Gone-tanamo Bay

[oggbashan]

President Obama has also decided to shut all overseas CIA prisons and stop Extraordinary Rendition flights.

With those decisions and the closure of Gitmo within the year, he has made it much easier to defend to US's Foreign Policy and has taken a lot of pressure of his allies who were worried about the US's stance on human rights.

If there is a "War or Terror" then the prisoners of war should be treated according to the Geneva Convention. If there isn't a "War on Terror" but the terrorists are considered as criminals then they should be tried as criminals - under the normal legal processes of the United States with all the rights given to defendants in criminal trials.

President Obama has sent a clear message to the world that the US will behave like a civilised democracy.

Og

 

[sadangel]

Cloudy's right, Rob. You mustn't approve or think that anything Obama does is rational and smart and, maybe signals that he might be an okay president. Anyone who does that is just giving into the hype, following the crowd that worships our new president as a Messiah, and, maybe as soon as day three when he might finally make a wrong decision, will be so crushingly disappointed that they will all weep and bemoan the fact that they ever voted him into office.

This is because none of us who currently support him are capable of any critical, rational thinking. So you'd better back off before you find yourself wearing an Obama teeshirt and buying memorial coins.

Oh, and Cloudy, will be joining me and Sarah for some cool-aid?

I feel sorry that anyone thinks he's the Messiah. He isn't. He's a human being. He's gonna make mistakes.

Will there be snacks?

Cookies!!

Most certainly. Cookies stamped with Obama's face and a cake with "Go Obama" written in frosting.

Oh...and cake...and coolaid!! Too cool!!

 

[starrkers]

While I'm not defending them, nor their decisions, they were tasked with keeping America safe. While it was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and verging on downright evil, it was pragmatic.

If you had evidence enough to convince you that someone was directly responsible for planning September 11th and, if freed, would not only rejoice in the loss of life, but use their experience and knowledge to plan more attacks, but didn't have evidence enough to convince a jury, would you not even have the slightest flicker of doubt about releasing them?

I'm not claiming that as the situation of any of the detainees, just pointing out that sometimes a leader may make choices on his own conscience that jar with other peoples'. Being in charge must be a very lonely place.

NB. I'm not supporting Bush, Guantanamo, nor any other policies. Just attempting to inject a little grey into what seems a black and white situation.

The Earl

They were using "the ends justify the means" mentality with Guantanamo and hoping no one would notice the hypocrisy of decrying such acts in others as war crimes but calling it "security measures" when done themselves.

And George W wondered why the US lost respect...

If these people can be proven in a constitutional court of law to be too dangerous to release, lock 'em up.
But most of them are in Guantanamo because the evidence isn't there to convict them.

 

[sadangel]

President Obama has also decided to shut all overseas CIA prisons and stop Extraordinary Rendition flights.

With those decisions and the closure of Gitmo within the year, he has made it much easier to defend to US's Foreign Policy and has taken a lot of pressure of his allies who were worried about the US's stance on human rights.

If there is a "War or Terror" then the prisoners of war should be treated according to the Geneva Convention. If there isn't a "War on Terror" but the terrorists are considered as criminals then they should be tried as criminals - under the normal legal processes of the United States with all the rights given to defendants in criminal trials.

President Obama has sent a clear message to the world that the US will behave like a civilised democracy.

Og

You mean, we might actually have a President that wants us to be viewed as and have us act as a civilised democracy. *Hold your hat---* Damn. No wonder there are some that think he shouldn't be there in office. They don't want the right thing done. They don't want things to be done by the Constituitional way of doing things. They want what we've had for far too long. That's their loss, and sadly, if they have their way, it could be ours.

They were using "the ends justify the means" mentality with Guantanamo and hoping no one would notice the hypocrisy of decrying such acts in others as war crimes but calling it "security measures" when done themselves.

And George W wondered why the US lost respect...

If these people can be proven in a constitutional court of law to be too dangerous to release, lock 'em up.
But most of them are in Guantanamo because the evidence isn't there to convict them.

I agree. And we have lost respect of much, if not most of the world. I hope it isn't too late to earn that respect back. At least with what Obama is doing right now, it gives us a chance to try.

 

[TheEarl]

So even though it's all the above, because it's pragmatic; they get a free pass to violate the very constiturion that we are supposed to hold so dear. If it is alright for the President and all his "men" (men and women) to violate, then why the hell should we the people bother to follow it either?! Two wrongs don't make a right. It just doesn't work that way.

NB. I'm not supporting Bush, Guantanamo, nor any other policies. Just attempting to inject a little grey into what seems a black and white situation.

Damn straight I'd have doubts. But we expect the judical system to work for all of us. Why should we not expect it to work in this case also.

Because it's not perfect. There is a difference between knowing someone is guilty and having enough information to secure a conviction. I know that my former housemate stole from my credit card. I have evidence enough to convince me, but I doubt I could ever get him prosecuted for theft.

Again, I'm not supporting anything here. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. But if you were leading America and knew that a particular person would attack it, but couldn't prove it to a jury's satisfaction? If you knew that this person will kill innocents if let loose and that a jury would let this person loose?

You're a braver person than I am if you can see this as a black and white situation.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Incidentally, I'm in favour of closing Guantanamo and of obeying basic human rights laws and of treating prisoners as we would treat our own.

Just thought I'd get that out there.

The Earl

 

[3113]

And George W wondered why the US lost respect...

Actually, the problem was he didn't wonder. He wanted the kind of global respect those who imprison and torture prisoners get--that other kind of respect, that comes from treating prisoners humanly, he saw that as being for sissies.

 

[sadangel]

Because it's not perfect. There is a difference between knowing someone is guilty and having enough information to secure a conviction. I know that my former housemate stole from my credit card. I have evidence enough to convince me, but I doubt I could ever get him prosecuted for theft.

Again, I'm not supporting anything here. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. But if you were leading America and knew that a particular person would attack it, but couldn't prove it to a jury's satisfaction? If you knew that this person will kill innocents if let loose and that a jury would let this person loose?

You're a braver person than I am if you can see this as a black and white situation.

The Earl

I DO NOT see the WHOLE situation in black and white. I see certian parts of it that way. There ARE gray areas. I'll readily admit that. I understand playing Devil's Advocate. Just trying to figure things out and you seem to be willing to converse on an intelligent and well thought out level. I appreciate that. I don't actually disagree with much of what you say. I just don't know that I completly do agree with it either. *shrug* I'm complicated....sorry!!

ETA:

Incidentally, I'm in favour of closing Guantanamo and of obeying basic human rights laws and of treating prisoners as we would treat our own.

Just thought I'd get that out there.

The Earl

I kinda figured that out already! But glad you said it anyways!!

 

[TheEarl]

I don't actually disagree with much of what you say. I just don't know that I completly do agree with it either.

I think we just reached the point I was making <laughs>.

Nice to meet you and glad to listen to your intelligent and well-thought out conversation.

The Earl

 

[Belegon]

I am of the opinion that it takes courage to behave ethically.

Under no circumstances do I believe that it is right or honorable to deny a person their basic civil rights. Yes, even if that puts me and mine at risk.

The men who founded this country said and did things that would have resulted in their hanging if the British had won the war.

If I wish to follow in their footsteps and truly further the cause of freedom, I also must accept some risk.

I will not accept my country conducting criminal activities simply because it is the most expedient course of action.

Our system of Justice was designed with the intent that it was a lesser evil for a guilty man to walk free than for an innocent man to be condemned. I believe in that concept, even though it is not the safest course.

I must be the change I wish to see in the world.

 

[TheEarl]

I am of the opinion that it takes courage to behave ethically.

Under no circumstances do I believe that it is right or honorable to deny a person their basic civil rights. Yes, even if that puts me and mine at risk.

The men who founded this country said and did things that would have resulted in their hanging if the British had won the war.

If I wish to follow in their footsteps and truly further the cause of freedom, I also must accept some risk.

I will not accept my country conducting criminal activities simply because it is the most expedient course of action.

Our system of Justice was designed with the intent that it was a lesser evil for a guilty man to walk free than for an innocent man to be condemned. I believe in that concept, even though it is not the safest course.

I must be the change I wish to see in the world.

I'd vote for you.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

President Obama has also decided to shut all overseas CIA prisons and stop Extraordinary Rendition flights.

Incidentally, does anyone know if Mr Obama is planning on helping those detained by abuse of Extraordinary Rendition? I'm thinking of the British bankers who carried the can for the Enron fiasco, because their US equivalents were able to make deals with the prosecutor, something which is denied foreign nationals who are summoned through Extraordinary Rendition.

The Earl

 

[DesertPirate]

He should freeze Congress's salary too.

He should cut it in half!
Sadly he has no control over it.

 

[amicus]

This seems to be a rather one sided thread with a few taking an agnostic position...oink...

"...While I'm not defending them, nor their decisions, they were tasked with keeping America safe. While it was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and verging on downright evil, it was pragmatic...."

~~~

Actually the actions of the United States government were none of those items bolded.

And everyone knows it.

Why not admit this is a 'partisan' issue and that no one of this thread thus far has actually discussed the situation in an honest manner?

When an individual takes the oath to become a part of the US Military, they are informed that they no longer have the rights of a regular citizen, instead, they are subject to the laws of Military Justice.

War is never a pretty subject to discuss, especially for those who are sincerely, ahm, well, opposed to the use of violence.

It is a partisan issue as the fundamental platform of the left are always opposed to war, guns, violence and basically anything masculine.

There is no good answer in how to deal with Mercenary Islamic Terrorists who follow no rules of engagement, adhere to no Convention, Geneva or otherwise and who, in fact, wage war on innocent women and children.

If one were 'practical' as TheEarl asserts, the most practical means of dealing with these terrorists without a country, would be to kill them immediately.

Over and done with, no questions.

But, if, under the rules of engagement that Coalition forces attempt to adhere to, one cannot execute prisoners out of hand....then what?

The mindset of the left in a 'one world government' scenario, is so entrenched, that not one poster on this thread mentioned that only Americans are protected by our constitution, bill of rights and system of law.

These terrorists are religious fanatics who obey no laws, accept no rules of war and state openly that their desire is a Jihad, a total war on everyone who is not Islam.

You tell me, tell us, how you deal with such an individual.

I think you see, read and hear only what you want. Face the issue for a change and do not, I repeat, do not, begin with the war was illegal to begin with.

Thank you.

Amicus...

 

[sadangel]

I think we just reached the point I was making <laughs>.

Nice to meet you and glad to listen to your intelligent and well-thought out conversation.

The Earl

Thank you. I rarely participate in political type discussions. They too often take nasty turns. I'm glad that most if not all have maintened a level of politeness.

Nice to meet you and listen to your point of view also.

I am of the opinion that it takes courage to behave ethically.

Under no circumstances do I believe that it is right or honorable to deny a person their basic civil rights. Yes, even if that puts me and mine at risk.

The men who founded this country said and did things that would have resulted in their hanging if the British had won the war.

If I wish to follow in their footsteps and truly further the cause of freedom, I also must accept some risk.

I will not accept my country conducting criminal activities simply because it is the most expedient course of action.

Our system of Justice was designed with the intent that it was a lesser evil for a guilty man to walk free than for an innocent man to be condemned. I believe in that concept, even though it is not the safest course.

I must be the change I wish to see in the world.

I agree with all you said. Very well put!

Incidentally, does anyone know if Mr Obama is planning on helping those detained by abuse of Extraordinary Rendition? I'm thinking of the British bankers who carried the can for the Enron fiasco, because their US equivalents were able to make deals with the prosecutor, something which is denied foreign nationals who are summoned through Extraordinary Rendition.

The Earl

Honestly, I have no idea.

 

[DesertPirate]

Obama has signed an executive order directing the facility be closed within a year.

This in itself will be seen by many around the world as representative of a change in direction from US leadership.

Guantanamo was an international embarrassment of epic proportions.

Hmmmmm.... seems like the man is already making difficult and potentially unpopular choices (47% of Americans believe Gitmo should remain open.)

But of course, the opposition line will be that Obama has no guts and is giving in to terrorists.

*sigh*

Since he never did go ahead with the Military courts, which was a proper thing to do. They should all be returned to their homeland, no exceptions. Whatever happens to them there is their problem. If they are ever caught taking up arms against our country they should face excecution on the spot.

 

[cloudy]

If they are ever caught taking up arms against our country they should face excecution on the spot.

Never mind what the Geneva Convention says, right?



Ami: grow up. Masculine does not equal violence.

 

[DesertPirate]

This seems to be a rather one sided thread with a few taking an agnostic position...oink...

"...While I'm not defending them, nor their decisions, they were tasked with keeping America safe. While it was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and verging on downright evil, it was pragmatic...."

~~~

Actually the actions of the United States government were none of those items bolded.

And everyone knows it.

Why not admit this is a 'partisan' issue and that no one of this thread thus far has actually discussed the situation in an honest manner?

When an individual takes the oath to become a part of the US Military, they are informed that they no longer have the rights of a regular citizen, instead, they are subject to the laws of Military Justice.

War is never a pretty subject to discuss, especially for those who are sincerely, ahm, well, opposed to the use of violence.

It is a partisan issue as the fundamental platform of the left are always opposed to war, guns, violence and basically anything masculine.

There is no good answer in how to deal with Mercenary Islamic Terrorists who follow no rules of engagement, adhere to no Convention, Geneva or otherwise and who, in fact, wage war on innocent women and children.

If one were 'practical' as TheEarl asserts, the most practical means of dealing with these terrorists without a country, would be to kill them immediately.

Over and done with, no questions.

But, if, under the rules of engagement that Coalition forces attempt to adhere to, one cannot execute prisoners out of hand....then what?

The mindset of the left in a 'one world government' scenario, is so entrenched, that not one poster on this thread mentioned that only Americans are protected by our constitution, bill of rights and system of law.

These terrorists are religious fanatics who obey no laws, accept no rules of war and state openly that their desire is a Jihad, a total war on everyone who is not Islam.

You tell me, tell us, how you deal with such an individual.

I think you see, read and hear only what you want. Face the issue for a change and do not, I repeat, do not, begin with the war was illegal to begin with.

Thank you.

Amicus...

Under the Geneva conventions a person in civilian clothes, armed and fighting is subject to summary execution. They have NO rights as soldiers since they are not a uniformed combatant.

 

[DesertPirate]

Obama has signed an executive order directing the facility be closed within a year.

This in itself will be seen by many around the world as representative of a change in direction from US leadership.

Guantanamo was an international embarrassment of epic proportions.

Hmmmmm.... seems like the man is already making difficult and potentially unpopular choices (47% of Americans believe Gitmo should remain open.)

But of course, the opposition line will be that Obama has no guts and is giving in to terrorists.

*sigh*

Of course your Western PA twit Murtha offered to put them there. Hope you enjoy them.

 

[amicus]

Thanks, DP, not than any of the true believers will even comprehend that.

I forgot to mention, the $100,000 cap on Executive Staff salaries...guess what...there are none, were none and if there are any, will be appointed and paid by the new guy.

Amicus...

 

[DesertPirate]

Never mind what the Geneva Convention says, right?



Ami: grow up. Masculine does not equal violence.

It says people in civilian clothing taking up arms can be shot on the spot.

 

[amicus]

By the bye, Belegon, thread starter, nice place on words in the title...

Cloudy, the act of penetration is aggressive, unless you have always insisted the Woman on Top (Movie with Penelope Cruz, I think), not only is it aggressively male, if you are lucky, it can even be violent. Heh...

(It is likely immoral that I have so much fun on this forum)\

Amicus...

 

[sadangel]

This seems to be a rather one sided thread with a few taking an agnostic position...oink...

"...While I'm not defending them, nor their decisions, they were tasked with keeping America safe. While it was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and verging on downright evil, it was pragmatic...."

~~~

Actually the actions of the United States government were none of those items bolded.

And everyone knows it.

Why not admit this is a 'partisan' issue and that no one of this thread thus far has actually discussed the situation in an honest manner?

When an individual takes the oath to become a part of the US Military, they are informed that they no longer have the rights of a regular citizen, instead, they are subject to the laws of Military Justice.

War is never a pretty subject to discuss, especially for those who are sincerely, ahm, well, opposed to the use of violence.

It is a partisan issue as the fundamental platform of the left are always opposed to war, guns, violence and basically anything masculine.

There is no good answer in how to deal with Mercenary Islamic Terrorists who follow no rules of engagement, adhere to no Convention, Geneva or otherwise and who, in fact, wage war on innocent women and children.

If one were 'practical' as TheEarl asserts, the most practical means of dealing with these terrorists without a country, would be to kill them immediately.

Over and done with, no questions.

But, if, under the rules of engagement that Coalition forces attempt to adhere to, one cannot execute prisoners out of hand....then what?

The mindset of the left in a 'one world government' scenario, is so entrenched, that not one poster on this thread mentioned that only Americans are protected by our constitution, bill of rights and system of law.

These terrorists are religious fanatics who obey no laws, accept no rules of war and state openly that their desire is a Jihad, a total war on everyone who is not Islam.

You tell me, tell us, how you deal with such an individual.

I think you see, read and hear only what you want. Face the issue for a change and do not, I repeat, do not, begin with the war was illegal to begin with.

Thank you.

Amicus...

I see no reason that anyone should have to take an agnostic or an antagonistic side in this discussion. It's possible to disagree with certian points as I have with TheEarl and to agree with others that the same person says. Doesn't mean I'm blindly believing anything. I prefer to ask questions, get facts and then make an informed decision. I don't think that every discussion has to be a debate as apparently some do. That's my right. My choice.

You have your opinion, rights and choices. Feel free to voice them. Do so with respect. I give respect. I expect it in return. If I'm treated disrespectfully, you'll see me return it in kind.

 

[TheEarl]

These terrorists are religious fanatics who obey no laws, accept no rules of war and state openly that their desire is a Jihad, a total war on everyone who is not Islam.

You tell me, tell us, how you deal with such an individual.

I believe Belegon's point of view is that the freedom which the United States is fighting for should be espoused by its every action. How are we to make everyone else see the value of freedom if we show willingness to discard it ourselves?

Quick question: How does one win a war against terrorists who are willing and capable of hiding in civilian populations and who enjoy support from those populations. How does one fight an army that never comes out to fight?

Belegon, I suspect, would suggest it would be by removing the popular support, by demonstrating that you are better than the other side. I follow the belief of integrating the enemy and working out what they fight for and how we can negotiate with them, a la Ireland.

How would you fight an opponent who is never visible?

The Earl

 

[sadangel]

I believe Belegon's point of view is that the freedom which the United States is fighting for should be espoused by its every action. How are we to make everyone else see the value of freedom if we show willingness to discard it ourselves?

Quick question: How does one win a war against terrorists who are willing and capable of hiding in civilian populations and who enjoy support from those populations. How does one fight an army that never comes out to fight?

Belegon, I suspect, would suggest it would be by removing the popular support, by demonstrating that you are better than the other side. I follow the belief of integrating the enemy and working out what they fight for and how we can negotiate with them, a la Ireland.

How would you fight an opponent who is never visible?

The Earl

I for one think start with diplomacy/negotiations where possible. I don't think that "guns a'blazing" is the right answer for the majority of things.

The question? Is there really a good answer?

ETA:

How are we to make everyone else see the value of freedom if we show willingness to discard it ourselves?

We have to first show others the value of freedom. That's where we need to make changes. That's why I say that we give our new President a chance to make those changes. They will not be overnight. We didn't get here overnight. It will take time. It will take work. It will take courage.

I understand all that. My roomate's son has been in Iraq twice. He's one of the very lucky one's. Two tours/1 year each. He came home alive and with all his limbs. In one piece. I know the freedom for which he and all the other men and women are fighting for us for. I want them to be given the same respect if they are captured that we should be giving to others. We have to find a way to bring the terrorists to task for what they've done, but do we lay all our values to the side in an effort to do it? I think the answer is no. That's what I see we've done for too long.