Obama shuts down Gitmo, CIA prisons

[SH3RL0CK]

That's a lot of caveats. One or more of them will have to give. That's what.

 

I think you are right, unfortunately one or more of these will have to give. Ugh.

[bascule]

I think you are right, unfortunately one or more of these will have to give. Ugh.

 

NIMBY seems like the easiest. I'm not sure if it's what Pangloss was suggesting but if they want to throw them in a Canon City supermax it's not like I'd care (granted it is like 200 miles from me). And hey, New Yorkers aren't afraid.

[SH3RL0CK]

NIMBY seems like the easiest. I'm not sure if it's what Pangloss was suggesting but if they want to throw them in a Canon City supermax it's not like I'd care (granted it is like 200 miles from me). And hey, New Yorkers aren't afraid.

 

It certainly seems the best approach to me. While many held are certainly extremely dangerous, so are many people currently in our penal system. But 90-6 in the Senate is a very difficult obstacle against this.

 

I wonder how the Senate would vote for maintaining Gitmo? Not that Obama has any intention of going back on his word here.

 

I suspect these people will wind up being held in Afghanistan/Iraq. To me, this seems the best compromise between Obama and the Senate (I can't see either of them backing down). It does strike me, however, that we would simply be opening a different Gitmo/Abu Gharab (or two)... Again, Ugh.

[Mokele]

And hey, New Yorkers aren't afraid.

 

Likely headline: "Al-Qaeda Leader Shot In Mugging 3 Hours After His Escape."

[SH3RL0CK]

Well, we now know what will happen to at least some of the inmates at Gitmo...they will be released as freemen within the USA.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090603/pl_bloomberg/apmw9eac4ptu

 

from the article:

Some of the 17 Chinese Uighur Muslims being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will likely be released in the U.S. in an effort to convince other countries to accept prisoners from the detention facility, according to current and former American officials.

 

The fate of the Chinese nationals, who were captured after the Sept. 11 attacks, has been a quandary for U.S. officials. While the Bush administration cleared the Uighurs for release or transfer between 2003 and 2008, the government hasn’t been able to find a country willing to accept them.

 

I won't be holding my breath while we wait for other countries to step up and accept some of the inmates (though it is worth noting China was more than eager to accept these individuals ) From the article

China, which considers the Uighur detainees terrorists, has repeatedly urged their return. The U.S. hasn’t acceded to the request because the Uighurs “fear that if they are returned to China they will face arrest, torture or execution,” according to court papers.

 

Edited June 4, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[Sisyphus]

Is anyone else just baffled why so many people are apparently terrified of these people in prison anywhere nearby? I mean, wow. Talk about "the terrorists have won," if they've got us this timid. Do people think we've got Hannibal Lecter down there? Maybe Magneto? No. These are people who would be lost in the U.S., and, judging by the ideology they (allegedly) subscribe to, probably aren't even that bright. Run of the mill gang members pose more of a threat. Which, of course, is practically nil, since people don't escape from supermaximum security prisons in the first place.

[SH3RL0CK]

I've not met many people scared of the terrorists in our prisons. They (at least the people I've discussed this) are concerned that these Al Queda members will eventually be released from our prisons into the general population. They will eventually be released because due to the nature of their capture, the incompetence of the people at Gitmo (missing case files, etc.) and the need to preserve certain sources of information, etc. there aren't too many charges that will stand up in a court of law. Upon their release I doubt the nations these people are from (assuming we can even prove where they are from) will want them back, except perhaps to torture them, so they can only stay here.

 

Also, many people who oppose them here do so out of general spite, not fear. They simply do not like these individuals and would prefer they rot somewhere else.

[jackson33]

Sisyphus

Is anyone else just baffled why so many people are apparently terrified of these people in prison anywhere nearby? I mean, wow. Talk about "the terrorists have won," if they've got us this timid. Do people think we've got Hannibal Lecter down there? Maybe Magneto? No. These are people who would be lost in the U.S., and, judging by the ideology they (allegedly) subscribe to, probably aren't even that bright. Run of the mill gang members pose more of a threat. Which, of course, is practically nil, since people don't escape from super maximum security prisons in the first place.

 

 

Don't you really think this entire issue is politically driven. Obama used it, while running for office and now it will be used against him. Go geopolitical and he continues to use for whatever his purpose...

 

First, Whats wrong with Gitmo just being maintained as is, until no like facility is needed. Were not going to be leaving Cuba in the near future and the facility has no other relative or vital purpose (I know of). Change the name maybe....

 

Second; There are some, that believe a hard core faction of the Islamic Faith, held in the same place as disgruntled American's would generate more what's referred to as 'Home Grown Terrorist'. Where this could happen, it wouldn't likely be resources it would take outside confinement. Were not seemingly concerned with every potential radical Mullah or any other person not particularly happy with American Society.

 

Third; And most important...If any one person having been held in Gitmo, released into the US or Jailed and escaped or naturally released were to commit any felony, every person that had anything to do with that policy would be personally held responsible.

 

Willie Horton didn't help Dukakis run for President and he was just the run of the mill convict. Bush, McCain and probably 100 local politicians were blamed for every little crime committed by an Illegal Alien, for supporting a reform action and I have no idea how many politicians have been elected supporting 'no tolerance' of any number of criminal activity.

 

No people don't escape from Maximum Security prisons and nearly all that escape before being placed there are caught. You get the right person in that prison, your problem will be from the outside, not with in. In my mind a can see a cruise ship being held hostage by 100 armed individuals or any number of scenarios where this President, might just negotiate to release a particular person or persons. It's done all the time in the middle east....TODAY.

[Pangloss]

I disagree. The primary objection is not to the location of the facility, but to the method by which its inmates came to be there. You're using a side discussion about logistics and facilities to make an ideological statement about security. This would be an example of the subject-widening I warned you about earlier; a typical ploy of conservative talk radio, and a logical fallacy.

 

In my opinion this country should not be in the business of imprisoning people who can't be legally convicted of wrongdoing. You feel differently? More power to you.

[jackson33]

I disagree. The primary objection is not to the location of the facility, but to the method by which its inmates came to be there. You're using a side discussion about logistics and facilities to make an ideological statement about security. This would be an example of the subject-widening I warned you about earlier; a typical ploy of conservative talk radio, and a logical fallacy.

 

My post was a reply to Sisyphus, which I basically agree with. NO ONE is going to be less safe if these people are held in the US. I simply suggested the issue was based on political fear rather than one of public fear. I have trouble with your 'logical fallacy' complaints to posters in general. That infers an opinion based on logic, though disagreed to be another's logical opinion. Seems reasonable to me...

 

 

In my opinion this country should not be in the business of imprisoning people who can't be legally convicted of wrongdoing. You feel differently? More power to you.

 

NO, I don't feel differently and you know this. I have no idea how many arguments I've been involved with, where law should rule in this Nation, from the original concept of the US to today. One such law is the duty of the President to protect the safety of the US Citizen in times of perceived war.

The oaths actually involve from both foreign and DOMESTIC sources, which over history have involved some rather nasty consequences.

 

I must add; What your suggesting is hard line left ideology, heard also on radio or in blog's, where no matter the consequences all people and law from around the world should be enforced by the US Legal System. Just what would you consider justice, when folks surrender or are apprehended on the battle field/assisting an enemy military force, in this case when they represent no particular Nation. Do you really think this should be an issue for 'law enforcements' around the world? I certainly hope, your not suggesting we stop taking prisoners...

[The Bear's Key]

Obama should have the entire process broadcast openly, even the Supermax incarcerations. Then people can see what's to fear...or not.

 

What your suggesting is hard line left ideology....where no matter the consequences all people and law from around the world should be enforced by the US Legal System.

Might you provide an example for that global agenda of enforcing the U.S. legal system? Just for clarification and we're on the same page.

 

If you meant where any situation dealing with U.S. involvement must honor our legal system procedures, then I'd have to agree with that ideologolical principle.

 

But what of global issues like marijuanna drug prohibitions geared to reflect ours, stipulations on poorer nations by world trade big shots, or even an installed constitution? None of those forces are "left" ideology, but perhaps the opposite.

[jackson33]

Obama should have the entire process broadcast openly, even the Supermax incarcerations. Then people can see what's to fear...or not.

 

Even that should not be necessary. Although the article blames only Republican, think the problems come from both party.

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/WILL-NATION-THAT-HOUSED-42-by-Sherwood-Ross-090512-875.html

How America has grown more fearful and intolerant since World War II, when it took in 425,000 German prisoners of war, many of them dedicated Nazis from General Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps that surrendered to Eisenhower’s forces in April, 1943! The treatment the Germans received in the United States then was the precise opposite of what Muslim and Arab captives have suffered under the Bush administration.

[SH3RL0CK]

... Although the article blames only Republican, think the problems come from both party...

 

With the Senate voting 90-6 against funding the shipment of the inmates here; obviously the problems come from both parties (Just as many Democrats as Republicans). That is unless 40 senators just decided to switch parties...

[bascule]

In my opinion this country should not be in the business of imprisoning people who can't be legally convicted of wrongdoing.

 

100% agree, and that's why Obama's plan for preventative detention is so frustrating.

[navigator]

It seems some are either proposing a shift in the handling of prisoners of war or they are confusing them with criminals. They are very different and the laws for handling these two types of people are very well established in statute and war time precedent.

 

All nations in wartime have held prisoners of war until the threat they pose is gone. Thats how its always been done, now there are a few that feel it should be changed using "rights" and "justice" platform as a strawman for ideas that have long been settled and rejected.

[Pangloss]

What war are you referring to?

[navigator]

What war are you referring to?

 

Call it what you want, Iraq war, war on terrorism, regardless, these people were captured on the battlefield and represent a threat to national security.

[iNow]

Since you're unable to precisely define the war, can you at a minimum define the "battlefield?" These are important questions considering the consequences under discussion here.

[navigator]

Since you're unable to precisely define the war, can you at a minimum define the "battlefield?" These are important questions considering the consequences under discussion here.

 

Without knowing the circumstances behind each individuals capture, no. This is what we have elected officials for, they voted, and the results were very conclusive.

[iNow]

Without knowing the circumstances behind each individuals capture, no. This is what we have elected officials for, they voted, and the results were very conclusive.

 

That's simply an unacceptable response. You shared your views, and were asked to support them, to clarify your point since the one you made was broad sweeping and non distinct. If you are unable to support your posts with specifics, then you really need to stop sharing your views in Politics altogether.

 

Unless, of course, you enjoy being dismissed and not taken seriously. I dunno. That certainly doesn't appeal to me, but YMMV.

[navigator]

That's simply an unacceptable response. You shared your views, and were asked to support them, to clarify your point since the one you made was broad sweeping and non distinct. If you are unable to support your posts with specifics, then you really need to stop sharing your views in Politics altogether.

 

Unless, of course, you enjoy being dismissed and not taken seriously. I dunno. That certainly doesn't appeal to me, but YMMV.

 

Sorry, but it really is that simple. Clarification? I simply stated that there are statutes and war precedent that we use as guidelines on how to deal with enemies of the nation. Maybe your not used to a comprehensive argument in a couple of sentences.

 

When should an enemy of the nation be released, when the threat they pose is gone. As long as there are organized groups intent on our destruction and these people are unrepentant members and in support of these groups, they should be detained, justifyably so.

 

Elaborate more? I can only think of two quotes.

 

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" Abraham Lincoln

 

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" -- Bertrand Russel.

 

Both of these apply to "demanding we treat these people as criminals."

[Mokele]

You are aware that nobody is seriously proposing just letting these people go, right? Just moving them to secure facilities in the mainland US.

[navigator]

I disagree. The primary objection is not to the location of the facility, but to the method by which its inmates came to be there. You're using a side discussion about logistics and facilities to make an ideological statement about security. This would be an example of the subject-widening I warned you about earlier; a typical ploy of conservative talk radio, and a logical fallacy.

 

Mokele, I didn't reread the whole thread, this is the first example I found, but to say nobody would be wrong.

[iNow]

This whole tangent actually manages to shine light on one of the problems we have in our country. Too few people are able to define what they mean by "war," nor what they mean by "battlefield."

 

As navigator has more than amply demonstrated, fuzzy definitions allow for fuzzy punishments and fuzzy departures from our clear laws and clear values.

 

All I was asking for is a clear definition of which "war" s/he meant, and which "battlefields" s/he felt warranted differential treatment.

 

His/Her response? An attack on my intelligence and a strawman of my position. I'm so frakkin tired of the lack of clarity and understanding among the larger percentage of the populace of our nation.

[Pangloss]

On the contrary, Mokele, I believe several members, myself included, advocate their release. But that's beside the point of my question.

 

 

I simply stated that there are statutes and war precedent that we use as guidelines on how to deal with enemies of the nation.

 

Actually you did more than that, suggesting that people who disagree are "confused", and made a factual statement that you couldn't support, which is what prompted my reply. That having been addressed, I consider the matter closed. We take factual statements seriously around here.