Poll: Obama Shutting Down Guantanamo Bay. Good or Bad?

[maddawg IAJI]

come on think about this. i would rather have our most dangerous crimnals in a jail outside of the country then in here. its like alcatraz. if they escape where are they going to go there on an island.

There not criminals, none of them have had anything close to a proper trial. Thats the laws and basic foundations of THE country which is running this place.

there terriosts who have killed hundred of people. thats proably qualifys them as dangerous criminals. also think about this if we held a trial we would need to put them in a jail. most jailed criminals would proably tear these guys apart. its safer for them in guantamno then in the states.

also guantanmo is runned by americans.

 

[hamster mk 4]

Aren't drugs and lie detectors more effective ways of getting good information from reluctant subjects? Torture is good for extracting confessions and breaking people prior to their show trials. If a country is angry and needs to see its government bringing "justice" to the people who wronged it, torture is an excellent way to satisfy the public's blood lust.

 

[Avatar Roku]

come on think about this. i would rather have our most dangerous crimnals in a jail outside of the country then in here. its like alcatraz. if they escape where are they going to go there on an island.

There not criminals, none of them have had anything close to a proper trial. Thats the laws and basic foundations of THE country which is running this place.

there terriosts who have killed hundred of people. thats proably qualifys them as dangerous criminals. also think about this if we held a trial we would need to put them in a jail. most jailed criminals would proably tear these guys apart. its safer for them in guantamno then in the states.

also guantanmo is runned by americans.

No, they're alleged terrorists. They haven't had trials, so that's all they can be called.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I can understand why he would do this but is it really a good idea? I mean we gain very useful information from torturing prisoners that save American lives. People can make the argument about it being a violation of the Constitution. But they are not American citizens so should they have those right? So is it a good idea? or a bad one?

Just wanted to ask all of y'all intelligent people out there.

Actually, I'd wager you're just getting tax dollars pissed against the wall whilst soldiers beat "suspicious" foreigners who haven't actually been convicted of anything.

"Why are they suspicious?"
"They're Muslims!"
"Oh, that's it?"
"They were on a train!"
"Clearly, criminal masterminds..."

 

[maddawg IAJI]

come on think about this. i would rather have our most dangerous crimnals in a jail outside of the country then in here. its like alcatraz. if they escape where are they going to go there on an island.

There not criminals, none of them have had anything close to a proper trial. Thats the laws and basic foundations of THE country which is running this place.

there terriosts who have killed hundred of people. thats proably qualifys them as dangerous criminals. also think about this if we held a trial we would need to put them in a jail. most jailed criminals would proably tear these guys apart. its safer for them in guantamno then in the states.

also guantanmo is runned by americans.

No, they're alleged terrorists. They haven't had trials, so that's all they can be called.

well if its good enough for the goverment its good enough for me.

 

[Booze Zombie]

well if its good enough for the goverment its good enough for me.

Yes, if it's good enough for people who imprison people without trial, torture them until they say they're terrorists and then make the public believe that they're actually terrorists, that's good enough for me.

Just because it's your government, doesn't mean you have to agree with it on principle or that it's doing nice things.

 

[Avatar Roku]

come on think about this. i would rather have our most dangerous crimnals in a jail outside of the country then in here. its like alcatraz. if they escape where are they going to go there on an island.

There not criminals, none of them have had anything close to a proper trial. Thats the laws and basic foundations of THE country which is running this place.

there terriosts who have killed hundred of people. thats proably qualifys them as dangerous criminals. also think about this if we held a trial we would need to put them in a jail. most jailed criminals would proably tear these guys apart. its safer for them in guantamno then in the states.

also guantanmo is runned by americans.

No, they're alleged terrorists. They haven't had trials, so that's all they can be called.

well if its good enough for the goverment its good enough for me.

It shouldn't be. Your basically letting the government do whatever it wants without any regard for human rights or common decency.

 

[Elim Garak]

Bad idea... we're letting enemy combatants to be moved to places where they don't belong and giving them Constitutional rights as if they were U.S. born citizens. Honestly, they're not American citizens so the Constitution doesn't cover them.

OK, lets for the moment ignore the question of whether torture is an effective interrogation tool, and what it does to the encourage and motivate potential terrorists.

The constitution may be a bit ambiguous about this, but US did sign the Geneva convention. Plus, they are still human beings. The bottom line is that even if this follows the letter of the law (which is extremely questionable), it does not follow its spirit.

Also, there is a question of what is and should be allowed by law. If you have a foreigner, should you be allowed to kill him? Do whatever you want to with him? Lets say you import a child from some wild tribe in South America - should you be allowed to molest him? Where and how do you draw the line?

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

The f***ing place was illegal and in violation of the Geneva convention in the first place. I don't care if the country is going down the tube, I want my dignity back.

 

[Easykill]

Of course it's a fucking good idea. I'd justify that statement, but anyone who doesn't already know won't gain anything from it anyway, so I'll spare myself the effort.

 

[Elim Garak]

I think it is a bad idea because it just means transferring everyone their to different prisons.

No, the key point here is that they are back in the legal system, where they can be treated legally. If everything was on the up-and-up, then they could have stayed in Guantanamo for all we care. If it was done legally, with accordance to the Geneva convention. The problem is that it wasn't - the whole point to putting it in Cuba is to hide things from inspectors, etc.

Thats the only logical course of action I can see for dealing with people we have decided are our enemies.

LOL. There are millions if not billions of people that have decided to be our enemies - explicitly or implicitly. Are you going to torture all of them too? Should US have tortured Japanese prisoners of war during WW2? German prisoners? Set up concentration camps? Ovens? Mass graves?

 

[Elim Garak]

The posts in these types of threads always make me laugh. Americans really do believe Terrorists are monsterious beasts of destruction that hide under the bed, have chainsaws for arms and produce pure evil for piss.

Some of them do, unfortunately. The ones that use movies for education, and believe all of the propaganda. Most are sane, though.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

well if its good enough for the goverment its good enough for me.

Y'know, if your ancestors had said the same about King George III, sometimes I think you'd have ended up better off.

-- Steve

 

[Zephirius]

I understand all of you bleeding hearts out there who are against torture, but really, how many people have died from, let's say, waterboarding? Zero. It is just a sensation of drowning and it gives the U.S. vital info so that the next thing, like Mt. Rushmore, won't be reduced to cinders.

Ah yes, death is much, much worse than being traumatized both physically and psychologically on a daily basis.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Many of you are misquoting the Geneva Convention, much like you misquote the Constitution, because A.) You haven't read it. B.) You heard some other idiot spout out about it, and figured they were telling the truth. or C.) Read about it o n a bumper sticker.
So let me enlighten a few of you about it, although I'll need to stretch the truth and say that the prisoners we have are in fact, uniformed soldiers from their respective countries.

The Geneva Convention was written mainly in an attempt to humanize treatment of POWs. This much most of you at least have a general idea about.

The Second Article describes the uses of the treaty in a variety of situations. The third point of the second article is how it relates to a Signed Dignitary (USA) and a non-signing dignitary (Jordan, Samaria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) and, I quote
"...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

This means that the USA must follow the Geneva Convention until the non-signing dignitary(s) fails to follow as well. With the taped executions by means of beheading of several western individuals, including Daniel Pearl, the non-signing dignitary(s) failed to keep their part, so the USA was no longer constrained by it. In laymans terms: they started playing hardball, America followed suit.

And I'll close by saying you cannot fight a humane war. There is no such thing, and there never will be.

 

[Hman121]

I'm pretty sure I've lost this argument,so quit quoting me. Oh well...

 

[Anton P. Nym]

And I'll close by saying you cannot fight a humane war. There is no such thing, and there never will be.

Perhaps. But there is such a thing as an effective prosecution of a war, one that takes into account the morale and propaganda value of being able to claim superior morality over one's opponents... an approach that doesn't alienate your allies and radicalise your opponents... one that generates real intelligence from key figures instead of CYA confessions from whomever you've managed to grab.

The use of Gitmo and the other "black sites" meets none of those criteria.

-- Steve

 

[Malkavian]

I can understand why he would do this but is it really a good idea? I mean we gain very useful information from torturing prisoners that save American lives. People can make the argument about it being a violation of the Constitution. But they are not American citizens so should they have those right? So is it a good idea? or a bad one?

Just wanted to ask all of y'all intelligent people out there.

Being a human being, and having a right to a fair and just treatment, is not something that is decided by whether you are an american or not.

To several people in the thread: I could care less what the consitution says, or what geneva says, or what any written law says. This is a question about what YOU think, so stop hiding behind what the law says. Laws are not always just.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

And I'll close by saying you cannot fight a humane war. There is no such thing, and there never will be.

Perhaps. But there is such a thing as an effective prosecution of a war, one that takes into account the morale and propaganda value of being able to claim superior morality over one's opponents... an approach that doesn't alienate your allies and radicalise your opponents... one that generates real intelligence from key figures instead of CYA confessions from whomever you've managed to grab.

The use of Gitmo and the other "black sites" meets none of those criteria.

-- Steve

A-, you win a cookie! Morality is brought in, then we have to question the morality of war itself, which is none. There never was a moral war, because war is brought on by immorality. 9/11, the invasion of Poland, Pearl Harbor, the Assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand, there never was a moral war.
Second, you won't win many fights using Queensbury Rules when your opponent is going for the kill. And frankly, I'm of mind that survival beats death with false honor any day.

 

[Malkavian]

A-, you win a cookie! Morality is brought in, then we have to question the morality of war itself, which is none. There never was a moral war, because war is brought on by immorality. 9/11, the invasion of Poland, Pearl Harbor, the Assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand, there never was a moral war.

I dispute this...
It really depends on the ethical system that you apply to the case in hand. From a utilitarian point of view, wars can be very morally correct.