Guantanamo to be closed??

[dickay]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11...amo-detainees/

This is IMO the first significant item the Obama camp is supposedly proposing to do.

Anyhow, politics aside I'd like to know everyones thoughts on the pros & cons of Guantanamo. I admit I am not as up to date on this subject as I'd like to be which is why i'm starting this dialog. I've heard many of military personnel say that it's vital to national security, that the vast majority of those imprisoned are dangerous criminals who don't deserve or have a right to US citizen protections under our legal system. I've heard many on the other side claim its a significant assault on human rights, illegal under US Law, and promotes ill will around the world.

I suppose those who support Obama are going to support this regardless, and those who don't will be against it regardless. Please try to put aside your political affiliation and give your thoughts as to pros & cons of Guantanamo.

For the record......McCain supporting closing Guantanamo too.....but there ideas differed on how to handle the imprisoned.

[TheNamelessPoet]

totaly on the fence on this one... i do NOT want the terrorists here for obviousl reasons but in a way we are violating their rights...

Boy Obama sure didn't wait to get into controversy lol. Glad to see it tho.

As my mother always said... "you dont have to respect the person to respect the office"

not that I don't respect him I jsut didnt vote for him

[FRENCHREDSOX]

Please try to put aside your political affiliation and give your thoughts as to pros & cons of Guantanamo.

You ARE asking for the impossible here - political views will mark your argument.

This is IMO the first significant item the Obama camp is supposedly proposing to do.

Anyhow, politics aside I'd like to know everyones thoughts on the pros & cons of Guantanamo. I admit I am not as up to date on this subject as I'd like to be which is why i'm starting this dialog. I've heard many of military personnel say that it's vital to national security, that the vast majority of those imprisoned are dangerous criminals who don't deserve or have a right to US citizen protections under our legal system. I've heard many on the other side claim its a significant assault on human rights, illegal under US Law, and promotes ill will around the world.

I suppose those who support Obama are going to support this regardless, and those who don't will be against it regardless. Please try to put aside your political affiliation and give your thoughts as to pros & cons of Guantanamo.

For the record......McCain supporting closing Guantanamo too.....but there ideas differed on how to handle the imprisoned

FIRSTLY Guatanamo is still going to exist,but as its true function a military base.

On the Camp I believe that every human has rights - whether he is a serial killer,mudererer or supposed terrorist.

The detainees are that,SUPPOSED terrorists,& detaining them in a camp without lawful representation is both unethical & unlawful.

Lastly, it has hurt the USA in its world Foreign Policy (& maybe the real motivator for Obama's decision) & also its war on terrorism MORE than the gain because of these actions & the rumours/propaganda from BOTH sides have enabled an increased recruitment of sympathisers.

totaly on the fence on this one... i do NOT want the terrorists here for obviousl reasons but in a way we are violating their rights...

That is the problem TNP here - but those in Guantanamo ARE not terrorists they are SUPPOSED terrorists & remain so until tried.....it is an amalgam that is often applied "oh detainees in Guantanamo = terrorists" but are all detainees in jail guilty & in this case those detainees have had a "ZERO judicial option" ?

The lack of rights,the lack of council,the total ignorance of the Geneva convention,torture etc on supposed terrorists....

Again,like you (I assume) I am against ANY form of terrorism but from an International Law point of view the US Government's actions to date are no better than the threat they are supposedly protecting us from....

[Alloutwar]

^^ agree with most of the above.

Regardless of what the prisoners deserve - they may be complete innocent ones, and there may be dreadfully horrible ones - having the off-shore, no-rights prison was bad all the way around. We're already the biggest/best/wealthiest/strongest nation; now we can whisk away anyone, guilty or not, and hold them as an 'enemy combatant' offshore with no rights?

I'm sure that doesn't engender more terrorism - having my brother locked up for 5 years for no reason certainly wouldn't make me angry.

[filihok]

Word FRS and AOW

I'm sure this will draw some scoffs from some out there, but I believe the U.S. needs to be "the shining light" of freedom and democracy. How can we claim to be a free and civilized nation when we are guilty of the same types of actions we accuse others of.

We've spent the last 20 years as the lone world super power, and have squandered an opportunity to use that position to further the well being of humanity.

[RickD]

I do think the terrorists need to be brought to justice, however being held indiscriminately without trials to sort out the guilty and the non-guilty seems wrong. I would have no problem with Guantanamo being kept open as a prison if they wold just bring these fellows to trial.

If another country held our guys indefinitely like this we'd have a cow!

[HoustonGM]

If another country held our guys indefinitely like this we'd have a cow!

And have...except when our guys get captured, they're "hostages", and not "enemy combatants."


I agree with everything that's been said here by FRS, AOW, and filihok.

[dickay]

I agree with all the human rights issues, but what are the consequences. I haven't had time to closely review the against argument and judging from what I've read i'd bet many who have posted haven't either. From what I've heard the alternative of allowing these 'supposed' terrorists to be tried under US Law is that alot of the information would not be admissable under our laws, and many would have to be returned to their own countries prior. Who's to decide which country gets to try them? We've already had to release some of these people only to find them on the battlefield against us months later or plotting other terrorist attacks.

Its easy to say somethings wrong, but how do you fix it and protect America's security interests at the same time? To come up with an answer you have to know the consequences and to ask that Guantanamo prisoners be tried under US law without knowing the consequences and/or logistics of such is dangerous.

[OregonDuck1989]

I agree with FRS, AOW, Fili, Rick and Houston on this subject. We are violating human rights (and are possibly violating international law with possible "torture"). If you are accused of something you should be allowed the right to a fair trial. It's basic human rights.

dickay your argument is interesting but it still does not address that terrorist or not they are humans. Bringing up that some terrorists are right back in the field after release doesn't give us justification for violating international law. Some held are not terrorists at all.

It also, like FRS said, does not deter terrorism at all. In fact it breeds more.

[OldFatGuy]

I agree with all the human rights issues, but what are the consequences. I haven't had time to closely review the against argument and judging from what I've read i'd bet many who have posted haven't either. From what I've heard the alternative of allowing these 'supposed' terrorists to be tried under US Law is that alot of the information would not be admissable under our laws, and many would have to be returned to their own countries prior. Who's to decide which country gets to try them? We've already had to release some of these people only to find them on the battlefield against us months later or plotting other terrorist attacks.

Its easy to say somethings wrong, but how do you fix it and protect America's security interests at the same time? To come up with an answer you have to know the consequences and to ask that Guantanamo prisoners be tried under US law without knowing the consequences and/or logistics of such is dangerous.

Ben Franklin said it best, those willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. There is no doubt that we can make ourselves safer by disregarding all humans rights, and locking up anyone for any amount of time because we merely "suspect" they are terrorists or involved in terrorism. But what's the end result? Thousands, or millions imprisoned?? Is that the kind of society we want to live in?? Not me.

If you place security above liberty, then government shall have all power. Power to detain, power to harm, power to kill, power to decide who can go anywhere or do anything. However, our form of government is about LIMITING government power, and its emphasis is/was on individual liberty. They wrote the document we call the Constitution KNOWING that these limits meant we sacrificed security.

When they wrote the 4th amendment prohibiting searches and seizures without probable cause and a warrant, they KNEW this made it harder to catch bad guys. After all, if you knew a criminal/terrorist was loose in say a certain section of New York, then all a government with unlimited power would need to do is to break down every door of every building in that section of the city and sooner or later they would find him/her.

In fact, this is EXACTLY what the British did during our revolution, and is what directly led to the 4th amendment. Houseing rebels was a crime, so whenever a skirmish occurred, they simply entered every home in nearby villages until they found the "criminals". Was it effective? Yes. But our forefathers decided this was a wrongful infringement on an individuals right to privacy, and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and added the Bill of Rights to limit government power and guarantee individual rights to be free from such power.

Are we to give those rights up simply because a new kind of enemy has arrived? Are we to give them up every time something terrible happens? A terrorist attack today, a serial killer tomorrow?? If so, then those rights aren't worth the paper their printed on.

So, if you "agree with all the humans rights issues" then that settles the case right there. The only question left for you to answer is are those "human rights issues" worth more than the potential for a little extra security. I know my answer to that, and everyone whose ever read the constitution and the framers' intent behind it knows the framers' answer to that as well. Thus its clear what the "real American" (to borrow a quote from Sarah Palin) answer is to that question.

[BINGLEBOP]

They're HYPOCRITES! DAMN HYPOCRITES!

[RickD]

You fix this problem by taking the "combatants" to Guantanamo, questioning them for info (with rules in the Geneva convention), if they are citizens of the US you try them and sentence them accordingly.

The tricky part is most POW's are released when the war is over and since the war on terror is indefinite then how long do we keep them?

[dickay]

After a bit of research this afternoon (not nearly as much as i'd like) I've found that most support Gitmos closure. I agree its a black eye in the world view and at the moment agree with the thought, however its closure IMO won't ease that much disdain...there will be something else our haters will attack after its closing.

Regardless, I can't say I support closing without knowing the consequences which are extreme and agreed upon by many high ranking officials.

There currently are tribunals every year from what I've read that determines whether or not a prisoner should be released or detained longer. In some cases they have been released and sent back to their own country for sentencing or release from imprisonment. In some of those cases their own countries have tried and/or treated the individuals in horrific manner. Where's the human rights concern there? If this tribunal determines the individuals country of origin would cause torture, they have a human rights obligation not to send him back. That is the argument they've used at least. They then must find a country willing to take them...good luck with that.

Regardless, if Gitmo was closed they'd still need a process in the US. Many in Congress have stated that they support closing Gitmo but don't want the detainees moved to a prison in their state. How's that work???

This article sums it up best from the LA times;

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr...ion/na-gitmo14

Guantanamo also holds 135 whom the Pentagon has no plans to prosecute but considers too dangerous to release. The Pentagon lacks evidence to lodge war-crimes charges, said a midlevel U.S. government official, but annual reviews have found these prisoners are threats who must continue to be held. Guantanamo also holds 135 whom the Pentagon has no plans to prosecute but considers too dangerous to release. The Pentagon lacks evidence to lodge war-crimes charges, said a midlevel U.S. government official, but annual reviews have found these prisoners are threats who must continue to be held. Because there is little evidence against them that could be used in a U.S. court, government officials fear that a federal judge could order them freed. “Then you would have 100-plus future sleeper-cell members unleashed in Kansas,” for instance, said the midlevel official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. “That is what the government is trying to prevent.”

From what I've read elsewhere, largely the reason that information would not be admissable in a US Court is because of two reasons. First, how it was obtained...US courts would be less likely to accept information obtained through questionable means performed at Gitmo. By questionable, the whole what is torture what isn't would be lived out again. Secondly, many CIA officials, informants, etc. will very likely not testify in fear of retribution from other terrorists and/or their own country of origin.

Information that was available in a simple computer the FBI had prior to 9/11 could have prevented the attack but US Law prevented them from looking at it. Here we run the risk of US Law not allowing for evidence or the system scaring people from testifying with evidence which could keep the next perpetrator behind bars.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who favors closing the prison, has said that moving the detainees would require new legislation that allowed them to be “processed administratively.” What is needed, the midlevel official said, is a law allowing indefinite detention of “anyone who is a former enemy combatant.”

Ask yourself the question.....'If Ali McBabwa were released today from US Court and the CIA later explains there was evidence substantiating his prior captivity but it was inadmissable....would you be accepting of Ali coming back 3 years later and causing an attack that kills a loved one?'

Fear-mongering???? Maybe........but again, laws that prevented the FBI from looking at a computer of an arrested criminal could have prevented 9/11.

I feel they should close it, but how they handle the prisoners is going to be critically important to the process. I don't think they deserve the same rights as US Citizens unless all the information is admissable for the courts to rule on. I for one have a hard time believing our govt. would hold someone without credible evidence. Maybe I have too much faith in my govt. but its better IMO than having too little.

[OregonDuck1989]

Ahhh... I always love to her our founding fathers quoted out of context when railing against larger government. That is right RSR and others. Our government is not primarily here to protect us ( see Hobbes et. al. ) it is here so that an HOA can take pictures of my trash can in a wrong spot ON trash day and levy a fine. FROM the mountain tops let FREEDOM RING. Any of you wake up yet to what is coming?

Umm...what?

1. Ben Franklin out of context? Can you please name the context he was speaking in when he stated what OFG said?
2. RSR has not said anything in this debate...
3. MLK quote?
4. Wake up to what?

Are you for or against the closing?

[Arctic Blast]

All I'm going to do is ask a simple question. Here's that Gates quote again...

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who favors closing the prison, has said that moving the detainees would require new legislation that allowed them to be “processed administratively.” What is needed, the midlevel official said, is a law allowing indefinite detention of “anyone who is a former enemy combatant.”

Now, let's say during a commando raid on Pakistan (which has been happening for months now), several USMC Force Recon troops are taken by the Pakistani military. Now, let's say a Pakistani government official says the EXACT SAME THING about what it plans to do with them. Is anyone here going to honestly say they'd be cool with that?

So, why the difference? Why is it okay for the 'beacon of democracy and freedom' to indefinitely hold people that it has no intention of trying, yet if ANOTHER country were to do the same, that would be wrong? It's these examples of hypocrisy that are hurting the US when it comes to it's international reputation, and therefore it's ability act as a middleman in any sort of negotiations worldwide.