US wants others to deal with its problems

[Lord of the Abyss]

Didn't anyone associated with the previous administration consider the ramifications before they stuck people in Gitmo and began waterboarding them in "secret C.I.A. prisons"? Was everyone seriously so fucking obsessed with asinine Jack Bauer scenarios that no-one stopped to think about how the hell they'd ever get these people properly charged and convicted even before a military tribunal?

I doubt that they ever expected to have to deal with anything like that; either the prisoners would be kept indefinitely without trial, or quietly "disappeared". I don't think they ever expected anyone to know, much less care about what was going on. Then evidence of torture got leaked, the "permanent Republican majority" turned out to be a fantasy, and so on.

[Edi]

Didn't anyone associated with the previous administration consider the ramifications before they stuck people in Gitmo and began waterboarding them in "secret C.I.A. prisons"?

I have yet to see evidence at all that there was any kind of thinking involved with the actions of the previous administration regarding this issue unless it was to come up with ways and reasons to engage in torture.

[Broomstick]

Didn't anyone associated with the previous administration consider the ramifications before they stuck people in Gitmo and began waterboarding them in "secret C.I.A. prisons"?

Of course not!

Was everyone seriously so fucking obsessed with asinine Jack Bauer scenarios that no-one stopped to think about how the hell they'd ever get these people properly charged and convicted even before a military tribunal?

Yep, sounds likely to me from the "bring it on!" crowd

You fucked up, now you fix it--the time where the US could rely on its diplomatic credit to get other people to help out is long gone.

Frankly, I don't think there IS a fix for this mess.

One on-going problem is that if these people didn't hate the US before they sure as hell have a reason to now - Gitmo may well have manufactured terrorists. If they are released to the US it is likely that the price will be paid in innocent blood - unless, of course, you are of the school of thought that all Americans are equally culpable for this and deserve to die. Pretty harsh stuff all around, however you look at it. If you force the US to release them on US soil there is a very high probability that people will die (either the former prisoners attempt a terrorist act in revenge, or local Americans kill them in perceived self-defense), and it is doubtful that it is ethically OK to release them anywhere else.

But a bunch of you have STILL not answered the question: IF we let these guys out, let's even say we let them out in the US, if they don't want to stay in the US (and who could blame them) WHERE in the world should they go? And do other governments have any sort of moral obligation to grant them asylum if the prisoners themselves ask to go somewhere else than America? Or should they simply be imprisoned for life within US territory because somehow that will make it all better?

[Stark]

If you can point to the law that would bar Canada from accepting these people, please do. All the article gives is some vague mention of security issues, which is not much to go on but suggests to me that the Conservative government views these people as terrorists despite lack of convictions and is using some fear mongering to justify a guilty-until-proven-innocent type of policy.

That or Harper is being China's bitch.

Whut? They don't want to take responsibility and set a precedent to no real benefit and you don't thnk that's 'realistic' and that they must view them as terrorists? Are you just being obtuse? Their guilt/innocence is quite possibly irrelevant to other countries' willingness to take them on in the current situation.

If you think it's bizarre or some conspiracy that Canada doesn't want to jump right into this can of worms, you're strange.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, it occurs to me that it's a real shame there isn't some tiny fuck-head Islamic country run by the local version of the Taleban which for whatever reason decided funding terrorism was stupid and has hence never been invaded that would love to have more conservative Muslims in it. Unfortunately, basically every Muslim country in the world does in fact subscribe to more moderate versions of Islam than these people do, and thus doesn't want them.

When it comes down to it I think the best solution is to drop them in the hills of Afghanistan--they'll either end up living in the local villages, or the locals will kill them, or they're rejoin the Taleban/al-Qaeda and get machine-gunned by our guys sooner or later. The enemy already has a basically unlimited amount of manpower in the region, so whereas they could kill hundreds of Americans if released in America, they're going to maybe wound a couple professional soldiers before they get splattered to pieces if they're in A-stan. Thus, if it is unethical for us to keep them imprisoned, nobody else will take them, and it's unsafe for us to release them in the United States, the least-bad option would just seem to be the option of dropping them on a hillside in A-stan with a water bottle, backpack full of rations, and a hearty "Tally ho! Remember to be sporting, old chap" and just wait for them to come into the sights of an M-2 gunner whilst holding AKs.

[Axis Kast]

Was everyone seriously so fucking obsessed with asinine Jack Bauer scenarios that no-one stopped to think about how the hell they'd ever get these people properly charged and convicted even before a military tribunal?

You ought to ask yourself about how one is supposed to manage such a legal process. Do soldiers file specific reports regarding the exacting conditions under which each individual prisoner was taken, and what led them to believe that those detainees were dangerous?

One on-going problem is that if these people didn't hate the US before they sure as hell have a reason to now - Gitmo may well have manufactured terrorists. If they are released to the US it is likely that the price will be paid in innocent blood - unless, of course, you are of the school of thought that all Americans are equally culpable for this and deserve to die. Pretty harsh stuff all around, however you look at it. If you force the US to release them on US soil there is a very high probability that people will die (either the former prisoners attempt a terrorist act in revenge, or local Americans kill them in perceived self-defense), and it is doubtful that it is ethically OK to release them anywhere else.

Right. I think, beyond the issue of original guilt, somebody has to be asking about present and future motivations among these people.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Was everyone seriously so fucking obsessed with asinine Jack Bauer scenarios that no-one stopped to think about how the hell they'd ever get these people properly charged and convicted even before a military tribunal?

You ought to ask yourself about how one is supposed to manage such a legal process. Do soldiers file specific reports regarding the exacting conditions under which each individual prisoner was taken, and what led them to believe that those detainees were dangerous?

When the answer is "When he stopped screaming he admitted to being Al Qaeda", yes.

[PainRack]

So what? What's the point of all these red herrings? People were actually convicted of that attack, you know; unlike these guys. Do you see a tiny difference?

And what great work that did, when the spiritual adviser for the JI happened to be jailed for 3 years NOT on the charge of the Bali bombing. You haven't really read much on that case did you? They had to scramble to find a reason to even jail him despite the fact that they knew he was part of the JI.

Nitpick: The reason WHY they couldn't jail him, even over Australia protest was because nobody in the justice system, including the Australians could find any concrete evidence that he did inspire or organise the attack in ANY WAY OR FORM.

The BEST they could do is that he had rheoteric supporting and urging an attack on westerners.......... That's not proof and you know it.

[PainRack]

You ought to ask yourself about how one is supposed to manage such a legal process. Do soldiers file specific reports regarding the exacting conditions under which each individual prisoner was taken, and what led them to believe that those detainees were dangerous?

You mean you don't????
Then what the hell are officers good for if NOT filing such paperwork? Seriously, there is a reason why every ops and patrol has a huge shitload of paperwork afterwards and one of the reason is so that others can examine the situation and do something.

[Shroom Man 777]

I think it's called a debriefing. And, fuck, it's also called "military intelligence". How the hell are you supposed to prosecute a meaningful "War on Terror" or hunt down most wanted terrorist leaders like Mohammad Jihad and stuff if you DON'T collect information regarding how, when and where you captured your raghead sandnigger before shipping him to Gitmo or Bakalakadaka Street or what have you for torturing, sexual abuse and general mistreatment?

EDIT:

Well, maybe the US Military DOESN'T gather comprehensive intelligence from its operations. Which explains why right now we're laughing at the American government, military and intelligence for being a bunch of complete and total retards.

[ray245]

I think it's called a debriefing. And, fuck, it's also called "military intelligence". How the hell are you supposed to prosecute a meaningful "War on Terror" or hunt down most wanted terrorist leaders like Mohammad Jihad and stuff if you DON'T collect information regarding how, when and where you captured your raghead sandnigger before shipping him to Gitmo or Bakalakadaka Street or what have you for torturing, sexual abuse and general mistreatment?

EDIT:

Well, maybe the US Military DOESN'T gather comprehensive intelligence from its operations. Which explains why right now we're laughing at the American government, military and intelligence for being a bunch of complete and total retards.

I'm still surprised that the Bush administration can screwed things up for the US military on the operational level if what you are saying is really true.

[Shroom Man 777]

I was just being highly sarcastic in response to Axis Kast's dumb comment about soldiers not having to file detailed reports regarding detaining terror suspects and shit. You'd think that he'd think that any information leading to capturing terrorists would be important in an, I dunno, "War on Terror".

[The Romulan Republic]

If you can point to the law that would bar Canada from accepting these people, please do. All the article gives is some vague mention of security issues, which is not much to go on but suggests to me that the Conservative government views these people as terrorists despite lack of convictions and is using some fear mongering to justify a guilty-until-proven-innocent type of policy.

That or Harper is being China's bitch.

Whut? They don't want to take responsibility and set a precedent to no real benefit and you don't thnk that's 'realistic' and that they must view them as terrorists? Are you just being obtuse? Their guilt/innocence is quite possibly irrelevant to other countries' willingness to take them on in the current situation.

I was pointing out that the article gave no reason for Canada's refusal beyond some vague security concerns. I then speculated that their reasons might be similar to those of US conservatives who don't want these "security risks" released in America; that perhaps they view them as terrorists despite never having been convicted.

I would also like to point out that you yourself are presuming a particular motivation (not wanting to set precedent) without evidence that such was actually a reason for this decision.

If you think it's bizarre or some conspiracy that Canada doesn't want to jump right into this can of worms, you're strange.

.

Its not "some conspiracy" that Canada might not want to damage relations with China. Its routine politics. However, I will concede that there is no evidence, based on this article, that such is Harper's motive, though the bit about how China will view any country taking these people as harboring terrorists makes it quite plausible.

Nor do I think its "bizarre." If Canada's choice wasn't the same one being made by everyone else, there would be no need for Canada to make it in the first place. However, just because it isn't unusual doesn't mean I have to agree with the decision.

[Thanas]

You know, it occurs to me that it's a real shame there isn't some tiny fuck-head Islamic country run by the local version of the Taleban which for whatever reason decided funding terrorism was stupid and has hence never been invaded that would love to have more conservative Muslims in it. Unfortunately, basically every Muslim country in the world does in fact subscribe to more moderate versions of Islam than these people do, and thus doesn't want them.

When it comes down to it I think the best solution is to drop them in the hills of Afghanistan--they'll either end up living in the local villages, or the locals will kill them, or they're rejoin the Taleban/al-Qaeda and get machine-gunned by our guys sooner or later. The enemy already has a basically unlimited amount of manpower in the region, so whereas they could kill hundreds of Americans if released in America, they're going to maybe wound a couple professional soldiers before they get splattered to pieces if they're in A-stan. Thus, if it is unethical for us to keep them imprisoned, nobody else will take them, and it's unsafe for us to release them in the United States, the least-bad option would just seem to be the option of dropping them on a hillside in A-stan with a water bottle, backpack full of rations, and a hearty "Tally ho! Remember to be sporting, old chap" and just wait for them to come into the sights of an M-2 gunner whilst holding AKs.

Are you drunk?

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe if no one wants then, the US government could offer to give them free tickets to any destination of their choosing?

Various nations might not want to have them, but there's no reason to impede their right to travel from place to place, is there?

[Surlethe]

But there is evidence that is inadmissible in court that shows they are guilty.

How do you know? Can you produce it?

He's probably referring to information that was gathered through classified means, so that if you brought it up in court, an element critical to US intelligence-gathering might be exposed.

I'd just as soon deport them to China, particularly since China wants them back (and yes, I know that's against US extradition law, and that there's a possibility that they'll end up tortured and dead). It's not like we've released all POWs we've captured into the US over history.

Well, I assume that he's referring to information gathered through classified means. My question is how does he know such information exists? Because so-and-so in the government says so? Why should I trust that person's word when he refuses to produce hard evidence - and how do I know that the "evidence" is actually verifiably true if I can't double-check it?

[Axis Kast]

I was just being highly sarcastic in response to Axis Kast's dumb comment about soldiers not having to file detailed reports regarding detaining terror suspects and shit. You'd think that he'd think that any information leading to capturing terrorists would be important in an, I dunno, "War on Terror".

I'm curious about how you came to have knowledge of the criteria according to which prisoners captured in Afghanistan and Iraq are selected for shipment to Guantanamo Bay.

I have to assume that most of the individuals sitting in Bagram and Guantanamo right now were captured in arms against the United States Armed Forces or its Afghan and Iraqi allies.

Given the ages and backgrounds of some of the known detainees at Guantanamo, one easily doubts that everyone there was taken in a high-intensity snatch-and-grab based on solid prior intelligence work.

The issue of what to do with the Guantanamo detainees ties directly into the bigger problem we confront when coming to blows with non-state actors: do we process prisoners via criminal court, military court, or something else entirely? When they aren't prisoners of war, or when we don't have a responsible authority to release them to at war's end, what are they, or, at the very least, where should they go?

I think we're going to have to develop a special judicial competency for terrorism, much as France has, and go that route, but I imagine that quite a lot of what they do will look like a miscarriage of traditional justice as practiced in domestic courts of law.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I have to assume that most of the individuals sitting in Bagram and Guantanamo right now were captured in arms against the United States Armed Forces or its Afghan and Iraqi allies.

And do you have any evidence for that ? When did we start caring about the actual guilt of our victims ?

[Axis Kast]

And do you have any evidence for that ? When did we start caring about the actual guilt of our victims ?

No more than you have evidence that the United States is yanking people off the streets of Baghdad and Kabul for absolutely no good reason.

What motive do you suppose American troops have in mind when they supposedly seize these completely innocent people and convince their commanders to go beyond mere detention, and instead have them hustled halfway across the world?

The actual guilt of the detainees matters quite a lot. If we could build solid cases for their incarceration with an evidenciary basis, we could step away from the ambiguous public relations disaster of Guantanamo Bay. If we can't, we need to come up with an alternative way to adjudicate their futures.

[Guardsman Bass]

You know, it occurs to me that it's a real shame there isn't some tiny fuck-head Islamic country run by the local version of the Taleban which for whatever reason decided funding terrorism was stupid and has hence never been invaded that would love to have more conservative Muslims in it. Unfortunately, basically every Muslim country in the world does in fact subscribe to more moderate versions of Islam than these people do, and thus doesn't want them.

When it comes down to it I think the best solution is to drop them in the hills of Afghanistan--they'll either end up living in the local villages, or the locals will kill them, or they're rejoin the Taleban/al-Qaeda and get machine-gunned by our guys sooner or later. The enemy already has a basically unlimited amount of manpower in the region, so whereas they could kill hundreds of Americans if released in America, they're going to maybe wound a couple professional soldiers before they get splattered to pieces if they're in A-stan. Thus, if it is unethical for us to keep them imprisoned, nobody else will take them, and it's unsafe for us to release them in the United States, the least-bad option would just seem to be the option of dropping them on a hillside in A-stan with a water bottle, backpack full of rations, and a hearty "Tally ho! Remember to be sporting, old chap" and just wait for them to come into the sights of an M-2 gunner whilst holding AKs.

Are you drunk?

What's wrong with it? Apparently we can't simply dump them on China, even though they're Chinese nationals, and China wants them and is pissed that they're not getting them. They may or may not be a security risk if released on US soil, so why not simply dump them back where they were found?

[Shroom Man 777]

Given the ages and backgrounds of some of the known detainees at Guantanamo, one easily doubts that everyone there was taken in a high-intensity snatch-and-grab based on solid prior intelligence work.

Given the ages and backgrounds of some of the known detainees at Guantanomo, one doubts that US military personnel do not routinely write after action reports after doing particularly important stuff like, I don't know, capturing some Iraqi insurgents.

Do you think soldiering and shit is totally devoid of any paperwork? That the men and women of the American armed forces are unable and incapable of writing after action reports to describe their actions and activities on the field for posterity? Mang.

Do you think commanding officers just go "Hey nice Operation Iraqi Freedom, see you in the shower for some debriefings and cocktails" without having their subordinate soldiers fill out routine paperwork describing what had just happened in their missions? That no one bothers to record mission data for future reference?

"Soldier, you're in court martial. What happened during your fire mission on June 32, 2029?"

"I don't know the US military does not believe in filling up routine paperwork, the US military has no idea what its soldiers do in the field because we don't have any written records on anything hurr."

"Answer the goddamn question!"

"You want an answer?"

"I want the truth!"

"Well you can't handle the truth! Also, I didn't write it down and have completely forgotten about it and since the US military doesn't have any standard operating procedures regarding that, well, too bad. Woopsie. Semper Fi, Marines! Hooah!"

Jesus Christ, Coyote, someone back me up. This stuff is like Standard Operating Procedure.

[Lord of the Abyss]

And do you have any evidence for that ? When did we start caring about the actual guilt of our victims ?

No more than you have evidence that the United States is yanking people off the streets of Baghdad and Kabul for absolutely no good reason.

Have you actually been paying attention the last few years ? We've grabbed people for no good reason; we've killed people for no good reason. We invaded an entire country based on lies, and you think we actually care if our victims are guilty of something ?

What motive do you suppose American troops have in mind when they supposedly seize these completely innocent people and convince their commanders to go beyond mere detention, and instead have them hustled halfway across the world?

Someone accused them of being terrorists to collect the bounty, or because they were tortured by us into making a false accusation, or were themselves tortured into a false confession. Just off the top of my head.

The actual guilt of the detainees matters quite a lot. If we could build solid cases for their incarceration with an evidenciary basis, we could step away from the ambiguous public relations disaster of Guantanamo Bay. If we can't, we need to come up with an alternative way to adjudicate their futures.

If they are innocent, let them go and pay them millions in reparations.

[Thanas]

What's wrong with it? Apparently we can't simply dump them on China, even though they're Chinese nationals, and China wants them and is pissed that they're not getting them. They may or may not be a security risk if released on US soil, so why not simply dump them back where they were found?

It makes the assumption that everyone is a security risk. It also makes the assumption that they are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever.

And frankly, it is a disgusting viewpoint. "Oh hey, we locked you up and tortured you for years, but whatever, here is a sack of rations, off you go." Yeah, that is how a civilized society is supposed to behave.

[Aaron]

Given the ages and backgrounds of some of the known detainees at Guantanomo, one doubts that US military personnel do not routinely write after action reports after doing particularly important stuff like, I don't know, capturing some Iraqi insurgents.

Do you think soldiering and shit is totally devoid of any paperwork? That the men and women of the American armed forces are unable and incapable of writing after action reports to describe their actions and activities on the field for posterity? Mang.

Do you think commanding officers just go "Hey nice Operation Iraqi Freedom, see you in the shower for some debriefings and cocktails" without having their subordinate soldiers fill out routine paperwork describing what had just happened in their missions? That no one bothers to record mission data for future reference?

"Soldier, you're in court martial. What happened during your fire mission on June 32, 2029?"

"I don't know the US military does not believe in filling up routine paperwork, the US military has no idea what its soldiers do in the field because we don't have any written records on anything hurr."

"Answer the goddamn question!"

"You want an answer?"

"I want the truth!"

"Well you can't handle the truth! Also, I didn't write it down and have completely forgotten about it and since the US military doesn't have any standard operating procedures regarding that, well, too bad. Woopsie. Semper Fi, Marines! Hooah!"

Jesus Christ, Coyote, someone back me up. This stuff is like Standard Operating Procedure.

Private Joe Bloggins isn't going to be filing an AAR or much in the way of anything on who he just captured, the Military Police or his Troop/Company commander will however. Depending on how the nation involved usually handles POW's. Private Bloggins will likely have to answer questions later or sign a statement. But he's not spending his couple hours off duty filing out detailed paper work.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What's wrong with it? Apparently we can't simply dump them on China, even though they're Chinese nationals, and China wants them and is pissed that they're not getting them. They may or may not be a security risk if released on US soil, so why not simply dump them back where they were found?

It makes the assumption that everyone is a security risk. It also makes the assumption that they are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever.

And frankly, it is a disgusting viewpoint. "Oh hey, we locked you up and tortured you for years, but whatever, here is a sack of rations, off you go." Yeah, that is how a civilized society is supposed to behave.

As long as America is a democracy, no American politician will release Gitmo prisoners into the United States, for all that I personally think they'd probably just spend all their time going crazy over women who show their ankles and leave us alone. So what better idea do you have?