DescentBB

So Obama is signing another executive order ...this time to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the prisoners here to the states. By doing so if they come here they will then have all the rights of a American citizens. How many of you think this proper and why has he waited until now to do so (remember Obama made a election promise to close the base). Will they be segregated from the general prison population? What rights do the prisoners have as they were captured while not wearing a uniform ? How secure will they be and will NIMBY be a factor (you know, like the last time this was attempted). Lastly, why does Obama try and force something down our throats we don't want?

You’ll probably find the answer if you look into the new relations with Cuba, the admin is trying to establish.

Two birds with one stone…a promise, and a gesture to Cuba.

That would be my guess.

I agree with your assumption. Still a leaders job is to protect his people and not suk up to a leader who has way more to gain from a relationship with us than we do with them. The test is, would anything change if we didn't close the base?

protecting one's people involves stuff with a bit of substance, and intellect. Along those lines, anyone with functional grey matter knows that Guantanamo has been a liability and threat to the US since its creation. It is a source of friction with our allies and a recruitment tool for groups around the planet. We purport to be a nation of laws and then set up a concentration camp? We can handle anyone in that camp HERE, and with due process. That is the American way, and frankly, to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of what being American entails.

First off slick, show us where GB is somehow ruining our relationship and is a threat to us. Secondly do you understand that prisoners caught on the battle field wearing no uniform have no rights. So tell me why you want to change this.

woodchip wrote:First off slick, show us where GB is somehow ruining our relationship and is a threat to us

FFS, I could fill the page with links were I so inclined. Our allies have from Canada to Europe to Asia have wanted the place closed and bitched about it for a decade..

Secondly do you understand that prisoners caught on the battle field wearing no uniform have no rights. So tell me why you want to change this.

if they are being held on US soil(or a US territory) they are subject to exactly the same due process rights as any other citizen, non-citizen resident or visitor to the US. Further, given that about 90% have gotten there with ZERO proof of 'combatant' status, we are essentially in violation of international law for holding them at all.

great overview from a few years back:
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/22 ... /oe-cole22

Unless you can backup what you are saying I call BS to your assertions. Perhaps we should of just executed them when we first caught them.

and reading your link I still see no "proof" other than the opinion of the writer. Nice try tho.

whatever, Woody. Keep on rooting for us to have a concentration camp. I'll support MY President in doing the legal, moral and decent thing. Again. With no help from the right wing nuts.

Yes doing the decent thing helps the innocent:

On the same day that President Obama unveiled his plan to close the Guantánamo Bay prison facility, a former Guantánamo inmate who fought for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan has reportedly been captured by police in a raid against an ISIS terrorist cell in Spain.

Yep, a U.S. concentration camp and a rights violating torture chamber. That's how the rest of the world sees Guantanamo. Of course, you may not believe in human rights woody, so I'm sure all these links are quite pointless in altering your world view.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issu ... guantanamo

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/joi ... amo-closed

http://inthesetimes.com/article/3024

You're also forgetting woody that Bush was going to close Guantanamo as well, but sadly, he ran into the the same issues and opposition from the same forces that Obama has been running into, conservatives, war mongers and other sadists who don't want to afford terrorist detainees captured in combat the same legal rights that we give ALL prisoners, even war POW's, in the U.S., backed and accorded by our national laws and the Geneva Convention. We are a nation of laws and human rights, not a dictatorship with the most cruel of intentions. Once we stoop to the level of our enemy, we become our own enemy and are no better than our enemy.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-worl ... y-in-cuba/

Oh, and slick, you may or may not of heard of this one, but Bill Clinton had his own illegal "Little Guantanamo" in Kosovo. I haven't even heard of that one.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/europes-li ... vo/5335592

The Army denies prisoners are detained there, but it appears that this base was one of Bush's many rendition bases during his war on terror as well.

http://www.dw.com/en/us-denies-mini-gua ... /a-1793928

woodchip wrote:Yes doing the decent thing helps the innocent:

Let's just say woody that if I'd been captured and put in one of our little torture bases, and I happened to be innocent, I'd turn into a terrorist real quick after my experience there, then I'd swear my revenge as soon as I was released and act upon it. Our own rendition camps and off-site prisons are far better terrorist creators than ISIS or Al Qaeda could ever hope to achieve.

Except the guy wasn't innocent

Then, why was he released? You don't have a link.

And while you may look at what the rest of the world thinks, no one would want these guys in a prison near their families...no matter what part of the civilized world they live in.

Found it. I still don't see why this guy, or many of the others released before 2011 that eventually returned to fighting as terrorists, were released in the first place.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/27043 ... recruiting

woodchip wrote:And while you may look at what the rest of the world thinks, no one would want these guys in a prison near their families...no matter what part of the civilized world they live in.

Our prisons are no less safe than prisons anywhere else. Plus, there are some pretty nasty characters already in our prisons that will never, EVER, see the light of day, nor will they ever escape anytime soon. We can keep the worst of the worst behind bars on our own soil if the proper resources are put into it. I haven't heard of Charles Manson escaping recently.

OTOH:



http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/pris ... 1.10519506

woodchip wrote:Unless you can backup what you are saying I call BS to your assertions. Perhaps we should of just executed them when we first caught them.

You're like the best recruiter ISIS could ever ask for.

Sarcasm was never your strong point.

Canada says: keep Guantanamo open and you'll have no room to talk about how to treat prisoners of war.

woodchip wrote:Sarcasm was never your strong point.

The sad fact is that I can't tell the difference with you, because that's a position I could genuinely see you espousing.

If these people are terrorists, then charge them with criminal terrorism and put them on trial. If not, then let them go. Either way, the fact that we have an indefinite concentration camp for nebulous "enemy combatants" should be abhorrent to anyone who claims to uphold the Constitution.

Woodchip, what is it about terrorists that frightens you more than mass murderers like Manson, Ridgeway and Gilmore? You have no qualms about imprisoning and executing the most heinous of our criminals on our own soil, yet you freak out when our government wants to imprison a foreign terrorist who's just as dangerous and who would stick out like a bloody sore thumb if he were to ever escape. Your reasons are irrational and unprincipled.

woodchip wrote:Except the guy wasn't innocent

tunnelcat wrote:Then, why was he released?

This exchange pretty well sums up the entire issue.

On the one hand, there are some very bad people locked up in Guantanamo, and some very bad people who have been released and then showed up on the battlefield later.

On the other hand, there are people in Guantanamo who can't be convicted of anything because there's inadequate evidence -- people who might legitimately be innocent, and who should have been let out long ago.

The problem is, we often can't tell the difference. And nobody seems to have a good solution that doesn't either let out too many bad people, or imprison too many good people. So people take one side or the other, and then pretend that the other side is just plain stupid and they don't even have a point, instead of acknowledging the reality that whatever solution you try, somebody is going to have their life ruined either by being imprisoned while innocent or being killed by a terrorist who had previously been in custody. If you move everything to US soil and grant full rights, then you have to let people go who you have solid proof that they're terrorists but the evidence wasn't gathered according to official procedures. If you keep Guantanamo open, then you keep innocent people imprisoned.

I'm a fan of due process. I think even terrorists should face trial. But I won't for a minute pretend that there's not a down side to be considered. I won't for a minute pretend that it doesn't trouble me that some definitely-guilty parties will be let go and then they'll kill a bunch of innocent people. It needs to be done -- the rule of law needs to actually mean something -- but those of us who say "shut it down" need to own up to the fact that innocent people will die because of that decision.

Co-worker of mine was an military police officer at Guantanamo. We've had many conversations about it. I love that you guys think these guys are some kind of Jason Bourne-type. You really think sticking them in the Supermax in Colorado wouldn't do the trick? Buddy said the high level guys were fairly smart, but most of them are just sheep. They're violent, but handcuffs and leg restraints take care of that. How many guards have died at Gitmo from prisoner uprisings?

This country is better than to have a public black-site. Throw them in maximum security prisons if they've committed crimes and be done with it. Out of sight, out of mind. Again, this country is moving forward. No reason to have a 1960s mentality toward the little island 90 miles away from us that presents absolutely no danger to us economically or militarily. Let them have their piece of land back and we can all move on.

Give us a break Lothar. Innocent people die every single day in every single country. Every state in the union has, at some point, put to death an innocent person. Can't ignore the law because it doesn't fit your narrow view of how this country should act towards our enemy. We're supposed to be a moral country right? That shining beacon of hope right? If Jesus came down tomorrow and spoke to you about Gitmo, do you think he'd be in favor of your stance? ★■◆● no. He'd call you out for being the sad hypocrite that you are.

Innocent people may die everyday but not because a govt. turns killers loose among them.

woodchip wrote:Innocent people may die everyday but not because a govt. turns killers loose among them.

who the feck suggested turning them loose 'among us'. We're talking supermax federal prisons for those not deported.

Do try and read the last 6 or so posts and you might answer your question.

I have no problem with closing the camp and jailing the guilty here, but I do have at least two questions:

1. What do we do with the ones that need to be let go where the country of origin won’t take them back?

2. How do you conduct an ongoing war without a POW camp?

Z.. wrote:Innocent people die every single day in every single country. Every state in the union has, at some point, put to death an innocent person. Can't ignore the law because it doesn't fit your narrow view of how this country should act towards our enemy

I said we should shut down Gitmo. I said we should uphold the law. How did you miss that? It's like your decade plus of blind hatred for me makes you incapable of comprehending what I said.

But don't be naive about it. Don't be like the idiot talking heads who act like "if we shut down Gitmo there won't be negative consequences". Own it. Be like "yes, innocent people might die. That's part of the tradeoff we make by being ethical -- we risk allowing people to do evil to us when we could have stopped them by being more cruel."

Spidey wrote:I have no problem with closing the camp and jailing the guilty here, but I do have at least two questions:

1. What do we do with the ones that need to be let go where the country of origin won’t take them back?

fair question. I'd suggest sending them to Texas, but this IS a serious question. You will likely have to keep them in Federal detention,
maybe not highest security depending on why they were deemed eligible to leave. We do likewise with thousands of immigrants from
Central America and Asia all the time(usually in local jails), so it is doable.

2. How do you conduct an ongoing war without a POW camp?

Has a war been authorized? Not at present. Even if it were, we don't have to have it offshore for any reason and would clearly have to abide by international laws regarding POWs, which has NOT been the case at Gitmo.

Put a parachute on them and drop them over the country that we picked them up in.

And Lothar, just because I don't list every single consequence that we might face by releasing those doesn't mean I don't understand the issue. None of those matter. That's what the rule of law is. Innocence is innocence, that is where the debate ends. There is nothing further that needs to be understood. You'd rather burn the Constitution and what it stands for simply because someone with an (R) after their name wrote a memo saying it was all ok. You know, I don't believe in a god, but the fact that you even have a moral dilemma here means that I'm twice the Christian that you'll ever hope to be.

You live in Denver now? Old friend of mine is running for senate there, Mr. Keyser. I smoked weed with him all the time in high school. Keep that in mind.

The war on terror will never be “authorized” by either side, but that doesn’t mean there is no war.

...........................

And if there is no “authorized” war, what the hell is all the talk about the Geneva Convention?

There is either a war, where we are bound by convention, or not.

And if there is no authority to prosecute this war, surely the war powers act is in full effect. Ummm…because last time I checked…there was a war going on.

Funny how you can have it both ways when you need to have us obey convention, then it’s a war, when you need it to not be a war…then it’s not a war.

Spidey wrote:The war on terror will never be “authorized” by either side, but that doesn’t mean there is no war.

...........................

And if there is no “authorized” war, what the hell is all the talk about the Geneva Convention?

There is either a war, where we are bound by convention, or not.

well, then you have but ONE choice, if war is not declared: Abide by the constitution, which guarantees due process for everyone on our soil. Period.

nothing the least 'funny' about that reality. What we have been doing is in violation of our own laws, of international law and any moral decency.

Z.. wrote:You'd rather burn the Constitution and what it stands for simply because someone with an (R) after their name wrote a memo saying it was all ok

No, I wouldn't. But you've always been insistent on misrepresenting me, so why should I expect it to stop now?

Innocence is innocence, that is where the debate ends. There is nothing further that needs to be understood.

It's not just about innocence or guilt. It's about evidence and proof, and about process and procedure, about the intersection between uncertainty and decision-making. It's about having the integrity to say "I choose to follow a process that protects the rights of the innocent, knowing full well that some who are guilty will go free and continue to do evil" instead of pretending, like some of the idiot talking heads do, that there's no risk involved.

Part of what you're missing: this completely disarms woodchip's line of argument. He can say all he wants "somebody they let go went out and killed people", and as long as you won't address that point head-on, it becomes a point of contention for other people. But if you take it straight on and say "yep, some of the people we let go will go out and kill. The cost of acting with integrity and protecting the rights of the accused is that sometimes the bad guys get away with it, and that's a better system than one in which the innocent are unjustly jailed", that ends the argument. Because you've actually gotten to the heart of the matter and taken it head-on instead of just throwing out worthless sound bites that sound good but don't contain the relevant details.

Lothar wrote:Part of what you're missing: this completely disarms woodchip's line of argument. He can say all he wants "somebody they let go went out and killed people", and as long as you won't address that point head-on, it becomes a point of contention for other people. But if you take it straight on and say "yep, some of the people we let go will go out and kill. The cost of acting with integrity and protecting the rights of the accused is that sometimes the bad guys get away with it, and that's a better system than one in which the innocent are unjustly jailed", that ends the argument. Because you've actually gotten to the heart of the matter and taken it head-on instead of just throwing out worthless sound bites that sound good but don't contain the relevant details.

quite true, and it goes to the heart of the US system of legal thinking, and our national sense of morality. Better to err to the side of the accused and risk mistakes than to convict the innocent.

Lothar wrote:It's not just about innocence or guilt. It's about evidence and proof, and about process and procedure, about the intersection between uncertainty and decision-making. It's about having the integrity to say "I choose to follow a process that protects the rights of the innocent, knowing full well that some who are guilty will go free and continue to do evil" instead of pretending, like some of the idiot talking heads do, that there's no risk involved.

Part of what you're missing: this completely disarms woodchip's line of argument. He can say all he wants "somebody they let go went out and killed people", and as long as you won't address that point head-on, it becomes a point of contention for other people. But if you take it straight on and say "yep, some of the people we let go will go out and kill. The cost of acting with integrity and protecting the rights of the accused is that sometimes the bad guys get away with it, and that's a better system than one in which the innocent are unjustly jailed", that ends the argument. Because you've actually gotten to the heart of the matter and taken it head-on instead of just throwing out worthless sound bites that sound good but don't contain the relevant details.

You've pretty much summed it up quite well Lothar. What makes us Americans is the Constitution and the rule of law. Violate that document and all our precepts and laws and we're acting no better than the terrorists and extremists. Do we sink to their level, or rise above it like any civilized nation should?

tunnelcat wrote:Do we sink to their level, or rise above it like any civilized nation should?

sadly, I think we've answered that question, and the answer is rather embarrassing.

tunnelcat wrote:

Lothar wrote:It's not just about innocence or guilt. It's about evidence and proof, and about process and procedure, about the intersection between uncertainty and decision-making. It's about having the integrity to say "I choose to follow a process that protects the rights of the innocent, knowing full well that some who are guilty will go free and continue to do evil" instead of pretending, like some of the idiot talking heads do, that there's no risk involved.

Part of what you're missing: this completely disarms woodchip's line of argument. He can say all he wants "somebody they let go went out and killed people", and as long as you won't address that point head-on, it becomes a point of contention for other people. But if you take it straight on and say "yep, some of the people we let go will go out and kill. The cost of acting with integrity and protecting the rights of the accused is that sometimes the bad guys get away with it, and that's a better system than one in which the innocent are unjustly jailed", that ends the argument. Because you've actually gotten to the heart of the matter and taken it head-on instead of just throwing out worthless sound bites that sound good but don't contain the relevant details.

You've pretty much summed it up quite well Lothar. What makes us Americans is the Constitution and the rule of law. Violate that document and all our precepts and laws and we're acting no better than the terrorists and extremists. Do we sink to their level, or rise above it like any civilized nation should?

So while you both are asleep at the wheel, have you ever asked yourself why no new prisoners have been caught and sent to Gitmo? While you go on about your precious rights and protecting the innocent, your lovely Obama govt have decided to eschew all judicial processes by drone killing suspects along with the innocent people around them. Yeah Gitmo is a terrible situation. At least the prisoners are well taken care of and their families and friends are still alive. Any idea how many of these extra-judicial killings have occurred? As of Feb of last year over 2500. And that's not counting the collateral damage.

So if we are not at war and need to follow the law, why are we committing murder with drones...all with your presidents approval. Crocodile tears? You bet.

woodchip wrote:Yeah Gitmo is a terrible situation. At least the prisoners are well taken care of

you know this, how?


you make a fair point about drone warfare, I think many Americans are all for getting out of that business as a terrorist targetting tool, but it seems there is bipartisan, tacit approval for continuation. Sort of a cowardly approach to warfare, but that's just my opinion.

We should be capturing them for the intel they know, instead of killing them and losing it forever.

woodchip wrote:We should be capturing them for the intel they know, instead of killing them and losing it forever.

we've been doing just that, since the late 1970s.....how's it worked out so far? Seriously, though, I am quite sure there are some legitimate,
and some outside lying procedures in place without a need for a plainly visible concentration camp, withheld from international scrutiny, with
no due process despite being on US territory.