Guantanamo Redux

[Carpe Coma]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...is-prison.html

Well, that's one way to close Guantanamo. Doesn't really address the core problem however...

I knew the second that he made the promise to close Guantanamo immediately, that he bit off a bigger piece than he realized. I bet the last of the gitmo detainees won't be processed one way or another by the time election season rolls around again. Anyone else want in on the pool?

[DuncanONeil]

The bold statement "close GTMO in one year" Can never happen.
Besides that I never could understand the problem with using a portion of GTMO as a detention facility for terrosists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...is-prison.html

Well, that's one way to close Guantanamo. Doesn't really address the core problem however...

I knew the second that he made the promise to close Guantanamo immediately, that he bit off a bigger piece than he realized. I bet the last of the gitmo detainees won't be processed one way or another by the time election season rolls around again. Anyone else want in on the pool?

[Lion]

The bold statement "close GTMO in one year" Can never happen.
Besides that I never could understand the problem with using a portion of GTMO as a detention facility for terrosists.

Define a terrorist. Some of the inmates were released after years of inprisonment because nothing was ever found. Years of their life just gone needlessly.

An inmate in there was captured around his 16th birthday. A few weeks would have classified him as a child soldier, and he should have gotten help. Instead he's stuck in there with no trial, for doing something he was brainwashed since he was young.

I have no doubt that there are evil people in there, but Gitmo represents everything that I believe America is against. Free speech, right to a fair and speedy trial, compassion...those are values that I believed Americans were most proud of. And absent in an American facility.

Gitmo should never have opened in the first place. As a foreigner, I respected the USA before. Before Gitmo, before Iraq, before the PATRIOT Act, before the whole Obama is a Muslim BS.

I hope Americans don't think that being tough doesn't earn them respect in the world.

[DuncanONeil]

Why should combatants captured in this war be treated different than those captured in any other war? These people were treated as well as any other war prisoners in US custody. They were even treated much the same as they would have been if the were actually members of a foreign nations army.
Many of the rights that accrue to our citizens do not so accrue to those that take arms against us. If we catch someone that has killed a US national in our embassy the same as the bank robber in Kansas City?
More over are those that actively seek to harm the country through their actions to be granted the same rights as a citizen of the US?

Oh the definition, Terrorist; a person that engages in the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
On the other hand; the "unlawful combatant" does not have the "rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." he does, however, retain the right "to be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."

Define a terrorist. Some of the inmates were released after years of inprisonment because nothing was ever found. Years of their life just gone needlessly.

An inmate in there was captured around his 16th birthday. A few weeks would have classified him as a child soldier, and he should have gotten help. Instead he's stuck in there with no trial, for doing something he was brainwashed since he was young.

I have no doubt that there are evil people in there, but Gitmo represents everything that I believe America is against. Free speech, right to a fair and speedy trial, compassion...those are values that I believed Americans were most proud of. And absent in an American facility.

Gitmo should never have opened in the first place. As a foreigner, I respected the USA before. Before Gitmo, before Iraq, before the PATRIOT Act, before the whole Obama is a Muslim BS.

I hope Americans don't think that being tough doesn't earn them respect in the world.

[VaAugusta]

These people were treated as well as any other war prisoners in US custody. They were even treated much the same as they...[/B][/COLOR]

Fortunately, Duncan has been to GTMO and can tell us how the people are/were treated.

No, but seriously people on the outside don't know what is going on in there. I'm sure Obama's campaign pledges were made prior to him having insight into the workings of the facility, and maybe after finding out information about it has now changed his opinion since he is more informed.. or should I say informed at all, unlike the people posting in this thread.

[DuncanONeil]

I may not have personally been there but my wife was. And I have seen what was built to care for the prisoners. As well as reports of the persons careing for them.

Don't like being inferred a liar.

Fortunately, Duncan has been to GTMO and can tell us how the people are/were treated.

No, but seriously people on the outside don't know what is going on in there. I'm sure Obama's campaign pledges were made prior to him having insight into the workings of the facility, and maybe after finding out information about it has now changed his opinion since he is more informed.. or should I say informed at all, unlike the people posting in this thread.

[Lion]

My point is that you've decided that they are a terrorist without a trial. You've inferred that they are guilty. I don't care if the prisons have TVs and Playstations, decent treatment of the inmates does not excuse the fact that there are other issues that are being ignored. I care about the ones who are innocent, but in there for years with no trial. I care about the boy who was captured, and put in jail for years, and again, no trial.

[DuncanONeil]

The individuals that are engaging in combat action with the military forces of nation-states currently are not members of the armed force of any nation.
Being captured on the field of combat results in detention. Said detention, during the time of conflict, does not grant anyone a trial. Such individuals are typically detained until hostilities cease.
As such releasing anyone before cessation of hostilities is actuially quite compassionate. That compassion has revealed that in many cases it was misplaced as the very same individuals were again caught engaged in combat action against uniformed personnel.
I make no protestations as to guilt or not, that is not my purview. But if they are engaged in combat action against troops detention is a valid response.
You dismiss humane treatment as immaterial, yet the treatment received by inmates of the detention facility is far better than that a prisoner can expect in any CONUS prison. Your fixation on the efficacy a trial to accord proof is sorely misplaced. The US justice system is not balanced, nor is it concerned with justice.

My point is that you've decided that they are a terrorist without a trial. You've inferred that they are guilty. I don't care if the prisons have TVs and Playstations, decent treatment of the inmates does not excuse the fact that there are other issues that are being ignored. I care about the ones who are innocent, but in there for years with no trial. I care about the boy who was captured, and put in jail for years, and again, no trial.

[Lion]

How long does it take to determine that a boy who just turned 16 was the result of brain washing?

4+ years? and counting. You are correct, I am thinking a lot about their trial process because a few of them are in there for no good reason. They are there because of a mistake made along the way, and I can understand that. What I don't understand is people then claiming that they were all captured under combat with absolute certainty, then doing away with any sort of trial process that is reasonably quick.

THere are some Uighur Muslim inmates right now, that are found innocent. As in, they were not enemy combatants, they were somehow detained and lost years of their lives for no reason other then the inefficiency of the trial process, and the belief of people that all inmates are enemy combatants without any sort of proof. That's what the trial process is for, to determine guilt based on the evidence. And that's why I'm relentless on my belief that it the lack of any speedy trial is a stain on America's reputation. (well, most of this decade has been bad for America's reputation...)

[DuncanONeil]

If no one can with certainty say they are terrorists, then no one can with certainty say they are not. The certainty regarding involved in combat is directly related to where taken into custody!

Again with the, essentially demand, mantra of speedy trial, let me ask you this. Where was the demand for a speedy trial for those taken into custody on the battlefields of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al? This situation is no different than any of those. These people were not engaged in "criminal" activity but war-like actions.

You like to trot out the trial "card" merely because it makes the people you object to look bad. But if they were as bad as you like to claim not one single person captured would have yet been released. Such releases have occurred, you admit that. Yet in spite of acting in a rationale and humane manner, many of those released have been recaptured!

How long does it take to determine that a boy who just turned 16 was the result of brain washing?

4+ years? and counting. You are correct, I am thinking a lot about their trial process because a few of them are in there for no good reason. They are there because of a mistake made along the way, and I can understand that. What I don't understand is people then claiming that they were all captured under combat with absolute certainty, then doing away with any sort of trial process that is reasonably quick.

THere are some Uighur Muslim inmates right now, that are found innocent. As in, they were not enemy combatants, they were somehow detained and lost years of their lives for no reason other then the inefficiency of the trial process, and the belief of people that all inmates are enemy combatants without any sort of proof. That's what the trial process is for, to determine guilt based on the evidence. And that's why I'm relentless on my belief that it the lack of any speedy trial is a stain on America's reputation. (well, most of this decade has been bad for America's reputation...)

[DuncanONeil]

If no one can with certainty say they are terrorists, then no one can with certainty say they are not. The certainty regarding involved in combat is directly related to where taken into custody!

Again with the, essentially demand, mantra of speedy trial, let me ask you this. Where was the demand for a speedy trial for those taken into custody on the battlefields of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, et al? This situation is no different than any of those. These people were not engaged in "criminal" activity but war-like actions.

You like to trot out the trial "card" merely because it makes the people you object to look bad. But if they were as bad as you like to claim not one single person captured would have yet been released. Such releases have occurred, you admit that. Yet in spite of acting in a rationale and humane manner, many of those released have been recaptured!

How long does it take to determine that a boy who just turned 16 was the result of brain washing?

4+ years? and counting. You are correct, I am thinking a lot about their trial process because a few of them are in there for no good reason. They are there because of a mistake made along the way, and I can understand that. What I don't understand is people then claiming that they were all captured under combat with absolute certainty, then doing away with any sort of trial process that is reasonably quick.

THere are some Uighur Muslim inmates right now, that are found innocent. As in, they were not enemy combatants, they were somehow detained and lost years of their lives for no reason other then the inefficiency of the trial process, and the belief of people that all inmates are enemy combatants without any sort of proof. That's what the trial process is for, to determine guilt based on the evidence. And that's why I'm relentless on my belief that it the lack of any speedy trial is a stain on America's reputation. (well, most of this decade has been bad for America's reputation...)

[Bren122]

Can't very well send Uighars training as terrorists home- that would be China where, if they are really lucky, they will get a bullet in the back of the head when they step off the plane. Nobody else wants them for fear of annoying China; just as the US can't release them into the general population for much the same reason.

The problem with Gitmo is that the detainees were held as non-national combatants so that they could be put on trial. Had they been held as POWs then there would have only been a requirement for Red Cross Inspections. Once the lawyers got hold of the evidence for the trials it proved insufficient for anything more than a prima facie case in most instances. To simplify- the US officials thought it sufficient that if it looks like a terrorist and acts like a terrorist then it must be a terrorist; unfortunately people asked them to prove it. That is the hard part; there is a big difference between Not Guilty and Innocent. As Duncan pointed out, a number of released detainees have been recaptured in arms against Western forces. I would hasten to point out that I am not advocating a change in evidentiary standards in these cases- the US made a play for propaganda purposes (show trials) and it bit them in the arse.

The other problem, of course, was a definition of torture. We are told that waterboarding was the 'worst' device used at Gitmo- if so, then Australian SAS endure harsher techniques in their training. For legal purposes any information gathered is inadmissable as it is made under duress, but was it unethical to use these techniques to gather information to prevent another 9-11 or Bali Bomb? Would standard police techniques have worked? Ultimately it becomes a question of life or human rights.

A 16 year old is not a child soldier. There is no legal definition for a child soldier in international law; American federal law allows for the trial of 12years (from memory) and up on adult charges; Cambodia uses 14 years as its standard- Uganda 15 years (these are the two nations with recent legal history of prosecutions involving child soldiers).

As for the decade being bad for America's reputation it depends on how you want to look at it. If you are a rabid anti-American then obviously nothing is going to change your mind. But consider that opposition to Bush was allowed to speak out freely; in the end it resulted in a peaceful change of government. I would have thought that that was a tribute to the American system and people and a positive example for the world.

[steelish]

The other problem, of course, was a definition of torture. We are told that waterboarding was the 'worst' device used at Gitmo- if so, then Australian SAS endure harsher techniques in their training.

American soldiers also use that traIning technique, among others

[denuseri]

Yes Americans do use it for training....trainning for resistance when captured and tortured.

As for humane treatment of prisoners or other people detained during time of war. Alltough our own apparent bad behavior in this department may have a lot of people peeved off (and the torture in my oppinion is unexcusable) its an unrealistic expectation on the part of the general public that we give "trials" and or just let them go. Over the past several decades we havent done any big time long term wars so I think we the general public (with a little help from the liberally biased media) clearly are certianly out of touch with the idea of keeping captured and suspected combatants out of the picture.

But the precedent is still there and I certianly havent heard any better solutions proffered up that still give us any security, just letting them all go doesnt cut the mustard. Historically we detained our own Italian, Japanese and German citizens during world war 2. In the case of the Germans it went on allmost a year after the war was over.

One thing however is for certian, the treatment we give them is by far better than anthing they met out to us when we get captured or abducted by them. I havent seen any beheadings on our side of this of late have you?

[DuncanONeil]

There wer about 500 camps with german detainees inside the US!!
The issue of "torture" is one solely of definition. Very few of us will ever agree on a complete definition.

Yes Americans do use it for training....trainning for resistance when captured and tortured.

As for humane treatment of prisoners or other people detained during time of war. Alltough our own apparent bad behavior in this department may have a lot of people peeved off (and the torture in my oppinion is unexcusable) its an unrealistic expectation on the part of the general public that we give "trials" and or just let them go. Over the past several decades we havent done any big time long term wars so I think we the general public (with a little help from the liberally biased media) clearly are certianly out of touch with the idea of keeping captured and suspected combatants out of the picture.

But the precedent is still there and I certianly havent heard any better solutions proffered up that still give us any security, just letting them all go doesnt cut the mustard. Historically we detained our own Italian, Japanese and German citizens during world war 2. In the case of the Germans it went on allmost a year after the war was over.

One thing however is for certian, the treatment we give them is by far better than anthing they met out to us when we get captured or abducted by them. I havent seen any beheadings on our side of this of late have you?

[steelish]

Yes Americans do use it for training....trainning for resistance when captured and tortured.

As for humane treatment of prisoners or other people detained during time of war. Alltough our own apparent bad behavior in this department may have a lot of people peeved off (and the torture in my oppinion is unexcusable) its an unrealistic expectation on the part of the general public that we give "trials" and or just let them go. Over the past several decades we havent done any big time long term wars so I think we the general public (with a little help from the liberally biased media) clearly are certianly out of touch with the idea of keeping captured and suspected combatants out of the picture.

But the precedent is still there and I certianly havent heard any better solutions proffered up that still give us any security, just letting them all go doesnt cut the mustard. Historically we detained our own Italian, Japanese and German citizens during world war 2. In the case of the Germans it went on allmost a year after the war was over.

One thing however is for certian, the treatment we give them is by far better than anthing they met out to us when we get captured or abducted by them. I havent seen any beheadings on our side of this of late have you?

How true. And think, "inhumane" treatment is defined differently for each individual. Many US prisoners have sued over "inhumane" treatment and "personal rights" issues and been granted everything from free education and cable television, to gourmet meals and private cells. Besides, the prisoners in gtmo KNOW of the U.S. "humane" treatments and work the system accordingly. They view it (some of them) as a weakness and exploit it to suit their purposes.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually the detainees in GTMO, even without some of the amenities accorded US prisoners, have a more humane detention as they do not have to worry about gangs in the cells!

The only reasonable prisoner dention system in the US is the one run by Sheriff Arpaio!

How true. And think, "inhumane" treatment is defined differently for each individual. Many US prisoners have sued over "inhumane" treatment and "personal rights" issues and been granted everything from free education and cable television, to gourmet meals and private cells. Besides, the prisoners in gtmo KNOW of the U.S. "humane" treatments and work the system accordingly. They view it (some of them) as a weakness and exploit it to suit their purposes.

[steelish]

Actually the detainees in GTMO, even without some of the amenities accorded US prisoners, have a more humane detention as they do not have to worry about gangs in the cells!

The only reasonable prisoner dention system in the US is the one run by Sheriff Arpaio!

Amen to that! I applaud him!!!

[denuseri]

The definetion of torture that I am speaking of specifically is the one used by resistance training instructors in the airforce for teaching american service members in the eventuality of their capture, which btw 'water boarding" falls into.

[steelish]

The definetion of torture that I am speaking of specifically is the one used by resistance training instructors in the airforce for teaching american service members in the eventuality of their capture, which btw 'water boarding" falls into.

Yes, I am aware of that. One of my nephews joined the Air Force and went through such training.

[DuncanONeil]

The definetion of torture that I am speaking of specifically is the one used by resistance training instructors in the airforce for teaching american service members in the eventuality of their capture, which btw 'water boarding" falls into.

Does that mean that being made to stand on a box, wearing a sack and a hood is torture?

BTW when troops are trained in E & E, resisting interrogation is part of that. To teach resistance it is than necessary to teach various techniques in use. Does not make all of those techniques torture.
This statement does not mean I condone torture, just that I find much of what people have been claiming as torture to not be. Were that the xcase every police department engages in such activity daily.

[denuseri]

Does that mean that being made to stand on a box, wearing a sack and a hood is torture?

If its for any extended period of time in which one would be cuased physical pain from it...YES. Just like half a dozen other "torture" positions used, such as strabo while kneeling etc etc.

BTW when troops are trained in E & E, resisting interrogation is part of that. To teach resistance it is than necessary to teach various techniques in use. Does not make all of those techniques torture.

Actually despite the methods in resitance training being called simulated, they are in fact real torture techniques being employed. The difference is that they are considerd to be "simulated situations" becuase they do them in an academic setting under strict monitoring and halt everything at the first signs of any real distress with "administrative time outs" and "safe words" for all the participants. Its all very SSC & RACK just like bdsm is supposed to be in a way.

If however such methods were employed by our police they would be subject to censure or legal aprobation.

This statement does not mean I condone torture, just that I find much of what people have been claiming as torture to not be. Were that the xcase every police department engages in such activity daily.

Calling whats been done by us at gitmo and otherplaces "agressive interogation" is just window dressing for what it really is, by our own military's definition...plain and simple...torture.

[DuncanONeil]

I am sorry but the police engage, on an almost daily basis, many of the things that are considered "torture" if engaged in by either the intelligence community or the military. Sleep deprivation and psychological stressors to name two.

It seems that you have pre-concluded that "torture" was a SOP and no other information is due any consideration.

Calling whats been done by us at gitmo and otherplaces "agressive interogation" is just window dressing for what it really is, by our own military's definition...plain and simple...torture.

[mkemse]

Another Part of closing Gitmo is 2 fold which he might not have realized, if the Goverment decides to buy the Prisobn in Illinois, and they do have to approve the money for it plus the upgrades which I might add it where I am from, Congress 1st has to approve the money to buy, which alone could take months, then 2nd and probably most important they said it could take up to 1 year to upgrade to Prison, to Max Security, it is openend and functining now, but it is NOT a Max SEcurity Prison which they need to make it
So my best guess is completely closing Gitmo will take much more time the annoucement between Congress approving the Purchase then adding in the time and extra Money to upgrade it it, will take they say possible another year, they have 100 inmate there now but it is not secure enough right now to hold those Combatents.
They plan to make it more secure then Supermax is, they claim once all is done that the Prison will be the Most Secure Prison on Earth
Amazingly the people that live in the Twon were it it located are not too terribly opposed to useing it for this, 60% or so agree, plus it will give the area badly needed jobs

[Wiscoman]

Another Part of closing Gitmo is 2 fold which he might not have realized, if the Goverment decides to buy the Prisobn in Illinois, and they do have to approve the money for it plus the upgrades which I might add it where I am from, Congress 1st has to approve the money to buy, which alone could take months, then 2nd and probably most important they said it could take up to 1 year to upgrade to Prison, to Max Security, it is openend and functining now, but it is NOT a Max SEcurity Prison which they need to make it

I'm sorry, but Gitmo's just a home kennel kit the Pentagon bought from Home Depot. I think any town's drunk tank would be more secure.

[Thorne]

I'm sorry, but Gitmo's just a home kennel kit the Pentagon bought from Home Depot. I think any town's drunk tank would be more secure.

Maybe, if it was surrounded by Marines! And even if you get past them, then what? Cuba? They've been known to be less tolerant of terrorists than us!

[Wiscoman]

Maybe, if it was surrounded by Marines! And even if you get past them, then what? Cuba? They've been known to be less tolerant of terrorists than us!

So it's your opinion that Cuban police do a better job than American police?

Why are you dissing the USA?

[Thorne]

So it's your opinion that Cuban police do a better job than American police?
Why are you dissing the USA?

No, that's not my point. Cuba is a much more restrictive country than the US. Even if the prisoners were to escape, where would they go? It's an island, albeit a large one, and not as easy to escape from as, say, crossing into Mexico, where they could establish contact with other terrorist groups. Plus, Cuba's security forces are much more intrusive and its society much more exclusive, making it more difficult for strangers to hide.

I'm not dissing the USA, by any means. It's just that, because of the freedoms we have here, it's easier for a criminal, once he's escaped, to disappear in plain sight.

[DuncanONeil]

So it's your opinion that Cuban police do a better job than American police?

Why are you dissing the USA?

No! What they said was that Cuba, as a nation, is less tolerant, that the US is these days!

[DuncanONeil]

I'm sorry, but Gitmo's just a home kennel kit the Pentagon bought from Home Depot. I think any town's drunk tank would be more secure.

You have no clue what the detention facilities are like in GTMO. You obviously have listened only to the voices that want it closed, no matter the consequences
File:Guantanamo Bay David Hicks Cell, Reading Room Inset.jpg
Does this look like a dog kennel to anyone?
If that is not enough check out;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...delta-pics.htm