location, military base, and the lack of local government. Kill someone on a military base abroad, and you can still be tried in a US court. Break a federal law on ANY US base and you can still be tried in a federal court. What constitutional law was broken at Gitmo? Federal laws MUST be obeyed on any US soil.

 

Not at gitmo, apparently.

 

8th Amendment - Rights against Excessive Bail/Cruel and Unusual Punishment

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/19/guantanamo.usa

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0805/08050102

 

6th Amendment - Right to a Fair Trial

 

Habeas Corpus

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/tuttle

http://www.ww4report.com/node/3205

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html

 

Looks like US soil, if Gitmo truly sits on it, meant nothing to the Bush Administration.

[jrrtoken]

Technically we could have just had them executed as spies and saboteurs. Since none of them were in uniform.

Okay, if that happened then the US would be seen as a real bastard nation.

It isn't possible to give a fair trial, because some of the evidence is classified, some would be thrown out, they were captured on the battlefield, they aren't from the country we captured them in.

I'm pretty sure that most of them weren't POWs. A good deal of the detainees were probably arrested for either being associated with terrorists in some way, not actively being combatants.

This is a war, and the troops can't call a timeout to conduct a forensic investigation on a battlefield.

1. The "War on Terror" is a fool's quagmire, like the War on Drugs; impossible to win, since terrorism will always exist, and can never be completely destroyed, as there will always be a cause for fanatics to cling to.

 

2. A bunch of the detainees were most likely arrested for pure association; a passive crime, not something active, such as being caught red-handed for attempted murder.

[Tommycat]

Not at gitmo, apparently.

 

8th Amendment - Rights against Excessive Bail/Cruel and Unusual Punishment

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/19/guantanamo.usa

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0805/08050102

 

6th Amendment - Right to a Fair Trial

 

Habeas Corpus

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/tuttle

http://www.ww4report.com/node/3205

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/12/scotus/index.html

 

Looks like US soil, if Gitmo truly sits on it, meant nothing to the Bush Administration.

 

So which US citizens are we talking about?

According to federal law any persons of foreign citezenship are not covered by constitutional protections. Unless you are going to try to claim that those non-citizens should also have the right to vote.

[Adavardes]

So which US citizens are we talking about?

According to federal law any persons of foreign citezenship are not covered by constitutional protections. Unless you are going to try to claim that those non-citizens should also have the right to vote.

 

So international sovereignity means nothing to you? Just because a human being isn't an American makes it okay to torture him and deny him a fair trial, something we as a nation refuse to do to our own citizens, so much so that the laws against them are part of the base of the entire legal structure? If you went to Canada, had a battle on Canadian soil, took a Canadian back to your prison without proof that they did anything wrong, you think it'd be okay to torture that Canadian and deny him rights to a trial? Or do you reserve that particular treatment for Middle Easterners and Muslims?

 

Citizenship is a shield to hide behind and justify despicable actions. They are human beings, and as human beings, they have certain inaliable rights. And if we would not take an American and treat them this way, then I will look at the treatment of any non-American in this way as hypocrisy at best and a violation of basic law at worst.

[Tommycat]

So international sovereignity means nothing to you? Just because a human being isn't an American makes it okay to torture him and deny him a fair trial, something we as a nation refuse to do to our own citizens, so much so that the laws against them are part of the base of the entire legal structure? If you went to Canada, had a battle on Canadian soil, took a Canadian back to your prison without proof that they did anything wrong, you think it'd be okay to torture that Canadian and deny him rights to a trial? Or do you reserve that particular treatment for Middle Easterners and Muslims?

 

Citizenship is a shield to hide behind and justify despicable actions. They are human beings, and as human beings, they have certain inaliable rights. And if we would not take an American and treat them this way, then I will look at the treatment of any non-American in this way as hypocrisy at best and a violation of basic law at worst.

 

Nope. Just pointing out that the laws aren't broken. Don't paint me as someone that approves of torture. I do not. I'm pointing out that it would be no different than if it were on another base within the US. You and your side keep claiming that the only reason for Gitmo was to allow violation of US laws. I am simply pointing out that that belief is wrong. There are several reasons for it. And violation of US law is not one of them as they are still subject to US law.

 

Terrorist attacks on the host city

Low viability of escape attempts

Centralized location

No NIMBY's

[mimartin]

So which US citizens are we talking about?

It does not matter that they are not U.S. citizens. At least according to U.S. Supreme Court decision in June of 2008. They believe the detainees are entitled to certain rights including habeas corpus.

 

BTW I agree wholeheartedly with you that the military base at Guantanamo Bay Cuba is U.S. soil. As such, I believe all laws that govern the military forces in the U.S. should apply there. I would never dream of going in front of the Supreme Court of the United State of America and arguing other wise. However, the Bush Administration did.

[Tommycat]

It does not matter that they are not U.S. citizens. At least according to U.S. Supreme Court decision in June of 2008. They believe the detainees are entitled to certain rights including habeas corpus.

 

BTW I agree wholeheartedly with you that the military base at Guantanamo Bay Cuba is U.S. soil. As such, I believe all laws that govern the military forces in the U.S. should apply there. I would never dream of going in front of the Supreme Court of the United State of America and arguing other wise. However, the Bush Administration did.

 

yup, and I disagreed with the Bush administration. We shouldn't be calling for closing Gitmo. We should be calling for FIXING Gitmo. Jae's right. This is a detainee shell game. It may actually make things worse for the detainees. The guards at Guantanamo Bay are trained specifically how to handle them. Ship them elsewhere, and chances are someone's gonna be less respectful of their needs. Or worse, you get someone with a grudge against them(or against Muslims/Arabs in general) that ends up taking their frustrations out on one of them.

 

But hey closing the detainment camp at gitmo is all that matters, right.

[mimartin]

But hey closing the detainment camp at gitmo is all that matters, right.

Not to me.

[EnderWiggin]

So which US citizens are we talking about?

According to federal law any persons of foreign citezenship are not covered by constitutional protections. Unless you are going to try to claim that those non-citizens should also have the right to vote.

 

Technically none, but it doesn't make it right.

 

It does not matter that they are not U.S. citizens. At least according to U.S. Supreme Court decision in June of 2008. They believe the detainees are entitled to certain rights including habeas corpus.

 

BTW I agree wholeheartedly with you that the military base at Guantanamo Bay Cuba is U.S. soil. As such, I believe all laws that govern the military forces in the U.S. should apply there. I would never dream of going in front of the Supreme Court of the United State of America and arguing other wise. However, the Bush Administration did.

But mimartin, remember that the President can revoke the right of habeas corpus when the country is in a State of Emergency. Also, remember that President Bush declared an extended State of Emergency after Sept 11, 2001.

 

So technically, the president has the ability to revoke habeas corpus in the US today, so nothing he's doing is illegal. Of course, it is immoral, unethical, and inhumane

 

_EW_

[EnderWiggin]

Update:

 

FoxNews is reporting that France has agreed to take 60 of the 245 prisoners at Gitmo. These sixty are presumably innocent, not people like the 9.11 mastermind.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,482585,00.html

 

_EW_

[Arcesious]

I'm not here to bebate, just to offer my opinion...

 

I would feel safer with the Gitmo prisoners kept in Gitmo, yes, however... I don't agree with torture or execution. I know that militarily it is required to do such things in life & death circumstances, however, I still don't agree with torture.

[Web Rider]

If it wasn't for torture and ex-President Bush flaunting it in everyone's face, I don't think anyone would have a problem with Gitmo. Except of course for the crazies who don't believe in crime or don't believe prisons should exist, but they can be ignored. Gitmo is a good location for a war-time prison, but only as long as we don't treat it like someplace to subvert US morals.

 

I say "morals" because technically, torture was legal. But come on guys, we're(for those of us in the US) the US, we can do better than that.

[Adavardes]

If it wasn't for torture and ex-President Bush flaunting it in everyone's face, I don't think anyone would have a problem with Gitmo. Except of course for the crazies who don't believe in crime or don't believe prisons should exist, but they can be ignored. Gitmo is a good location for a war-time prison, but only as long as we don't treat it like someplace to subvert US morals.

 

That's exactly what it was being used for. And yes, moving the issue to another prison doesn't solve something, but at the same time, you're assuming that Obama intends to just move it somewhere else. I don't think that's very likely at all. I think he closed it as quickly as he did because possibly innocent victims of unfair treatment and rigged trials wouldn't be able to wait for him to sort gitmo out. In order to stop the torture, he closed gitmo immediately, so that they can be moved to prison camps where torture isn't regularly exercised, and to resolve the issue with unfair trial, he has issued several pleas to suspend the trial of the majority of gitmo inmates.

 

This was to stop the activities at gitmo before they could go any further. Give President Obama the time to bring about a suspension to what's going on before expecting him to fix anything, because, frankly, it's gonna take a while to fix what's broken as far as treatment of POWs or "enemy combatants" goes. And I don't think Obama wanted to let gitmo tortures and unfair trials drag out because he had to fix the underlying problems first. It's like saying "forget the anesthesa, let's just get this heart surgery done".

[Achilles]

If it wasn't for torture and ex-President Bush flaunting it in everyone's face, I don't think anyone would have a problem with Gitmo.

Probably not.

 

Gitmo is a good location for a war-time prison

Why?

 

but only as long as we don't treat it like someplace to subvert US morals.

Morals = Values?

 

I say "morals" because technically, torture was legal.

Could you please expand on this? How was it legal?

 

But come on guys, we're(for those of us in the US) the US, we can do better than that.

Agreed. Can and should.

[GarfieldJL]

That's exactly what it was being used for. And yes, moving the issue to another prison doesn't solve something, but at the same time, you're assuming that Obama intends to just move it somewhere else. I don't think that's very likely at all. I think he closed it as quickly as he did because possibly innocent victims of unfair treatment and rigged trials wouldn't be able to wait for him to sort gitmo out. In order to stop the torture, he closed gitmo immediately, so that they can be moved to prison camps where torture isn't regularly exercised, and to resolve the issue with unfair trial, he has issued several pleas to suspend the trial of the majority of gitmo inmates.

 

To be blunt, only a handful of prisoners ended up being waterboarded, and those were ones that we knew were Al Qaeda leadership, it ended up saving American lives.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html

 

Bush's policies kept this country safe after 9/11, the far left came up with the garbage that we were randomly torturing people at Gitmo for amusement. The situations where prisoners were water boarded were extremely rare.

 

This was to stop the activities at gitmo before they could go any further. Give President Obama the time to bring about a suspension to what's going on before expecting him to fix anything, because, frankly, it's gonna take a while to fix what's broken as far as treatment of POWs or "enemy combatants" goes.

 

Oh so you're saying they are just enemy soldiers? Don't give me that song and dance, because that is not what they are. So it's okay that these people deliberately target civilians?

 

And I don't think Obama wanted to let gitmo tortures and unfair trials drag out because he had to fix the underlying problems first. It's like saying "forget the anesthesa, let's just get this heart surgery done".

 

No, he just did it to appeal to his far left base, the far left will next call for all the detainees to be released because they were illegally held.

[jrrtoken]

To be blunt, only a handful of prisoners ended up being waterboarded, and those were ones that we knew were Al Qaeda leadership, it ended up saving American lives.

How does waterboarding save lives? So, by trying to replicate the sensation of drowning to someone, it inherently saves lives? I think it does quite the opposite, IMO.

Bush's policies kept this country safe after 9/11, the far left came up with the garbage that we were randomly torturing people at Gitmo for amusement. The situations where prisoners were water boarded were extremely rare.

Okay, so torture is a perfectly reasonable tool for extracting information out of people. Who cares if they feel excruciating pain, we need to protect America in every way!

No, he just did it to appeal to his far left base, the far left will next call for all the detainees to be released because they were illegally held.

I think you're simply vilifying the left to simply promote your own views, with little factual information attached. Just a hunch.

[Adavardes]

To be blunt, only a handful of prisoners ended up being waterboarded, and those were ones that we knew were Al Qaeda leadership, it ended up saving American lives.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html

 

Bush's policies kept this country safe after 9/11, the far left came up with the garbage that we were randomly torturing people at Gitmo for amusement. The situations where prisoners were water boarded were extremely rare.

 

Gonna need more than Fox News, mate. The Conservative tilt is just too oppressive, regardless of what you say. Nobody really knows how many people were waterboarded, but we know that they were, and there are pictures out there that show other varieties of torture as well.

 

Oh so you're saying they are just enemy soldiers? Don't give me that song and dance, because that is not what they are. So it's okay that these people deliberately target civilians?

 

I find it kind of ironic that you're calling my argument a song and dance when I have yet to see any proof that they have been proven guilty in a fair trial of targeting civilians or of terrorism. And I'm not taking the word of US soldiers, because I've seen plenty of times how reputable those men and women are, not to mention the fact that heresay was removed from the US judiciary system as viable evidence a very, very long time ago.

 

No, he just did it to appeal to his far left base, the far left will next call for all the detainees to be released because they were illegally held.

 

Okay, sure let's go with that. This is baseless, unfounded, and has no substance whatsoever.

[GarfieldJL]

Gonna need more than Fox News, mate. The Conservative tilt is just too oppressive, regardless of what you say. Nobody really knows how many people were waterboarded, but we know that they were, and there are pictures out there that show other varieties of torture as well.

 

I'm going to turn around and throw your argument right back in your face and say our CIA Interrogators and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.

 

 

I find it kind of ironic that you're calling my argument a song and dance when I have yet to see any proof that they have been proven guilty in a fair trial of targeting civilians or of terrorism. And I'm not taking the word of US soldiers, because I've seen plenty of times how reputable those men and women are.

 

You really crossed the line, just like Murtha did and I'm going to see how that lawsuit played out cause some soldiers have sued people for liable now.

 

 

Okay, sure let's go with that. This is baseless, unfounded, and has no substance whatsoever.

 

No, it is based on the man's voting record, his statements, the fact he has no idea where to put them, etc.

[Adavardes]

I'm going to turn around and throw your argument right back in your face and say our CIA Interrogators and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.

 

Okay. My mistake. Let's put everyone on trial and see how it turns out. I'd like nothing more than to see them face the Supreme court for their actions.

 

You really crossed the line, just like Murtha did and I'm going to see how that lawsuit played out cause some soldiers have sued people for liable now.

 

I didn't cross any line, I made an assessment based on the cruelty I have seen US soldiers stationed in Iraq exhibit on video, which is evidence not so easily proven wrong.

 

Edit:Okay, new vids:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sm6VKvRSAg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBoYaeCsuWc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyIgNBkyADE

 

Just a few. And, btw, my stance on heresay having no place as evidence still stands, regardless of their cruelty.

 

No, it is based on the man's voting record, his statements, the fact he has no idea where to put them, etc.

 

No, it's you making predictions based on your own bias against him.

[EnderWiggin]

You really crossed the line, just like Murtha did and I'm going to see how that lawsuit played out cause some soldiers have sued people for liable now.

....aside from this comment not making any sense, which line did Jack cross now?

No, it is based on the man's voting record, his statements, the fact he has no idea where to put them, etc.

 

Yeah, I remember now. When he was on the campaign trail he said he was a far left puppet.

 

Oh wait. And just because he hasn't the final place to put them just yet doesn't mean much. Recall that he's only been in office 6 days, if you even count the 20th.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

I'm going to turn around and throw your argument right back in your face and say our CIA Interrogators and our soldiers are innocent until proven guilty.

Except that the Bush Administration has already admitted that we've authorized and used waterboarding. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the due process of individuals. We don't need this (these) step(s) to know that some people, acting on behalf of the U.S. government, have tortured foreign persons. Your argument is perfectly valid within the context of putting these individuals on trial, however it has absolutely no bearing on the condemnation of the actions of our government.

[GarfieldJL]

Except that the Bush Administration has already admitted that we've authorized and used waterboarding. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the due process of individuals. We don't need this (these) step(s) to know that some people, acting on behalf of the U.S. government, have tortured foreign persons. Your argument is perfectly valid within the context of putting these individuals on trial, however it has absolutely no bearing on the condemnation of the actions of our government.

 

They authorized the use of water boarding on a few high profile targets and the results were several terrorist attacks were thwarted thanks to the information gained. So you're telling me if we capture someone like Bin Laden, we shouldn't use waterboarding to get information that could thwart another terrorist attack? Are you suggesting we should just beg him to tell us what their plans are?

 

Seriously, they weren't captured in any uniform under the flag of a country, they are a terrorists. We're fighting fanatics here, and the situation is that these guys would slit your throat just as soon as looking at you.

[Adavardes]

They authorized the use of water boarding on a few high profile targets and the results were several terrorist attacks were thwarted thanks to the information gained. So you're telling me if we capture someone like Bin Laden, we shouldn't use waterboarding to get information that could thwart another terrorist attack? Are you suggesting we should just beg him to tell us what their plans are?

 

Yes, I am telling you we don't waterboard him, for two reasons:

 

1. We aren't terrorists, nor are we barbarians. We don't need to drop ourselves to their level to get information, because it goes against everything we stand for. You want to sink to such pathetically depraved means as torture to get the information you want, because you're afraid or righteously angry, go ahead. Me, I'm gonna be better than that and try other tactics.

 

2. Torture is notorious for producing misinformation and inaccurate confessions. After you've been drowning for a few hours, I'm pretty sure you'll say whatever the hell they want to hear to make it stop. Therefore, you're running on possibly inaccurate info gained by lowering yourself to their standards. When does the degradation of our country stop? Hm?

 

Oh, right, it stopped on January 19th.

 

Seriously, they weren't captured in any uniform under the flag of a country, they are a terrorists. We're fighting fanatics here, and the situation is that these guys would slit your throat just as soon as looking at you.

 

That is both hilariously ignorant and fantastically wrong at the same time. Just because they aren't wearing a uniform that meets your standard for what uniforms should be, they're terrorists? Pretty sure civilians don't wear uniforms under the flag of a country, but then again, civilians wear army camo in the States all the time. I'm sorry, but appearance does not a terrorist make, though I can see you're doing ex-president Bush proud by profiling under irrational basis to give yourself people to blame.

[Jae Onasi]

They cannot legally do anything at Gitmo that they cannot legally do in another military base. While the base itself might be on foreign soil, that does not mean that it is free from US laws. ANY US base becomes US soil.

Exactly, but people outside the military don't understand that.

 

And I'm not taking the word of US soldiers, because I've seen plenty of times how reputable those men and women are

Please don't paint all US soldiers and sailors with this same broad negative brush. I have met and worked with plenty of service men and women who are good, honest, law-abiding citizens who want to make a positive difference. Assuming all military personnel are disreputable based on the negative actions of a few is patently incorrect and unfair.

 

I see a lot of words, but find very little substance here.

I'm sorry you've missed the substantive parts, but if you reread the post you'll find it I'm sure.

The whole point is that they can't do what they've done in Gitmo here. That's why they were doing it at Gitmo and not here. You ignored the entire premise in order to repeat something you've already said.

You've completely missed my point. Again. I never said what they've done is legal at all, in fact I suspect there's plenty done that will never see the light of day because it would violate all sorts of laws. If they move the prisoners, but do nothing about the underlying illegal activities, the prisoners are no better off anywhere else. You're making the naive assumption that moving them to some place in CONUS is going to solve the problem. It won't unless there's a major institutional change on what's acceptable in interrogations. Gitmo is not unique as a US base, other than location--I am highly suspicious that waterboarding and other 'aggressive interrogation techniques' have been conducted in any number of places. Do you honestly believe that what happens at Gitmo can't happen at Ft. Leavenworth, Great Lakes Naval Base or a number of other places, just because they're located in CONUS? If so, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

They aren't POWs remember? They are "enemy combatants". You are keeping track of the facts surrounding this situation, aren't you Jae?

Yes. I'm aware that there's a big discussion on whether or not they're detainees, POWs, enemy combatants, and a host of other legal names used as an attempt to circumvent their rights under the Geneva Conventions. I elected to call them what they really are. When you're done assuming that I've taken a conservative stance on this without carefully reading what I've said and then answering in a sarcastic tone, please let me know. Nowhere have I said torture at Gitmo or anywhere else is acceptable. I'm merely saying moving the torture problem somewhere else makes closing Gitmo a hollow gesture.

Well, except for the whole "no longer being held in limbo" thing.

Have you seen any policy changes on that? I haven't yet, though I hope it does change soon.

 

Upon further reflection, I think I may have misinterpreted your earlier strawman as a counter-argument and tried to address it as such. It just occurred to me that you've changed the subject to something else and I fell for it.

Why would you even begin to assume I'm trying to make you 'fall for' anything, unless you're projecting what you'd do in a similar situation? All I want to do is discuss these major issues. I have no interest in laying traps for people, nor do I care to waste my time on figuring out ways to make other people miserable.

Wait. You mean Obama closed Gitmo without your having signed off on it first? That bastard.

And you're happy with Gitmo closure without knowing what's going to happen to the people there? You have no interest in how the detainees/POWs/combatants/novel new term du jour are going to be treated elsewhere? OK, fine for you, but I actually care about the gov't fixing the problem rather than just closing one place where the problem is occurring in a symbolic politically-motivated gesture. I think my tax dollars could be spent in far better ways than torturing people.

Strawman confirmed.

Achilles reading something that isn't there confirmed.

So it's legal to hold people without trial and subject them to torture on U.S. soil? Okay.

How on God's green earth did you manage to read _that_ into any of my comments here? I never said the (alleged until proven guilty in court) illegal activities that happen at Gitmo are acceptable at all, nor ever remotely implied such.