Guantanamo to be closed??

[ohms_law]

I'll also point out that new law has been developed by the United States here, which is what GITMO is currently operating under. The problem there is that it is specifically US law. It only applies to terrorists ("enemy combatants") taken prisoner by American forces.

Additionally, that body of law includes legalizing the use of torture as defined by the United Nations. The definition of torture within the body of law that GITMO is currently operating under has been limited to (very) specific acts, which means that those acts not specifically specified by that law are not legally considered to be torture. This point is where most of the criticism that I am aware of is coming from. (note that this law has been implemented by the issuance of an Executive Order from the Bush administration. Specifically, former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issued the order after receiving approval to do so from President Bush)

All of the above being the case I'm not convinced that "closing Guantanamo" really means releasing all of the prisoners, let alone actually closing the base (which is never going to happen for reasons far outside of this debate). President-elect Obama has many smart people working for his administration, and I'm certain that most of them realize that it's probably a good idea to hold prisoners there. If there's a better physical location to hold them then I'm sure that information will be offered up, but I don't know of a better physical place to hold them. What I see the phrase "closing Guantanamo" as representing is a change to the body of law that the prison and the personnel running it are operating under. I know that recent press coverage of the President-elect's administration has been about how he wants to change many of the Executive Orders issued by the Bush administration, so I imagine that the "torture papers" which I talked about above are going to be included in that list of Orders in which to change.

One former criticism of the prison on Guantanamo was also the conditions of the prison itself. This has largely been addressed already by the Bush administration however. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Obama administration ends up spending more money in order to upgrade the facility further however.

Once the above items have been addressed then a case could be made that the "old Guantanamo" has been closed to be replaced by the new policy, law and facilities. All of this is purely speculative however since none of us know what the President-elect's administration is specifically planning on doing, that I know of.

I agree but there is something fundamentally different between a terrorist that attacks civilians and a combatant that fights against a foreign army within their own country. Using the word 'terrorist' for both frames the question in terms of the first - when, to my understanding, most of the people in Guantonomo fit in the second category. This doesn't resolve the problem - the question about what to do with combatants is far more complicated than what one does with a terrorist.

I understand what you (and FRENCHREDSOX) are saying here, but that doesn't change the fact that "Terrorist" has come to be the pronoun used amongst the general public to describe Al-Qaeda operatives and supporters. The war itself is named "War on Terrorism", implying that the other side is composed of Terrorists. For example, during the "War on Iraq" we were fighting Iraqis.
I don't disagree with you that the pronoun can easily be confusing since it is the same word as the noun describing a person or group who uses violence and cohesion for political purposes. For better or worse however, Terrorist (note the proper capitalization) is the pronoun given to those who belong to or support the group known as Al-Qaeda. I suppose something such as "Qaedist" might be more correct, but... try to pronounce that word.


I do disagree with this part of your statement though: "there is something fundamentally different between a terrorist that attacks civilians and a combatant that fights against a foreign army within their own country". Specifically, the second half of that sentence is not actually accurate, which goes directly to the question at hand. What country does a member of Al-Qaeda belong to, specifically? You need to define that in order to use the phrase "foreign army" and "within their own".
Afghanistan is decidedly not Al-Qaeda's State, and it never actually has been. It was the Taliban's prior to the invasion on 2001. Somalia has also harbored (and probably still does) members of Al-Qaeda, and members of the Qaeda organization are located within the borders of many other nations. That does not mean that the government has been given to Al-Qaeda though, or that the Nation in question supplies citizenship to members of the organization.
If the State to which a member of Al-Qaeda could be defined somehow, then that State is responsible for them. That would mean that they would then be subject to established international law, including the Geneva Conventions.

[OldFatGuy]

But not a government, right?

OK, I see where you're going with that. I find it a bit of a stretch though to compare the U.S. government's action's in WWII with a terrorist. In WWII, the U.S. governments purpose was to win a war, a war started by the Japanese. A terrorists sole purpose is to cause terror, by killing people just for the sake of killing them. The motives are different, although I would agree the ends do not justifiy the means.

While I also find it offensive for a government to intentionally target innocent civilians, I don't believe that the deaths of innocent civilians by the military is always the result of intentional targeting. The two atomic weapons dropped during WWII may be the exception in that it does seem civilian centers were intentionally targeted, but I don't find the U.S. military engaged in that sort of thing repeatedly. I'm not proud of what happened there, and am glad that no others have been used since. Continuing to argue over it seems pointless to me, since the U.S. seems to have learned and hasn't used them since.

I know my original statement is controversial, but there are a few things that are just so horrendous that IMO causes a human being that commits them to lose claim to basic human rights. Hitler is a good example. If caught alive, I would not have protested one bit had he been subjected to some of the very same abuses he placed on others. Yet I oppose the use of torture by our military and our CIA. Maybe I will grow my opinions on the subject, but right now, if one is found guilty of committing a terrorist act or aiding in the committing of a terrorist act, I just have no real feelings for their welfare AT ALL. I'm sorry, I just can't get there.

EDIT: You know, after thinking more about it, I guess my emotions do take over when it comes to terrorists. I find the act of terrorism so disgusting that emotionally I want to strike out or remove their status as a human being. But I'm also a staunch opponent of the death penalty here in the USA, and am so not because I find some murderers don't deserve to die, but because our system is imperfect and I don't want a single innocent to be executed. I guess the same could be said for a convicted terrorist. Perhaps some will be wrongfully convicted, and as long as that is possible, I suppose that even those convicted of terrorism deserve some basic human rights, such as being free from torture, etc. I dunno, it's a difficult issue. Sorry to ramble.

The only thing that matters is how their viewed by the law. Legally, everyone at GITMO has been captured from a battlefield (as far as any of us know).

This is simply not true, unless you buy into the argument the U.S. made before the SCOTUS that the entire world is the battlefield. Some of those folks were taken into custody in places like Yemen and in at least one case I believe Somalia.

I don't buy the argument that the entire world is the battlefield, but feel free to if you like. I'd bet you'd backtrack though if another country declared War on the Mafia, and declared the entire world was the battlefield, and put troops or police in New York City and any Americans captured by them were labelled "enemy combatants" in the War on the Mafia.

What you're advocating is extending the rights of Statehood to these organizations,

Please show me where I'm advocating that. I've never said nor suggested such a thing.

So they lose their human rights, but not their 4th amendment rights so we can look at their computer and prevent an attack??? I personally don't think you and I disagree on this issue as much as you may think.

Where we seem to disagree is when one becomes a terrorist. You seem willing to have that designation become official once any agency of the U.S. government says so. I, on the other hand, believe they only become a terrorist after it's been proven that they're a terrorist. Until then, they are a person accused of being a terrorist, with the rights and perks that come with being a person, including the right to habeas corpus.

[ohms_law]

This is simply not true, unless you buy into the argument the U.S. made before the SCOTUS that the entire world is the battlefield. Some of those folks were taken into custody in places like Yemen and in at least one case I believe Somalia.

I don't buy the argument that the entire world is the battlefield, but feel free to if you like. I'd bet you'd backtrack though if another country declared War on the Mafia, and declared the entire world was the battlefield, and put troops or police in New York City and any Americans captured by them were labelled "enemy combatants" in the War on the Mafia.

This sort of question is exactly what I've been getting at. Who, what, when, where, and why it is legal to enter territory in pursuit of personnel who belong to a criminal organization is exactly why new law (read: international treaties) is needed.

I would also like to point out that, unless and until a law is created to state otherwise, it is true that legally all of the prisoners at Guantanamo have been taken from the battlefield. I can say this because that is what the government of the United States says. That's simply the way that international law works.

Which is also my reply to:

Please show me where I'm advocating that. I've never said nor suggested such a thing.

What I was replying to with that statement is the idea that the prisoners on Guantanamo be treated as official Prisoners of War, which is what at least one other member here apparently advocates. There are many serious problems with that approach (not least of which is the analogy to the Mafia which you drew above), which is what I've been attempting to convey.

[dickay]

Where we seem to disagree is when one becomes a terrorist. You seem willing to have that designation become official once any agency of the U.S. government says so. I, on the other hand, believe they only become a terrorist after it's been proven that they're a terrorist. Until then, they are a person accused of being a terrorist, with the rights and perks that come with being a person, including the right to habeas corpus.

In general I think we agree however I go back to the 'due process' and loopholes. If we have indisputable evidence that someone is a violent terrorist, my personal opinion is they lose those human rights and constitutional protections. I"ll be damned if someone is going to get off with killing other civilians because they weren't read their rights, and I'll be damned if our govt. enacts laws again that prohibit our agencies from effectively communicating or looking at a computer of a known terrorist in custody which we believe has information that could prevent a 9/11 type incident.

[ohms_law]

I'd like to point out that the Constitution of the United States only governs citizens of the United States, and even then is only effective on territory that is governed by the US. It has no direct meaning to citizens of other nationalities. There are Nations to which some US Constitutional protections are extended to by treaty, but you must specify the nationality of the person in question, and that person is only governed by those treaties that may exist by following the travel rules (ie: they must have a validated visa).

In short, by saying that captive Terrorists should be subject to the US Constitution you're essentially stating that US Law is paramount to all other law in the world. I'm sure that there are many nations who would have issues with that!

[dickay]

I'd like to point out that the Constitution of the United States only governs citizens of the United States, and even then is only effective on territory that is governed by the US. It has no direct meaning to citizens of other nationalities. There are Nations to which some US Constitutional protections are extended to by treaty, but you must specify the nationality of the person in question, and that person is only governed by those treaties that may exist by following the travel rules (ie: they must have a validated visa).

In short, by saying that captive Terrorists should be subject to the US Constitution you're essentially stating that US Law is paramount to all other law in the world. I'm sure that there are many nations who would have issues with that!

Well, what they're saying is that if we don't extend the same human rights protections to these 'combatents' than we will be viewed as hypocrites. So despite them not 'technically' being covered under our constitution they should be granted those protections anyhow. In many ways I'll agree with that, but also believe we have to be careful not to go too far in extending our beliefs upon the international community and I do struggle with the fact that it's in our national security interests to handle these with the less stringent (in many cases) international law of which we should be fully adherent with.

[ohms_law]

Well, what they're saying is that if we don't extend the same human rights protections to these 'combatents' than we will be viewed as hypocrites. So despite them not 'technically' being covered under our constitution they should be granted those protections anyhow. In many ways I'll agree with that, but also believe we have to be careful not to go too far in extending our beliefs upon the international community and I do struggle with the fact that it's in our national security interests to handle these with the less stringent (in many cases) international law of which we should be fully adherent with.

What you're advocating here is the repeal of the executive order implementing the so called "torture papers" (if I'm remembering the name correctly). That's something that I agree with myself (and, I hope, what the President-elect really means when he talks about "closing Guantanamo"). Rumsfeld and Bush were flat out wrong in my opinion by defining torture the way that they have when it comes to "enemy combatants".

[dickay]

What you're advocating here is the repeal of the executive order implementing the so called "torture papers" (if I'm remembering the name correctly). That's something that I agree with myself (and, I hope, what the President-elect really means when he talks about "closing Guantanamo"). Rumsfeld and Bush were flat out wrong in my opinion by defining torture the way that they have when it comes to "enemy combatants".

I don't think there will be many here that would disagree. Waterboarding is torture. I admit I struggle with the idea that we don't torture someone we know for sure to be guilty of horrendous crime and has pertinent information which could save civilians or military personnel life or injury. However for the moment I lean against it though the water is murky IMO.

[Arctic Blast]

I don't think there will be many here that would disagree. Waterboarding is torture. I admit I struggle with the idea that we don't torture someone we know for sure to be guilty of horrendous crime and has pertinent information which could save civilians or military personnel life or injury. However for the moment I lean against it though the water is murky IMO.

Haven't most studies done indicate that torture is a pretty bad way to get real information from a suspect, though (I'm pretty sure they have)?

[ohms_law]

Yes.

In my opinion torture is never justified. If you "must use torture" then it's too late anyway. It's time to change your strategy.

[dickay]

Yes.

In my opinion torture is never justified. If you "must use torture" then it's too late anyway. It's time to change your strategy.

I haven't seen any studies saying torture doesn't work, in fact i've spoken to military personnel who have told me they are put through tests to see how long they could last without 'breaking' and in every case a person always has a breaking point. I'm not sure this to be fact, but it makes more sense to me than the other.

As I said i struggle with it. I simply ask myself one question........If someone kidnaps my son and I have in custody someone who I know has information that would save his life you best bet your life i'm going to do whatever necessary to get that information. It wouldn't be pretty in any way. I really question the honesty of someone who claims they wouldn't do the same. I really do. And if you can't say you won't torture in that situation than I don't see how you can say you won't torture period.

[HoustonGM]

As I said i struggle with it. I simply ask myself one question........If someone kidnaps my son and I have in custody someone who I know has information that would save his life you best bet your life i'm going to do whatever necessary to get that information. It wouldn't be pretty in any way. I really question the honesty of someone who claims they wouldn't do the same. I really do. And if you can't say you won't torture in that situation than I don't see how you can say you won't torture period.

I personally don't see that situation as applicable to whether or not government should sanction torture.

You're 100% correct that most, if not all, people would do whatever it took to get information out of somebody that they knew has information about the whereabouts of a kidnapped loved one. However, doing so IS committing a crime, whether or not most people, when pushed to that extreme, would do it.

As such, while I'd be lying to say I wouldn't do the same in the situation you described, I absolutely 100% would never support government or military sanctioned torture.

[dickay]

I personally don't see that situation as applicable to whether or not government should sanction torture.

You're 100% correct that most, if not all, people would do whatever it took to get information out of somebody that they knew has information about the whereabouts of a kidnapped loved one. However, doing so IS committing a crime, whether or not most people, when pushed to that extreme, would do it.

As such, while I'd be lying to say I wouldn't do the same in the situation you described, I absolutely 100% would never support government or military sanctioned torture.

So you're saying that only if it were your loved one on the end of the knife you would support torture of an individual we know to have information? Thats kind of hypocritical isn't it? Or are you saying that YOU would torture for your childs life but wouldn't in anyway want the govt. to torture someone you they know could save your childs life? I don't believe that.

If someone can't say they wouldn't want the govt. to torture someone to save their childs life, I don't see how that person can say the govt. shouldn't torture at all. Why is your childs life worth more than another American citizens?

[kenny1234]

As I said i struggle with it. I simply ask myself one question........If someone kidnaps my son and I have in custody someone who I know has information that would save his life you best bet your life i'm going to do whatever necessary to get that information. It wouldn't be pretty in any way. I really question the honesty of someone who claims they wouldn't do the same. I really do. And if you can't say you won't torture in that situation than I don't see how you can say you won't torture period.

This example, or an equivalent is always brought up in this situation. But there is never going to be a case in which the police or the military are 100% sure that the person they have in custody has the relevant information. So, if we allow torture, we are allowing torture of innocent people - and I think that is an unnecessary risk - especially given the evidence that torture is ineffective.

[dickay]

This example, or an equivalent is always brought up in this situation. But there is never going to be a case in which the police or the military are 100% sure that the person they have in custody has the relevant information. So, if we allow torture, we are allowing torture of innocent people - and I think that is an unnecessary risk - especially given the evidence that torture is ineffective.

I haven't seen evidence that its ineffective, and i'd percieve any evidence of such to be suspect. I just believe everyone has a breaking point. One could say that sponsoring torture as govt. policy is ineffective because of the reaction it garners on a world stage, but the act itself I believe would be effective in getting the information if the person knows it.

I don't think you can say that there is 'never' a case where it is 100% known that the person has relevant information though I would most certainly agree that in many/most cases where they are believe to have info that it isn't 100% certain.

As stated, I am on the fence as I see a greater harm to permitting torture on a global stage, but I am honest that I would feel hypocritical protesting torture knowing that if it were my son/daughter in harms way I'd have no problem if the Govt. wanted to torture to get relevant information. Cut their balls slowly, here's a dull knife. I can't tell another Mother or Father torture is wrong if it is there child in harms way......can't do it. And when it comes to an attack at the scale of 9/11 we're talking alot of Americans.

I just don't think its as easy an issue as some make of it.