Gone-tanamo Bay

[Stella_Omega]

It's fiction as philosophy; lousy fiction and half-baked philosophy.

 

[JackLuis]

TO get this back on topic. Here is an opinion that I did not hear expressed in the fourm. Natrually, and he does so with simple elegance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ratner/on-closing-guantanamo-a-s_b_160387.html

"With the signing of yesterday's executive orders to close Guantanamo and end torture, we are finally seeing the beginning of a reversal of some of the nastiest inhuman practices of the Bush administration. Yes, it may take another year to close the notorious detention center and yes, there are some aspects of these orders that could be problematic, such as the suggestion that trials outside of federal courts are possible. But despite some reservations, after seven long years of Bush policies that violated human rights, treaties, law and morality, yesterday marked the end of an era. It was an era that caused untold harm to human beings and to the U.S. reputation in the world."

 

[Liar]

http://boxofficemojo.com/features/?id=1243&p=.htm

Not a real good source and old at that...but then so am I...sue me...

Ah yes. Second most influental, to it's readers. In that poll. Says not a word about how many actually read it.

I don't doubt for a second that it's seen as influental to the lives of her fans. It does after all embody and articulate the ideas they subscribe to. And I guess you have to be a follower of the ideas already in order to parse the rather sluggishly written novel without giving up.

 

[amicus]

the,'huffington post', no less, the left quoting the left as if it meant something.

Those who had family members in the Beirut barracks and a hundred other places torched by terrorists targeting civilian men, women and children, hospitals, bus depots, restuarants and resorts, remember the true lack of humanity displayed by Islamic terrorism.

Then to accuse the victims of using inhuman tactics by interrogation and imprisonment, really takes the cake.

Gitmo holds terrorist criminals who have no regard for human life or human rights of any source.

I would be the first to volunteer if waterboarding one of these scum would prevent the loss of another innocent human life.

You lay with dogs...don't be surprised to find yourself scratching the fleas, bloodsuckers all.

Amicus...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

From Wiki:

Since 7 October 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[11] More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them.

Three have been convicted of various charges:

* David Hicks was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001.[12][13]
* Salim Hamdan took a job as chauffeur driving Osama bin Laden.[14]
* Ali al-Bahlul made a video celebrating the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67).

Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.

========================

So we're talking about 60 to 80 detainees.

I saw a general on TV the other night, a former aid to Colin Powell. He says most of these detainees were turned in by informants for a $5,000 reward the US offered for "terrorists" or Taliban members in Afghanistan. That means a lot of them were probably innocent and just hated by their neighbors or ratted out for the money. They're being held for not co-operating with US interrogators. That's their crime. They're not terrorists when we take them into Gitmo. They're terrorists when they get out, though. We turn them into terrorists. That's what we've accomplished at Guantanamo.

That's some dangerous guy, that Ali al-Bahlul, the guy who made the movie about the USS Cole. I sleep better at night knowing he and his movie camera are in jail.

 

[sadangel]

Don't worry, sadangel; you will never ever be able to burst one of Ami's preconceived notions.

I figured as much Stella!

TO get this back on topic. Here is an opinion that I did not hear expressed in the fourm. Natrually, and he does so with simple elegance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ratner/on-closing-guantanamo-a-s_b_160387.html

"With the signing of yesterday's executive orders to close Guantanamo and end torture, we are finally seeing the beginning of a reversal of some of the nastiest inhuman practices of the Bush administration. Yes, it may take another year to close the notorious detention center and yes, there are some aspects of these orders that could be problematic, such as the suggestion that trials outside of federal courts are possible. But despite some reservations, after seven long years of Bush policies that violated human rights, treaties, law and morality, yesterday marked the end of an era. It was an era that caused untold harm to human beings and to the U.S. reputation in the world."

Yes, I have reservations about it, but I still think it's a step in the right direction. We need to figure out WHERE to put them and how to go about allowing for FAIR trials. If that makes me a "Leftists" then so be it. I think it makes me a human that thinks that each person has rights that should be adhered to. I want MY rights to be enforced so why should I not expect the same for others?

From Wiki:

Since 7 October 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of May 2008, approximately 270 detainees remain.[11] More than a fifth are cleared for release but must nevertheless remain indefinitely because countries are reluctant to accept them.

Three have been convicted of various charges:

* David Hicks was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001.[12][13]
* Salim Hamdan took a job as chauffeur driving Osama bin Laden.[14]
* Ali al-Bahlul made a video celebrating the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67).

Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.

========================

So we're talking about 60 to 80 detainees.

I saw a general on TV the other night, a former aid to Colin Powell. He says most of these detainees were turned in by informants for a $5,000 reward the US offered for "terrorists" or Taliban members in Afghanistan. That means a lot of them were probably innocent and just hated by their neighbors or ratted out for the money. They're being held for not co-operating with US interrogators. That's their crime. They're not terrorists when we take them into Gitmo. They're terrorists when they get out, though. We turn them into terrorists. That's what we've accomplished at Guantanamo.

That's some dangerous guy, that Ali al-Bahlul, the guy who made the movie about the USS Cole. I sleep better at night knowing he and his movie camera are in jail.

The one's that did things....we need to figure out what to do with them. The one's turned in by informants that MAY or MAY NOT be guilty of anything other than being perhaps Muslim or Arabic, we need to find out through LEGAL methods the truth and if they are innocent--they need to be freed. Yes, some are going to come out as terrorists. How do we know which one's? Does that mean we free NONE just to be safe? I don't think so. That's MY opinion.

 

[amicus]

The Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp is a United States detention center operated by Joint Task Force Guantánamo since 2001 in Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, which is on the shore of Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.[1]

The detainment areas consist of three camps in the base: Camp Delta (which includes Camp Echo), Camp Iguana, and Camp X-Ray (which has been closed). The facility is often referred to as the Guantánamo, or Gitmo.[2][3] The detainees currently held as of June 2008 have been classified by the United States as "enemy combatants." After claims were made that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on 29 June 2006 that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under its Common Article 3.[4] Following this, on 7 July 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners will in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3

~~~

That is the beginning of the wiki piece quoted by Mab.

There is an opening disclaimer worth noticing and several 'information not confirmed', portions, as there are in several current topics under discussion.

If you desire to join the choir and hum in harmony with the left that all these, 'enemy combatants', are limo drivers or patsey's, feel free.

Anyone outside the ideological left knows full well that those enemy combatants are from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and elsewhere and actively used arms against coalition troops and the civilian population of Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are paid mercenaries without a country, fighting without a uniform or a military code of justice, they should have been and could have been legally, shot on the spot.

Sure...why not protect them in American courts?

I can think of a thousand reasons.

Amicus...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

America is pretty well fucked as it is, so I say we let the Usual Suspects run the government however they want for the next 4 years, then assess the damage before the election.

 

[JackLuis]

AMICUS

America is pretty well fucked as it is, so I say we let the Usual Suspects run the government however they want for the next 4 years, then assess the damage before the election.

I guess that is what's going to happen. We (the People) don't have a choice in the matter. We are powerless to control our Government except through the ballot box and even then we only get to choose between the candidates that the "Nominating Class", party leaders. media mogals and fund raisers, allow us to vote for.

As for the Huffington Post crack, AMICUS, just because a man is standing by the intent of the Constitution does not mean that he is a leftist any more than Rush is a Conservitive.

"W" got us into the Gitmo problem when he "Decided" to punish the "Evil Doer's" in a Military prison and bring them to Cuba because he couldn't face honoring the rights of man. "W" is a prick and a stupid prick at that.

 

[trysail]

I didn't write any of this and I don't intend to name the author [ an American residing in Europe ] who, obviously, is not pulling any punches.

See this item: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/europe_guantanamo/2009/01/26/175227.html

Herewith my loose translation: "I know that we've been holier-than-thou preaching at you for a long time about how you need to get right with not only with world opinion, but also with your own historical declared principles of law, and close Guantanamo detention. But now that you're actually prepared to do it, we've been recently reconsidering the facts of the situation and we are SHOCKED, SHOCKED to discover that there really are some bad guys being held there. And if you think WE'RE going to take them in as refugees, you're mistaken. But we still want you to close the place and give the problem to someone else (your own domestic legal system perhaps?)".

Such a "civilized" bunch of mentally atrophied easy-chair lawyers and human rights defenders, these European mush mouths. What sanctimonious and immoral pusillanimous BS this is. Really & truly. And, to forestall the standard human rights response to my views, my attitude has nothing to do with my wanting to abrogate the rule of law about how prisoners are treated. But it has everything to do with the fact that anyone with an ounce of political sensibility and forecasting insight should have known 3 or more years ago, despite incessant campaign pabulum, that this was EXACTLY what was bound to happen the minute the squishy part of the American Left came to power and therefore had to confront the reality that a significant number of these detainees intend bad things not just for us as individuals, but they truly wish to undermine European & North American politics and culture.

Making such policy decisions based upon "capture and release" programs (to use a hunting/fishing metaphor) is beyond silly. It's dangerous. The only schadenfreude I can find here is that most European governments are more far more vulnerable to being undermined in the medium term than is the US. Sigh!!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Omigod, That Elephant We Dragged Into The Living Room Has Taken A Dump The Size Of Mount Rushmore, But It's not Our Fault!!!!!

 

[amicus]

Interesting piece, thank you.

Amicus...

 

[ishtat]

Bagwam

There is also the small problem of the 600 prisoners in American custody at Bagwam in Afghanistan and approximately 15,000 prisoners held in Iraq. Their legal status is not a problem, they are prisoners of war (albeit in their own countries).

If and when the war(s) end they will still be a problem, unless someone can convince them to go home quietly. Will they do that? maybe yes, maybe no. If only 5% wanted to take revenge on their former captors they could cause some serious problems.

Releasing prisoners is harder than catching them.

 

[DesertPirate]

There is also the small problem of the 600 prisoners in American custody at Bagwam in Afghanistan and approximately 15,000 prisoners held in Iraq. Their legal status is not a problem, they are prisoners of war (albeit in their own countries).

If and when the war(s) end they will still be a problem, unless someone can convince them to go home quietly. Will they do that? maybe yes, maybe no. If only 5% wanted to take revenge on their former captors they could cause some serious problems.

Releasing prisoners is harder than catching them.

They are POWs, ONLY, if captured in uniform.
Armed and without a uniform on the field of battle they are entitled to execution according to the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Huckleman2000]

They are POWs, ONLY, if captured in uniform.
Armed and without a uniform on the field of battle they are entitled to execution according to the Geneva Conventions.

You talk as if war was a game, with rules and referees.

While I have no doubt that the US military is among the best-trained and best-equipped in the world, I also have no doubt that ultimately, there are no rules in war, save those imposed by ourselves. We are civilized because we adhere to laws, even when our enemies do not.

Torture, imprisonment without due process... These things are far more dangerous to us than a gang of terrorists. You seem to despise government so much that arming yourself against it is a core right, yet you willingly give up the most basic human rights to it when you feel threatened. Do you honestly think your concealed-carry permit would protect you if your government decided that you were 'a terrorist'?

 

[sadangel]

Omigod, That Elephant We Dragged Into The Living Room Has Taken A Dump The Size Of Mount Rushmore, But It's not Our Fault!!!!!

*giggles*

Sorry. Back to regularly scheduled programming now!!