Gitmo Prison To Close - No More Torture

[Patrick Degan]

Not wasting any time —NPR reported today the announcement that President Obama signed the executive order mandating the closure of the Gunatanamo lockup within one year. He also announced that no interrogation methods not laid down in the Army Manual would be used in the questioning of terrorism suspects, captured war prisoners, or illegal combatants.

[Zablorg]

Yeah, I posted this but it seems to have sunk without a trace.

This certainly is promising, and I hope he can keep up the good work after the presidential honey-moon is over.

[Patrick Degan]

I believe what you posted was yesterday's suspension of war crimes trials for 120 days pending review by the administration. Today's announcement goes quite a few steps beyond that.

[Rahvin]

This alone marks a stark difference between the Bush administration and Obama's. Something tells me the phrase "sigh of relief" is going to feel pretty worn-out by the time Obama finishes his first 100 days in office.

Now, what are the chances he'll eliminate the warrantless wiretapping and the "national security letters" provided for in the PATRIOT act? Those are some of the more egregious police-state type actions taken by the Bush administration that I can think of off the top of my head, and I'd love to see them disappear almost as much as the cessation of torture.

[Bilbo]

So where are all the prisoners currently in Gitmo going to be sent? I dont want then within the Continental United States and a good number of them are not welcome back in their home countries.

[Rahvin]

So where are all the prisoners currently in Gitmo going to be sent? I dont want then within the Continental United States and a good number of them are not welcome back in their home countries.

We captured and held them illegally, so it's our problem to deal with. You might not be "comfortable" with it, but we have no right (or even rational reason) to hold them without even being tried, and if no other nation will accept them, they're going to need to be released here.

If you don't have enough evidence to convict someone of a crime, you need to let them go. Period. End of story, no further consideration required.

The best case would be to find a diplomatic solution to send them to their countries of origin so they can return to their families. If we have to keep them here in the US and they're never allowed to go home, that's still something additional for them to be (rightly) pissed off about. We owe these people several years of their lives and in some cases restitution for torture already. Wherever we let them go, they need to be taken care of to compensate for the huge injustice the US dealt them under the Bush administration. If we treat them right, and make a legitimate effort to make up for the wrongs done to them, we might minimize the number who become terrorists after having been given an excellent set of reasons to despise the US.

[The Original Nex]

So where are all the prisoners currently in Gitmo going to be sent? I dont want then within the Continental United States and a good number of them are not welcome back in their home countries.

Why don't you want them in the US? You do realize that we have successfully tried and imprisoned many Muslim terrorists within the justice system and they are currently imprisoned in US max-security prisons. No one had a problem with those terrorists being on American soil. I'm tired of this fear mongering over moving the Gitmo detainees to the states.

[Rahvin]

So where are all the prisoners currently in Gitmo going to be sent? I dont want then within the Continental United States and a good number of them are not welcome back in their home countries.

Why don't you want them in the US? You do realize that we have successfully tried and imprisoned many Muslim terrorists within the justice system and they are currently imprisoned in US max-security prisons. No one had a problem with those terrorists being on American soil. I'm tired of this fear mongering over moving the Gitmo detainees to the states.

I'm tired of all the fearmongering over terrorists, period. That's what they want, after all - fear.

So why do you support terrorism by buying in to the irrational fearmongering, Bilbo? How many US citizens have died to terrorism, total? How does that compare to US deaths to smoking or automobile accidents? Why, other than the dramatic way terrorism tends to work, are we so worked up over this? Police within the normal boundaries of the law (with improved interdepartmental information sharing) is sufficient and more appropriate for minimizing terrorism than military responses and the erosion of rule by law. It can be successfully argued that the very sort of response the fearmongering encourages actually creates more terrorists rather than preventing even a single event.

[Ender]

I'm tired of all the fearmongering over terrorists, period. That's what they want, after all - fear.

What a wonderful misrepresentation of the end goals of the religious extremists. No, they do not want us in fear. Fear is but a means to an end. What they want is the final apocolyptic war, and they figure that if they keep us scared and angry we will give it to them. Bush played right into their hands with his reactions.

So why do you support terrorism by buying in to the irrational fearmongering, Bilbo? How many US citizens have died to terrorism, total?

A quick count has from 2001 ~8000 people. Note that this is going to be off because I can't find deaths from abortion clinic bombing or similar murders past 2004. So it should be higher.

How does that compare to US deaths to smoking or automobile accidents?

So intentional homicide is irrelevant because unintentional deaths outnumber them?

Why, other than the dramatic way terrorism tends to work, are we so worked up over this?

Good point, we should stop prosecuting murder too. After all, it isn't like human life is worth anything.

Police within the normal boundaries of the law (with improved interdepartmental information sharing) is sufficient and more appropriate for minimizing terrorism than military responses and the erosion of rule by law.

Yeah, because a few boys in blue could have stopped those planes. Our response has been less then optimal, but lets not pretend for a second what we were doing was in any way sufficient. The number of domestic incidents this country sees is more than sufficient evidence of that.

It can be successfully argued that the very sort of response the fearmongering encourages actually creates more terrorists rather than preventing even a single event.

Then do so. Prove that it is Americans being scared, and not rampant poverty, poor education standards, and religious extremism that gives rise to terrorism. All the evidence is against you there, but lets hear your successful argument anyway.

[SirNitram]

I'm gonna say the best place to transfer them is Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as it is a militray facility with a disciplinary barracks. Naturally, Kansas' congressional delegation is having violent NIMBY convultions, right up to Bush-cheerleader Brownback threatening various total bullshit through the military bases there if it's gone through.

Also on the list is Supermax in Colorado.

Of course, Republicans being, you know, total retards in this whole sad game, have been on the forefront of throwing the hissy-fits. Possibly the crowning moment was the suggestion of Alcatraz. It takes a special kind of imbecile to suggest putting suspects awaiting trial without bail into a national park.

[Ender]

I'm gonna say the best place to transfer them is Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as it is a militray facility with a disciplinary barracks. Naturally, Kansas' congressional delegation is having violent NIMBY convultions, right up to Bush-cheerleader Brownback threatening various total bullshit through the military bases there if it's gone through.

Also on the list is Supermax in Colorado.

Of course, Republicans being, you know, total retards in this whole sad game, have been on the forefront of throwing the hissy-fits. Possibly the crowning moment was the suggestion of Alcatraz. It takes a special kind of imbecile to suggest putting suspects awaiting trial without bail into a national park.

Add to the list the brig in South Carolina. Given the other facilities on base there it already boasts rather high security.

Actually, that scenario makes me smile. In the event of a breakout, you have all the gear to defend a nuclear facility there, a base full of spec ops soldiers undergoing EOD training, marine guards, and oh, by the way, the swamps are full of poisonous snakes, spiders, and gators.

[Rahvin]

I'm tired of all the fearmongering over terrorists, period. That's what they want, after all - fear.

What a wonderful misrepresentation of the end goals of the religious extremists. No, they do not want us in fear. Fear is but a means to an end. What they want is the final apocolyptic war, and they figure that if they keep us scared and angry we will give it to them. Bush played right into their hands with his reactions.

...which is my point. Americans get scared, and start acting like even bigger global assholes than before. Where exactly are we disagreeing here?

So why do you support terrorism by buying in to the irrational fearmongering, Bilbo? How many US citizens have died to terrorism, total?

A quick count has from 2001 ~8000 people. Note that this is going to be off because I can't find deaths from abortion clinic bombing or similar murders past 2004. So it should be higher.

How does that compare to US deaths to smoking or automobile accidents?

So intentional homicide is irrelevant because unintentional deaths outnumber them?

Why, other than the dramatic way terrorism tends to work, are we so worked up over this?

Good point, we should stop prosecuting murder too. After all, it isn't like human life is worth anything.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that insanely disproportionate responses (Guantanamo and the human rights abuses it entails, for example) don't work, and instead work to encourage additional terrorist recruitment. We need to separate ourselves from the emotional reaction such dramatic acts of terrorism generate and make rational choices instead of screaming "Terrorist!" and forgetting all about rule of law.

Police within the normal boundaries of the law (with improved interdepartmental information sharing) is sufficient and more appropriate for minimizing terrorism than military responses and the erosion of rule by law.

Yeah, because a few boys in blue could have stopped those planes. Our response has been less then optimal, but lets not pretend for a second what we were doing was in any way sufficient. The number of domestic incidents this country sees is more than sufficient evidence of that.

Actually, an air marshal or two might have been able to save those planes. I didn't say that what we were doing was sufficient. I said that there was no reason to work outside of the existing legal framework. there's no reason to hold people without charges, evidence, or trials, no reason to allow torture, and no reason to start a war in Iraq. None of those things stop suicide planes either.

It can be successfully argued that the very sort of response the fearmongering encourages actually creates more terrorists rather than preventing even a single event.

Then do so. Prove that it is Americans being scared, and not rampant poverty, poor education standards, and religious extremism that gives rise to terrorism. All the evidence is against you there, but lets hear your successful argument anyway.

[/quote]

I didn't say American overreaction was the only cause of terrorism. Nice strawman, though. I said it was a contributing factor. Of course poor education, poverty, and especially religious fanatacism are other factors in varying degrees. They're probably even larger factors. But as the discussion [link=http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130932]in this thread[/link] shows, it would seem that American overreaction to terrorism (in the form of wars of aggression and human rights abuses at Gitmo) have served as additional recruitment tools for Al Qaeda. Perhaps if we'd settle the fuck down and stop overreacting in these ways, we could come up with rational, measured solutions that don't cause more of the very thing we're so afraid of.

[Count Chocula]

oOHHH, South Carolina or Georgia would be goooooodddd places to detain the bad apples (i.e. guys we caught with guns shooting at our soldiers, or proveable higher-ups). Let's see how desert rats would escape the swamps!

BTW, "aggressive interrogation" methods, including occasional physical abuse or threats thereof, are part of the military's SERE training. I'd have to look up the actual field manual, but abiding by US Army methods of interrogation still induces a large amount of...discomfort....to those being interrogated.

And, of course, if we use the BATFE/FBI methods of psychological warfare, the sky's the limit.

[Ender]

...which is my point. Americans get scared, and start acting like even bigger global assholes than before. Where exactly are we disagreeing here?

The fact that you don't know the ends from the means, showing you have very little understanding of the overall conflict.

That's not what I'm saying.

Yes it is. I quoted you right there. You made equivalence between unintentional death and intentional homicide, declaring the latter to be less important due to the numbers. You then proclaimed to not see why we were upset about intentional homicide being committed. My comments were a perfect response to your idiotic claims.

I'm saying that insanely disproportionate responses (Guantanamo and the human rights abuses it entails, for example) don't work, and instead work to encourage additional terrorist recruitment. We need to separate ourselves from the emotional reaction such dramatic acts of terrorism generate and make rational choices instead of screaming "Terrorist!" and forgetting all about rule of law.

So I'm going to go ahead and treat this as a concession to being called out on your total disregard for the value of human life.

Actually, an air marshal or two might have been able to save those planes.

You mean one of those Air Marshals that we trained AFTER 9/11? Well sure, time traveling super cops could probably do something with a sonic screwdriver or just do it by virtue of being Jean Claude Van Damme, but the regular cops we had before it weren't going to do a thing. For starters, they didn't know about it.

I didn't say that what we were doing was sufficient.

And yet the sentence above you claimed that Air Marshals we didn't have could have done the job.

I said that there was no reason to work outside of the existing legal framework. there's no reason to hold people without charges, evidence, or trials, no reason to allow torture, and no reason to start a war in Iraq. None of those things stop suicide planes either.

Wonderful strawman. It, coupled with further failure to have any knowledge about the international situation that allows terrorism, further illustrates your ignorant bluster. Firstly, I disavowed that Bush's extreme reactions worked in the quote you responded to above. So nice of you to try and make me defend what I have never claimed. Unlike you, I've been arguing this based off an actual understanding of the facts, which include things like the DoD's official assessment of the value of active military action vice an active federal counterterrorism police force.

Secondly, anybody who takes on terrorism is going to be outside the existing legal framework because there is no international legal framework for handling these guys. Bush took this fact and ran with it to provide a fig leaf for Gitmo and the rest, but because the conclusion was wrong doesn't meant the facts of it are wrong. The first thing Bush should have done, and what Obama should be doing, is convene an international convention where they hammer out a legal framework for handling these guys. A new Geneva accords or something. Because right now there is too much gray area. They aren't POWs, but what are they? Does Hot Pursuit apply? In what situations? Are there channels for information sharing? How are they restricted by domestic laws and international defense treaties? What are the requirements for a criminal court? Would they be prosecuted by the ICC? How do resolutions that support antiblasphemy laws play into laws to restrict those advocating such violence? What scale is required for a country to invoke mutual defense clauses in military treaties? All these are critical questions that need to be addressed by international agreement, and guess what? There isn't one.

I didn't say American overreaction was the only cause of terrorism. Nice strawman, though. I said it was a contributing factor. Of course poor education, poverty, and especially religious fanatacism are other factors in varying degrees. They're probably even larger factors.

Yes you did you idiot. You claimed that American fear created more terrorists rather than preventing even a single event. For the past 8 years our method of preventing these events has been to go in and blow the place to shit before they can come after us. Surprise surprise, but when you blow a country to shit there are no jobs (rampant poverty), no schools (poor education) and no government (people turn to religion for solace and organization). Even with domestic terrorism, hey look at that, our domestic policies to fund our foreign antiterrorism adventurism have fucked this country, particularly in the less urban parts of the country. Places where the economy has been the worst ("Rust belt" anyone?), education standards fucking suck (Texas finally acknowledging what science is after 20 years just this week is the one counter to the trend of Republican's dismantling the public school system in favor of private religious indoctrinating), and religious extremism rules the day (Obama called that one right). So let's hear this successful argument that says all these points are less valuable

But as the discussion [link=http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130932]in this thread[/link] shows, it would seem that American overreaction to terrorism (in the form of wars of aggression and human rights abuses at Gitmo) have served as additional recruitment tools for Al Qaeda. Perhaps if we'd settle the fuck down and stop overreacting in these ways, we could come up with rational, measured solutions that don't cause more of the very thing we're so afraid of.

How wonderful, you've got a set of chuckleheads talking in this message board for "experts" (well I assume you do. You screwed up the BBS coding so who can tell). Meanwhile I can point to pretty much every official document produced by the actual experts in the field showing that it is the fact that these people are trapped in shitty lives that leads to the violence. Care to go again?

[Elfdart]

So where are all the prisoners currently in Gitmo going to be sent? I dont want then within the Continental United States and a good number of them are not welcome back in their home countries.

Who gives a fuck what you want?

[D.Turtle]

So where are all the prisoners currently in Gitmo going to be sent? I dont want then within the Continental United States and a good number of them are not welcome back in their home countries.

You can send some of them to us in Europe. We are willing to take up some of the prisoners. (In German)

[Posner]

Of course, Republicans being, you know, total retards in this whole sad game, have been on the forefront of throwing the hissy-fits. Possibly the crowning moment was the suggestion of Alcatraz. It takes a special kind of imbecile to suggest putting suspects awaiting trial without bail into a national park.

I say we give them VX rockets and make it into a LARP of The Rock