Guantanamo

[Winstonm]

Despite President Bush's repeated assertions that Guantanamo detainees are enemy combatants "swept up by the U.S. military on the fields of battle," only about 5 percent turn out to fit that description. Among the other 90 percent are people like Badr Zaman Badr and his brother, the Pakistani satirists interviewed on the show, who wrote an Onion-like spoof of the wrong government official and found themselves turned over to U.S. custody for supposed ties to Al Qaeda. Bounty hunters in Afghanistan have turned in their neighbors under similarly suspicious circumstances. And then there are the soft-spoken Chinese dissidents, whose only political crime appears to have been opposing the Communist government of China.

 

The conservative U.S. attorney who finally won the release of the Chinese detainees has a theory that part of what's driving Administration secrecy at Guantanamo is sheer embarrassment at the nonthreatening nature of its detainees there. Not only are these people tortured, refused access to the evidence against them, and hidden from the world indefinitely at our government's whim, many of them also appear to be totally unconnected to terrorism or any plot against the United States or its citizens. Worse still, the fact that they are giving up so little information of any use has, perversely, prompted our government to use harsher and harsher interrogation techniques against its schlub captives.

 

[skjaeran]

5% fit the description.... the other 90%..... - what happened to the last 5% needed to add up to a full 100%? :)

[Gerben42]

Perhaps personal enemies of the Bush family?

 

It is my opinion that everyone deserves a fair trial and I think it is disgusting to have a prison camp where you put some people who in the eyes of the government don't deserve this as this group should be empty.

[mike777]

It is pretty sad if after 5 years or more according to Winston we seem to only have caught one or two or five or ten real enemy combatants. What in the world are we doing 365 days a year 24 hours a day and only catch a couple of real guys who tried to kill us according to Winston?

 

I do think we should shut the prison down. Whatever the upside, the downside it just too much for our country.

 

I just hope someone has an idea where to put the real enemy soldiers/killers we catch and do not kill. Of coure if you think this is a phony war with phony killers this is not a problem.

[Winstonm]

It is pretty sad if after 5 years or more according to Winston we seem to only have caught one or two or five or ten real enemy combatants. What in the world are we doing 365 days a year 24 hours a day and only catch a couple of real guys who tried to kill us according to Winston?

 

I do think we should shut the prison down. Whatever the upside, the downside it just too much for our country.

 

I just hope someone has an idea where to put the real enemy soldiers/killers we catch and do not kill.  Of coure if you think this is a phony war with phony killers this is not a problem.

From my readings this is indeed a sorry, sordid tale with "bounties" placed by the U.S. on the heads of "terrorists" so a lot of Tom, Dick's and Abdullah's sold out anyone they could for a few American dollars, while the poor souls who were "captured" were sent to Gitmo.

 

If this is war, we should treat the enemy according to the Geneva Convention agreements; if it is not war, that is what jails and the justice system were designed to handle - the accused.

 

By the way, I am not making the claims as I didn't write the quote - I simply posted it from another source.

 

Does anyone believe that torture is an acceptible practice for the U.S. because of the nature of the "enemy"?

 

I can understand how "foreign enemy combattants" could be held without the right of habeus corpus; however, if that is the case, the Geneva Convention should apply; to apply a third set of rules where neither American justice nor the Geneva Convention applies is more in keeping with my recollections of Stalin, Lenin, and Chairman Mao than U.S. history.

[mike777]

What does the Geneva Convention say we should do? I thought what it says is in debate on how it should be applied here? What do Both sides say?

 

If we should try them, how do we legally try them in another country? Which do you prefer and why?

[Al_U_Card]

I am not sure that a "Guantanamo" will replace "Gulag" in the lexicon but its presence outside of the US is a given. Dog's rarely ***** on their own property especially when it would be visible. For shame on the American people and their great and proud heritage. The Bush era will hopefully end soon and anything that follows will have to be better.

 

Listening to the neocon political pundits scrambling to "underplay" the latest sex scandal is as laughable as it is pathetic. What else do you expect from a structure that exalts in the exercise of covert power and authority? Dems are just as bad, but apparently, when in power, the need for uhhhh, well you know, is apparently more bald-faced.... :)

[Winstonm]

What does the Geneva Convention say we should do? I thought what it says is in debate on how it should be applied here? What do Both sides say?

 

If we should try them, how do we legally try them in another country? Which do you prefer and why?

I have no preference - other than to follow the law. I don't even mind the concept of the military tribunals except for one aspect - shouldn't there be some mechanism to determine whether the accused should be tried within the judicial system or the military system prior to permanent detention. Seems that way you would have a better method of separating the falsly accused or the less-than-imminently dangerous suspects from the true terrorist or terrist sympathizer.

[Winstonm]

Dems are just as bad

 

Dose "puclicans" want power to spread worlwide democracy with them as boss.

Dem Dems want power to "save the children" via big government.

 

Only difference is in the lies they tell. The common denominator is the quest for unlimited power.

[Al_U_Card]

Can you say, "Megalomania"?

[Winstonm]

5% fit the description.... the other 90%..... - what happened to the last 5% needed to add up to a full 100%? :)

Most likely tortured to death or died of neglect of medical care before anyone could determine guilt or innocence.

[mike777]

5% fit the description.... the other 90%..... - what happened to the last 5% needed to add up to a full 100%? :)

Most likely tortured to death or died of neglect of medical care before anyone could determine guilt or innocence.

Interesting Ex CIA Tenet says:

1) The methods used are not torture

2) The methds used work and are working and are very very important to our security.

 

Will be interesting to see what methods the Democrats want and what methods they want to stop or change to.

[Winstonm]

I guess it's O.K. to kill off, starve, or otherwise cause the death of 1000 or so innocents if we catch a bad guy or two - after all, they are just a bunch of brown or yellow people from over there who don't even speak our language and didn't have much of a life anyway. Hell, they're not even Christians. Their families are probably better off with the bastards gone. I have to agree with Tenet - let's just wipe out everyone who crticizes, dissents, or in any other way interferes with "our" goals for the world.

 

 

 

I wonder what the people with holes in their heads and feet from the application of electric drills to vulnerable body parts call it? It can't be torture so it must be aggressive investigational techniques. (Gee, Mike, you're from Chicago. You ought to know all about the kindness and good-heartedness of secret police.) I know when I see a little ugly brown guy with a beard and wearing a turban, lying in a pool of blood with bits of brain oozing from the holes in his head it fills me with patriotic zeal and I want to burst into a medley of The Star Spangled Banner, America the Beautiful, and God Bless America and salute the flag. I mean, who can really be against accidental killing or maiming, and tough investigational techniques if that saves the U.S. government its freedom to accidentally kill or maim, or use tough investigational techniques on its own citizens if need be?

 

I wonder who Tenet means when he says "our security" - his and who else? Where do we sign up? Is is the brown shirt today or is it the red? What channel am I supposed to watch?

 

Is there still a group discount for the Wall Street Journal editorial page?

[mike777]

Winston and Al I understand your concern for civil rights, but assuming we are at war what do you want to do with the guys and gals captured in other countries?

 

Let them go or put them some place and get information out of them?

You keep saying what we are doing is so very very wrong but what would you do?

Nothing, as in the huge murder case in Canada? Arrest people for a few days or weeks and then send them home or what?

 

What are you doing with the captured?

 

Sending all the Usa and Canada/British armies home in the entire middle east and all the captured back to where? Sell them Blue jeans and Jazz and hope they love us?

 

All the top leaders keep saying we are not doing torture, if you disagree, ok....what can we do? Your plan seems close to being pacifists. The experts in CIA, FBI and Defense and White House say we are doing our best with the captured and saving lives. If you have a better plan ok, what is it?

 

I agree to close Cuba prison is best but I have no idea what to do with the present captured or future and I do believe any other prison we send them to will be much much worse.....See any USA prison. Rape at threat of knife point goes on every single day, in fact gang rape occurs often, male or female prisons.

 

Outside of USA torture, death and rape more likely in prison.

 

Too just bash Bush or wring your hands is worthless.

[Gerben42]

Interesting Ex CIA Tenet says:

1) The methods used are not torture

2) The methds used work and are working and are very very important to our security.

 

To #1: I guess it's only torture if it is done to good guys.

To #2: That is not an excuse even if it were true.

[Winstonm]

Too just bash Bush or wring your hands is worthless.

 

Mike, my concerns are not nearly so specific as yours. I agree with your statement above.

 

My concerns revolve around two things: the executive's increasing quest for near unlimited powers and Congress's willingness to grant it - and that includes what is happening at Gitmo.

 

The Supreme Court originally ruled that the president did not have the authority to hold enemy combattants, that Congress had to pass legislation authorizing it, so the then-Republican-controlled Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, granting virtual dictatorial powers to the President to detain and hold enemy combattants without rights.

 

If there is indeed a war, what is the purpose for fighting if we are eliminating the very rights for which we fight? To ensure our safety, I guess they could lock us up in a 4x4 room with barred doors and windows, put a soldier outside the door 24 hours a day in order to protect us from terrorist attack, and shoot us for our own safety if we tried to leave the safe, secure zone I really don't need big brother to grant me that much security.

 

You seem to say that the demise of civil rights and the prisoners at Guantanamo are unrelated and need two cures - all I am saying is that they are one and the same thing. If you cure the civil rights elimination quandry, you cure the problem of Gitmo.

 

Blogs, forums, and internet discussions have become this century's op/ed pages, and all I am doing is writing letters to the editor - is that hand wringing or is that excersising personal responsibility to dissent and inform?

[mike777]

1) I agree close Gitmo, now.

2) I agree, I want limited government and not Big Brother 1984 or a fascist ruling government.

 

 

So what Laws on prisoners do you want and what do you want done with them? Do you want government to do anything proactive to stop those who want to harm your family, if so what?

 

This is not directed at you or any forum members but the constant sarcasm aimed at the leaders in government is not a plan of action.

 

Even listening to the Dems on this pullout issue is confusing, pull out who, out of what, when and for how long?

 

Anyway I agree close Gitmo now, but I have no idea what to do with the prisoners or future ones now. Any prison we sent them to will make Gitmo look like summer camp in the Hamptons.

[mike777]

Interesting Ex CIA Tenet says:

1) The methods used are not torture

2) The methds used work and are working and are very very important to our security.

 

To #1: I guess it's only torture if it is done to good guys.

To #2: That is not an excuse even if it were true.

Ok....what would you do with the prisoners and where would you put them?

How would you get information out of them and by what means? Do you not try and get any information/ useful intelligience out of people? If so how?

 

Just tell us what is allowed and Kosher.

 

If you think we should not have any prisoners, ok, what do we do with the captured?

 

Irony is not a plan of action. :)

[pbleighton]

Ok....what would you do with the prisoners and where would you put them?

How would you get information out of them and by what means? Do you not try and get any information/ useful intelligience out of people? If so how?

 

Just tell us what is allowed and Kosher.

 

If you think we should not have any prisoners, ok, what do we do with the captured?

 

We have had them in custody for years. We have intensively questioned and investigated them, and in many cases tortured them. We should bring them to trial, or release them.

 

Keeping people imprisoned without a trial indefinitely is fascist. Ample historical precedent doesn't change this one bit. If they are guilty, try them.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmnn what about due process? Human rights? Innocent until proved guilty?

Where are your country's values? They have been flushed down the crapper by the overlords in power. Yours will be following right behind.....now THAT is IRONY...

[Gerben42]

Ok....what would you do with the prisoners and where would you put them?

How would you get information out of them and by what means? Do you not try and get any information/ useful intelligience out of people? If so how?

 

Just tell us what is allowed and Kosher.

 

If you think we should not have any prisoners, ok, what do we do with the captured?

 

Irony is not a plan of action. 

 

Luckily all the hard work has been done already for us, for example the Geneva convention.

 

(Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."

 

(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."

 

If we don't adhere to this we are just as bad as they are. And the "It is not in the US so it does not fall under any laws so we can do with our prisoners whatever we like" attitude is unacceptable.

[mike777]

Ok....what would you do with the prisoners and where would you put them?

How would you get information out of them and by what means? Do you not try and get any information/ useful intelligience out of people? If so how?

 

Just tell us what is allowed and Kosher.

 

If you think we should not have any prisoners, ok, what do we do with the captured?

 

We have had them in custody for years. We have intensively questioned and investigated them, and in many cases tortured them. We should bring them to trial, or release them.

 

Keeping people imprisoned without a trial indefinitely is fascist. Ample historical precedent doesn't change this one bit. If they are guilty, try them.

 

Peter

So any prisoner we have anywhere we put on trial. How and after how long? We are not only talking Gitmo here.

[mike777]

Ok....what would you do with the prisoners and where would you put them?

How would you get information out of them and by what means? Do you not try and get any information/ useful intelligience out of people? If so how?

 

Just tell us what is allowed and Kosher.

 

If you think we should not have any prisoners, ok, what do we do with the captured?

 

Irony is not a plan of action. 

 

Luckily all the hard work has been done already for us, for example the Geneva convention.

 

(Article 13): "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated."

 

(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."

 

If we don't adhere to this we are just as bad as they are. And the "It is not in the US so it does not fall under any laws so we can do with our prisoners whatever we like" attitude is unacceptable.

You seem to miss the point, the Geneva Convention is hotly debated on what it means and to whom? It is far from clear who this applies to and in any event what do you want to do with the prisoners. Your quotes are far from specific. In fact they are so vague you could drive a truck through them. :)

 

I do not disagree we should use the G/c just tell us how.

 

Example who and how can we get information out of prisoners, you keep saying what we cannot do,what can we do? What are the limits?

[mike777]

Hmmmnn what about due process?  Human rights?  Innocent until proved guilty?

Where are your country's values?  They have been flushed down the crapper by the overlords in power.  Yours will be following right behind.....now THAT is IRONY...

Again what do you want us to do? These comments are so vague and mean anything.

 

If we capture anyone we fly them to USA and put them on trial, is that what you suggest with full citizen rights?

[pbleighton]

So any prisoner we have anywhere we put on trial. How and after how long? We are not only talking Gitmo here.

 

U.S. citizens should be tried in a normal court, unless they are members of the military, in which case they may be tried in a military court. For foreigners who are accused of being terrorists, I am flexible as to the *how*, as long as they receive a fair trial, with full access to counsel. For foreigners who are in an army of a country we are at (decalred) war with, and who are taken as prisoners of war, they should be treated as prisoners of war (the Bush administration doesn't view any of the Gitmo prisoners this way).

 

All prisoners should receive a *speedy trial*. This can vary (as it does in normal criminal cases), but certainly the government should be able to present a case within a year, maybe two at the outside.

 

Mike, I really don't think that this is complicated. We live in a dangerous world, but at the same time we have to behave decently (and don't invade countries which haven't attacked us, either...). This may occasionally cause us to incur greater risks than if we use imperialist/fascist tactics, though I'm quite skeptical of these claims, but think of the consequences:

 

By our actions over the last four years, we have greatly increased Muslim hostility towards us, and thus increased the threat of terrorism. As to the political and cultural changes which need to occur in the Muslim world, our moral credibility in the world is now zero. The next President will start off in a very weak position, thanks to the idiocy and immorality of the Bush administration

 

Peter