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

[Johnnyallstar]

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.

True, but I'm not a utilitarian. "Point of view" = opinion. There were some that held the opinion that throwing jews in ovens was morally correct, which is abhorred. True, you can say that a war started in retaliation is morally in the just, but still, you are talking about using an amoral tool to exact vengeance/justice/retribution (whichever works) in response to an immoral act.

 

[McClaud]

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.

Wow, that's the biggest piece of bulls**t I've read yet. And I'm a veteran who worked in Legal Services for a few years.

Being a college grad and a former member of the military, I know for a fact that just because the country in question doesn't treat their POWs (your people) with dignity and humanely doesn't mean we get revenge on our POWs (their people). The Geneva Conventions state that all members signed to the Convention shall always treat POWs as stipulated by the Convention. "They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof," just means that we're going to hold the country accountable after the war/conflict is over and can demand reparations for the mistreatment of our people in their custody.

This is why the previous Adminstration was trying to get the Geneva Convention altered legally, because they didn't want to be held accountable for breaking several articles of the Convention. If you paid any attention or had any experience with the Geneva Convention, you'd actually know this, instead of babbling on trying to justify torture and inhumane treatment by twisting an article's wording in the Convention.

I also agree to closing Gitmo because as it were, most of the suspected terrorists were merely sitting there, waiting for the Executive Order that holds them in custody to expire. By stalling or muddling their trials, they get off free in six years, and are allowed to file a lawsuit against the US government (which most don't because they just go home afterwards). We're not treating them like a US citizen by giving them a trial - we're treating them like a war criminal and not a temporary detainee. We can't execute or levie a permanent sentence without a trial, and Gitmo was merely making it harder to do that.

And seriously - where is an escaped terrorist suspect going to hide if he breaks out of a US prison? Their face will be plastered on every TV and news service, and the only recourse would be to flee outside the country. It's not like they'll just hook up with some group of people immediately outside the prison and conduct an immediate terrorist strike on US soil. JFC, people, get some common sense.

 

[Wyatt]

the Geneva Convention is shit. talking about it is meaningless. untill you can show me a court of law that can enforce the articles of the Geneva Convention on EVERYONE its just meaningless words. more like a company 'mission statment' than any form of solid binding legal contract that is actualy enforcable.

ALL internationel relations are just statments of intent and are only binding when the big power can enforce the wording on the small power. anything anyone else says is just wrong. there is no world court, there is no world police force, there is no law higher on this planet (than God but thats another subject) than the nation with a powerful enough millitary to compell its 'partners' to abide by a treaty if it comes to it. nations dont have contracts they have self interests. india, pakastian, israel, N Korea, Iran all signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty as a perfect example of just how usless international 'law' really is.

the terms of the Geneva Convention are in our OWN best interest to follow, but if they werent, the SECOND they became a liability id dump them like a hot rock, and vote against any president or member of congress who wouldnt. im American, so American comes first last and allways number 1 in my mind.

my views on the law totaly ignore any 'internationel' bull shit as the meaningless tripe it really is and focus on American law. and while the argument has been made that the prisoners arent American and thus arent subject to American laws, i will simply say, no , your right they arent, but WE are. every member of our millitary, every member of the CIA or any other agency that is involved with those prisoners, every member of any court, there all American and ARE subject to American law. and under American law we dont torture. i dont give a fuck about the 'rights' of the prisoners i care about the DUTYS of our OWN people. OUR people involved in this ARE subject too our laws and any argument about location is also meaningless, we dont abandon all laws when we go to war. our members of our millitary werent free too do anything they liked the second they invaded Iraq. they are still under the UCMJ, we bring OUR laws with us whereever our millitary gos, be that Iraq, or Gitmo and OUR people are still subject too them.

and also to my mind, the second the prisoners feet hit American soil than thats it, they ARE subject too all the laws that govern our nation including due process.

this is a blunt and real look at practical 'law'. the UCMJ that governs our own millitary people doesnt allow torture. THATS the law that governs the gitmo prisoners, all else is not relivent. and most especialy all the talk about crap like the Geneva Convention. or any POW noise. we havent declared war on anyone so by default there can be no POWS since their are no WARS. i only point this out too all you jail house lawers that think your invented masters degree and just as invented millitary experiance holds any weight in this topic.

the fact is that there ARE no laws to actualy govern these people, they arent prisoners of war, since there is no declared war, they arent regular old criminols since in most cases there was no local law at all where and when they were captured. they are 'Enemy combatant' what ever the fuck that means from a legal point of view. it actualy means nothing. they arent actualy governed under ANY law, local, nationel , or internationel. but the people HOLDING them cerianly are, and those people (the US millitary) are subject to laws that prohibit torture.

in short, the prinsoners have no rights because they are under no law, but the guards are, and one of those laws the guards are under is the one that says you cant torture people.

 

[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.

Wow, that's the biggest piece of bulls**t I've read yet. And I'm a veteran who worked in Legal Services for a few years.

Being a college grad and a former member of the military, I know for a fact that just because the country in question doesn't treat their POWs (your people) with dignity and humanely doesn't mean we get revenge on our POWs (their people). The Geneva Conventions state that all members signed to the Convention shall always treat POWs as stipulated by the Convention. "They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof," just means that we're going to hold the country accountable after the war/conflict is over and can demand reparations for the mistreatment of our people in their custody.

This is why the previous Adminstration was trying to get the Geneva Convention altered legally, because they didn't want to be held accountable for breaking several articles of the Convention. If you paid any attention or had any experience with the Geneva Convention, you'd actually know this, instead of babbling on trying to justify torture and inhumane treatment by twisting an article's wording in the Convention.

I also agree to closing Gitmo because as it were, most of the suspected terrorists were merely sitting there, waiting for the Executive Order that holds them in custody to expire. By stalling or muddling their trials, they get off free in six years, and are allowed to file a lawsuit against the US government (which most don't because they just go home afterwards). We're not treating them like a US citizen by giving them a trial - we're treating them like a war criminal and not a temporary detainee. We can't execute or levie a permanent sentence without a trial, and Gitmo was merely making it harder to do that.

And seriously - where is an escaped terrorist suspect going to hide if he breaks out of a US prison? Their face will be plastered on every TV and news service, and the only recourse would be to flee outside the country. It's not like they'll just hook up with some group of people immediately outside the prison and conduct an immediate terrorist strike on US soil. JFC, people, get some common sense.

Of course I twisted. Everyone who says anything is twisting words, if you want to really look at it from a philosophical or psychological standpoint. I'm not entirely waving around saying that everything the government does is right, because honestly the vast majority of it I disagree with. I never said anything about justifying torture or inhumane treatment, so again please don't insult my intelligence by saying I did, if you were meaning me.

And yes, Gitmo did make it hard to get them to court, true, but most of them have already been handled, and there aren't many left, 250 out of 800, as of late last year. But now, where are the remainders to go? Leavenworth? Brig in Charleston? Many of the remaining 250 their home countries are refusing to take back, or are waiting with lawsuits of their own. Most of the ones left are NOT as innocent as most claim, and they are the ones that had to be held in solitary, and are facing strong punishment. Many of the Gitmo detainees have been either tried or sent home.

As for "Fair trials" that other people mentioned, I will argue that there is no such thing. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is set for "Fair Trial" in New York for his actions, but who is that going to be "fair" to? Doubtless he will think it unfair if the verdict is against him. We cannot, with any intellectual honesty call any trial fair.

 

[McClaud]

We can't hold them indefinitely. Which is the other option you suggested.

The executive order holding these people at Gitmo in the first place expired for a good 180 of them last year, and they were mostly released back into the world without a trial. There was nothing anyone could do. Most of them just disappeared, so they wouldn't be re-arrested.

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.

What you said there is what I was quoting. Of course the actual war is not humane - but the treatment of prisoners must remain ethical and humane as possible. The Geneva Convention does not allow the US to "play hardball" as you put it - like I said, if our people are being mistreated or executed as POWs in the hands of the enemy, the recourse set by the Convention is that we can demand reparations and stay at war. But the choice to torture these individuals was not allowed within the Convention - the past Administration decided on their own perrogative to allow it, and tried to alter the Convention to allow it.

And it wasn't changed, nor was our legal definition of how we treat the POWs changed. Right now, there are lawsuits being doled out against the past Administration in various countries and the courts are actually hearing them because they failed to get torture excluded from the Convention. The UN is literally PISSED at the previous Administration, and ignoring US appeals to the Security Council to give Bush a free pass on this one.

I wasn't attempting to insult your intelligence but correct the reality for the sake of other readers. That entire post was very misleading and confusing, and I just wanted people to know that no article in the Geneva Convention condones torturing POWs. You made it sound like there was one.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Actually, the argument is, in the case of nationals of Iraq and Afghanistan, they are Franc-Tireurs, or Guerillas, and are to be treat as legitimate combatants. If they are not of those nations, then they are common criminals, and are to be put on trial and punished as appropriate.


It. Is. Fucking. Simple. GTFO.

 

[DeadMG]

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.

And yes I do realize that we do not always get correct information by ways of torture. But not all of it is false.

Nor can you tell beforehand which is false and which is not. I might also add that if I travelled to the US, then the actions would still be unconstitutional. Your government and all of it's contractors should always act constitutionally. Guantanamo Bay is proof that your government wouldn't uphold the Constitution if it didn't have to, because suddenly when it can choose to ignore it, it will.

American citizens being tortured or not, they're being tortured by American citizens, acting under American government directives, paid for by American money. You want to tell me that US law doesn't apply? The Constitution infact specifically states that all men and women are born equal. That includes ignoring citizenship.

Edit:

You can't submit information by torture to the courts (even in the US), so torturing them will not get them out of Guantanamo and into the US legal system.

 

[Anomynous 167]

Bad for US and bad for Australia... Bad for the US because that means they are letting terrorists free. Bad for Australia because Rudd will ask Barrack Heuseign Obama for permission to take them into Australian prisons.

 

[McClaud]

Bad for the US because that means they are letting terrorists free.

Where the heck did you get that information?

We're not letting them free by closing Gitmo. They are getting freed because Gitmo can't process them fast enough to get them to court. Because Gitmo doesn't have a system of adequately conducting a trial, therefore the terrorists use the system to slow down their prosecution until the order expires and they get freed on a technicality.

It seems to me that people don't understand how this works or has been working for the last four years. The previous Administration was not telling you the truth when they said that prisoners could be held indefinitely at Gitmo. They were gambling that they could get the support of the public and international partners to do so, and failed. So now the recourse is to get them out of Gitmo and into the system so they can be brought to justice before they are freed due to time.

That's it. Those are your two choices - send them to trial or free them unconditionally. The military cannot just invent laws or solutions to satisfy the whining of the Americans who don't understand how the system works. Nor can the President. The last one tried and failed. Only Congress can act within the constraints of the many guidelines put forth by past sessions due to judicial precedence.

 

[Ionami]

They may be tortured, but they have better medical care and attention than a huge chunk of Americans...

 

[beddo]

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.

And yes I do realize that we do not always get correct information by ways of torture. But not all of it is false.

Innocent people have been tortured by the US. Going by this logic would you be happy for a family member to be tortured if it might help save American lives, even if they are innocent?

 

[beddo]

I was going to write a huge post on this but I can't be bothered.

Torture is unreliable and counter productive. The result is greater insurgence, a loss of national and international support and the population being ostracised when travelling abroad. It loses the moral high ground which was used a claim for the war.

If the Government went over to instil the values of democracy over and oppression and torture then the action of torture undermines said democratic values.

 

[beddo]

They may be tortured, but they have better medical care and attention than a huge chunk of Americans...

Doctors who are complicit in torture are breaking their Hippocratic oath. They should be tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague.

Oh wait, the US won't sign up to that because their guilty of so many crimes against humanity. The only country to use an atomic bomb killing thousand of innocent people. The US is a disgrace with no moral standing in the world.

 

[McClaud]

Torturing for information is really redundant in the Intelligence world any way.

I can't trust anything a captive says to me under torture so I have to go out and verify it. I could have gone out and got that same Intel in the time it took for me to torture the captive and verified his statements. Or by the time I've verified what the captive told me, it's already outdated because the enemy knows that captives with sensitive information are a risk and made the change.

It's not rocket science. The negatives outweigh the positives when it comes to torture. Usually, you have to ask pointed questions, so the tortured individual just tells you what you want to hear. And military info gained from a captive always has to be verified before it can be acted upon, sometimes by two or more sources. So time is wasted.

Then you have to deal with the legal repercussions should the captive be innocent and/or know nothing. This costs time and money. And possibly allows the captive to go free without sentence.

And then there's diplomatic fallout. And loss of cooperation. Etc.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

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.

You're assuming that fighting dirty will lead to survival. Don't bet on it.

As I've said before, Gitmo and its ilk were of marginal utility at best even if you assume they worked. (I don't; indeed, I see it as a colossal intelligence failure that eclipses even the ignoring of the 9-11 warnings.) Weighed against that is the effect they had on public perception, both at home and on the "front". That effect can be summed up as, "fucking Yanks can't be trusted, and they're a gaddam comedy team when they take the gloves off anyway."

There's a macho cult out there that thinks that you win wars by killing and maiming the enemy. That's like thinking you win golf by hitting the ball; it's part of the process, yes, but sheer repetition of it alone isn't enough... it has to have a direction. Just smacking the ball around in golf doesn't get you on the green, let alone in the hole. The killing has to be targetted, and done with an eye to the end result of coming out with a desirable peace. Gitmo accomplished none of this.

It's one thing to be brutal and effective; at least your enemies will fear you. It's another thing entirely to be brutal and ineffective in the way that the Halliburton administration was.

-- Steve

 

[Alex_P]

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.

... Says the guy from the country that equates photography with terrorism.

Seriously, man, crazy responses to terrorism aren't just an American problem.

-- Alex

 

[mike1921]

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.

You don't win many fights by rallying your enemies either. If you fear someone, and you beat up their friends or even their enemies for things that could help you kick his ass than all of them are going to kick your ass. Most likely at the same time. Torture creates more terroritsts

They may be tortured, but they have better medical care and attention than a huge chunk of Americans...

Really, I don't give a rat's ass.

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

No you can't fight a humane war, but torture is much less humane than what you have to do in war.

 

[I_LIKE_CAKE]

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. Without Guantanamo, how many buildings, monuments, and innocents lives would be lost? Over 3000 terrorist attempts have been thwarted by the Guantanamo officials using torture techniques in order to keep the U.S safe. Also, where are you going to put all of these people?!

I would be interested as to how one would go about reducing a f*%king mountain to cinders. That aside, I am curious as to where you got that "3000 terrorist attempts" thwarted figure.

What has happened to the United States? Patrick Henry said "give me liberty or give me death". What would the Founding Fathers say if they could see a citizen of the country they created to be a place governed by the rule of law advocating the torture of those imprisoned without due process on the off chance that it might provide actionable intelligence?

You are advocating the destruction of the Constitution because you are afraid of a handful of religious fanatics living in caves with delusions of grandeur.


You are a coward, and you disgust me.

 

[Wyatt]

Torturing for information is really redundant in the Intelligence world any way.

I can't trust anything a captive says to me under torture so I have to go out and verify it. I could have gone out and got that same Intel in the time it took for me to torture the captive and verified his statements. Or by the time I've verified what the captive told me, it's already outdated because the enemy knows that captives with sensitive information are a risk and made the change.

It's not rocket science. The negatives outweigh the positives when it comes to torture. Usually, you have to ask pointed questions, so the tortured individual just tells you what you want to hear. And military info gained from a captive always has to be verified before it can be acted upon, sometimes by two or more sources. So time is wasted.

Then you have to deal with the legal repercussions should the captive be innocent and/or know nothing. This costs time and money. And possibly allows the captive to go free without sentence.

And then there's diplomatic fallout. And loss of cooperation. Etc.

this is just a touch missleading though i find it well reasoned for the most part.

the missleading part is the statment that tortured information isnt actualy valuable. there are two kinds of information to be gotten, the (ill call it) instiant kind, where their is information about specific events or actions and is usualy connected toa time line of some kind, exmaple, there will be an attack on a market in bagdad on march 12th. that IS all but usless as you say outside of being able to station extra troops in and around that market, but once that deadline passes that information isnt vluable anymore.

but there is a second level of information that DOESNT come with a time limit, and that is what id call 'back ground' information. information about varius links, people, orginazations, businesses, governments, and so on that can give us invaluable markers too start that investigation. sure we have to check out everything one of these people say, but in an investigation that can litteraly encompas millions of people over 20 or 30 nations this information may be invaluable if it only provides our CIA with a place to start looking, or too point out connections between different things that may have gone over looked before.

certianly you have seen enough 'cop shows' to relize this. and in a world where it is sometimes hard to spot just who our REAL enemys are, any information, even suspect information by tortured people, is as good a place as any to start the filtering process. who knows maybe some of that information has been the basis for some of our drone attacks in pakistian taking out people who otherwise wouldnt have gotten a second look but in reality were big time players in our enemys orginazation.

im not at all defending torture, im against it for moral reasons. but the argument that 'it doesnt work' isnt a good one either. if it DIDNT work why would we bother doing it? if it DIDNT work than why would all the dictatorships (and some with even democratic governments) in the world have vast orginazations whos only job is to pick up people and torture them, why does our enemy do it? no, it works.

my issues is simple , i KNOW it works, but at what cost? worst case, is preventing another 9/11 style attack worth destroying 300 years of American history and tradition (with a few admited bumps in the road), is it worth setting back the push twords universal human rights around the globe by who knows how long? is it really worth slapping your few real allies in an uncertian world in the face by totaly ignoring their opinions and brusing off their issues and questions and giving their views no more respect than we would some south pacifc island nation?

it may sound stupid but is it worth giving up our vision of the future that is star trek, for a vision of the future that is more like Warhammer 40K?

even our enemys diserve asic human respect even though they would denigh it too us. we do it in our OWN interests not for their benifit. we make ourselves stronger by holding fast to great ideals in a world that is shit and doing its best to drag us down to their level.

i think that the day we decided to torture people was the REAL day the terrorists 'won'.

 

[dantheman931]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: WE ARE NOT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. (Forgive the yelling, but it can't be stressed enough.) It's hard to be an American these days simply because of the sheer amount of fuckuppery we keep getting blamed for, even those of us who find it abhorrent that Bush had the 2000 election handed to him by a state that can't even figure out how to use a fucking hole punch, pissed away money and international goodwill like the bastard lovechild of a racehorse and a Kennedy, etc. Yahtzee says we can't even tell Sweden from Portugal, and it scares the piss out of me how many people see us the same way he does. Yeah, some Americans are really that stupid, but so are some English, some French, etc.

I love my country, but I don't agree with all or even most of the things it's done lately. I don't think closing Gitmo will solve the problem of prisoner torture all by itself, but it sure as shit couldn't hurt. That being said, I still hope to hell Obama knows what he's doing, or else those of us who voted for him are going to feel like right dicks.