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

[Johnnyallstar]

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

What does Clinton have to do with it? He contracted Halliburton more than the Bush administration did, but silly why would he do that Halliburton = evil right?

Question: What does Halliburton do as a company? How many companies do what Halliburton does?

I'll answer the second question, you can do the first if you care to. Only 2 companies in the world do what Halliburton does, Halliburton, and a french company that is merely a seperate branch of Halliburton, so yeah why shouldn't the American government contract the American company that is the ONLY company that does what it does? Or, contract the french branch of the same company?

Halliburton is a red herring.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

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?

They use it because it produces results quickly, and they trust the results whether they're actually solid information or hallucinations of a man in agony. They also do it because that's the way Grampa did it, in a lot of cases.

The big problem with torture is that it's far, far too easy to "contaminate" the information you get. Torture tends to confirm existing suspicions a lot, when you look at the results; the Inquisition had a remarkable success in torturing only heretics, for instance, if you decide not to wonder how many of the confessions of heresy they extracted were false. This isn't even necessarily a deliberate attempt to get a fixed answer; even when the interrogator believes he's looking for the truth, torture tends to confirm suspicions. After all, if the guy's still protesting his innocence, the impulse tends to be to turn up the voltage/heat rather than to believe the guy.

That's why evidence uncovered through torture is inadmissible in Western courts; it's not squeemishness (not solely, anyway) it's that most of the time the results are falsely incriminating.

-- Steve

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Halliburton is a red herring.

Which is, of course, why you fixate on my one-line throwaway joke instead of addressing the actual points in my post.

-- Steve

 

[RRilef]

Barrack Obama does not want to shut down Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay is a naval base, not a prison or a torture facility. One small section of it has turned the whole thing into a prison for so many Americans.

But, I do know what you really are asking, and my response is leave it. Saving American lives is more important than protecting someone who wants to kill.

 

[bl82]

fine close it... where ya going to put them. There not Americans (Not american prisons), no country will take them, and we cant send them home (I.E.D. more troops). so closing the base is a good idea because...

Since when are American prisons too good for foreigners?

 

[Alex_P]

Only 2 companies in the world do what Halliburton does, Halliburton, and a french company that is merely a seperate branch of Halliburton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oilfield_service_companies

 

[Neonbob]

I truly don't care at all. However, if it is kept open, then an alternative to torture would be sending a couple of o.c.d. people down there with tweezers and tell them that their job is to pluck facial hair off the inmates.

 

[Wyatt]

They use it because it produces results quickly, and they trust the results whether they're actually solid information or hallucinations of a man in agony. They also do it because that's the way Grampa did it, in a lot of cases.

The big problem with torture is that it's far, far too easy to "contaminate" the information you get. Torture tends to confirm existing suspicions a lot, when you look at the results; the Inquisition had a remarkable success in torturing only heretics, for instance, if you decide not to wonder how many of the confessions of heresy they extracted were false. This isn't even necessarily a deliberate attempt to get a fixed answer; even when the interrogator believes he's looking for the truth, torture tends to confirm suspicions. After all, if the guy's still protesting his innocence, the impulse tends to be to turn up the voltage/heat rather than to believe the guy.

That's why evidence uncovered through torture is inadmissible in Western courts; it's not squeemishness (not solely, anyway) it's that most of the time the results are falsely incriminating.

-- Steve

i admit all you say is true. but i dont think anyone is arguing that, IM simply taking issue with the retarded statments by people who obviously havent put a seconds thought into what they type that say 'TORTURE DOESNT WORK'. its simply not true. i might not work for a whole list of reasons such as you provided, but it DOES work for a different set of goals and reasons that i did in my last post.

the real difference is between what people see as 'working'. by being able to stop a specific attack and a certian time it doesnt allways 'work', or it doesnt 'work' because you cant totaly trust anything the victim says to you. but it DOES 'work' for the reasons i gave.

another thing that kinda makes me smile is that the opinion seems to be here that people who are doing the torture/questioning are just morons that wouldnt know simple truth if it jumped up and bit them in the ass, common sence says that you cant belive a friggen word a toruture victim says without checking it out, if WE can see that im sure they CIA can as well, after all id be willing to bet that they have atleast ONE person on staff that is smarter than the average games forum poster.

another point is this. when the inquisition tortured people they did it for a reason that had nothing to do with truth, they did it to enforce their power. they didnt CARE if the people they were torturing were lieing or not as long as the 'lie' they told upheld what ever lie the inquisition wanted them too.

we arent torturing people for some kind of political gain, or to get a 'confession' of some crime or scare our enemys, we are torturing for information to help us win a war. and the fact that we still ARE doing it seems to me to imply a certian long view goal. getting all the information we can about what that person knows about the structure, tactics, personel, and any other information these people may have on our enemys. sure it will all need to be checked out, and it might be full of bullshit, but as i said before, in a situation where you have an agency of 10,000 people whos job it is too know everything about everyone in the world, ANY help can be a big boon.

if someone back in the 70s and 80s had pointed out too the CIA that bin ladin was an up and commer and we had used that information too kill him THEN than no 9/11 right?

if you put this whole thing in context and relize that wars arent just won by having the most guns, and are actualy won by (in part) good intelligence. the ignorant statment that 'torture doesnt work' kinda falls by the way side. the more you know about your enemy the easier you can beat him. as G.I. Joe said "knowing is half the battle".

pithy but true.

 

[McClaud]

Barrack Obama does not want to shut down Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay is a naval base, not a prison or a torture facility. One small section of it has turned the whole thing into a prison for so many Americans.

But, I do know what you really are asking, and my response is leave it. Saving American lives is more important than protecting someone who wants to kill.

Except that in less than a year, all the captives will be free to go because the order to hold them will expire.

Before you say, "Well, just re-up the order so it doesn't," I have to remind you that that is not an option they have. There is no legal recourse, or Presidential recourse, to do so. The two options are: 1) get the captives into court and get them sentenced so they can be permanently held before the order expires, or 2) let them go when the order expires.

Given the options, I guarantee you that McCain would have had to make a similar decision if he had won the Presidency. The only reason he said he wouldn't is because he didn't really ponder the reality of the situation if he did become President. All politicans running for office do that - they make promises they can't keep.

And to respond to Wyatt's comment, it is absolutely true that good Intel is part of winning a war. But intel obtained through torture has to be verified through multiple other sources first, and is usually false. Most intelligence officers put torture confessions on the backburner because the time it takes to verify it could be better spent doing something else. Mostly, verifying intel received from civilians in-country or imagery.

Part of the problem that was going on is that the Administration thought it was valuable intelligence, but the military did not. We told the previous SecDef that validating torture intel was a waste of time, but he kept it coming anyway. If the military isn't using the intel, then why are we torturing people for it? There isn't a reason other than the previous Administration thought it was a good idea from bad advice, and to avoid being proven wrong, wouldn't budge on the subject.

 

[Wyatt]

Except that in less than a year, all the captives will be free to go because the order to hold them will expire.

Before you say, "Well, just re-up the order so it doesn't," I have to remind you that that is not an option they have. There is no legal recourse, or Presidential recourse, to do so. The two options are: 1) get the captives into court and get them sentenced so they can be permanently held before the order expires, or 2) let them go when the order expires.

actualy my good man Obama has the same ability to just make up shit as Bush did should he choose too so there is (there is ALLWAYS) a 3rd option.

And to respond to Wyatt's comment, it is absolutely true that good Intel is part of winning a war. But intel obtained through torture has to be verified through multiple other sources first, and is usually false. Most intelligence officers put torture confessions on the backburner because the time it takes to verify it could be better spent doing something else. Mostly, verifying intel received from civilians in-country or imagery.

Part of the problem that was going on is that the Administration thought it was valuable intelligence, but the military did not. We told the previous SecDef that validating torture intel was a waste of time, but he kept it coming anyway. If the military isn't using the intel, then why are we torturing people for it? There isn't a reason other than the previous Administration thought it was a good idea from bad advice, and to avoid being proven wrong, wouldn't budge on the subject.

the military isnt the only or even the primary recipent of this intell.

you can point out all you like how the military may not find the tacticle intell useful but that doesnt change the fact that perhaps the CIA or our other allied intel agencys (*gasp* to include some of our european allies im sure) found something invaluable.

you cant base your whole case on one facet of something as complex as this otherwise YOU end up looking as stubborn and trying to avoid being proven wrong as you accuse Bush of. btw im no Bush supporter but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

OP, you sound like a typical American. "Who cares about them or humanity or anyone other than us? As long as dem der ragheads dont touch my country its alllllllll good."

Half the people in Guantonamo aren't even guilty.

 

[RRilef]

Barrack Obama does not want to shut down Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay is a naval base, not a prison or a torture facility. One small section of it has turned the whole thing into a prison for so many Americans.

But, I do know what you really are asking, and my response is leave it. Saving American lives is more important than protecting someone who wants to kill.

Except that in less than a year, all the captives will be free to go because the order to hold them will expire.

Before you say, "Well, just re-up the order so it doesn't," I have to remind you that that is not an option they have. There is no legal recourse, or Presidential recourse, to do so. The two options are: 1) get the captives into court and get them sentenced so they can be permanently held before the order expires, or 2) let them go when the order expires.

Given the options, I guarantee you that McCain would have had to make a similar decision if he had won the Presidency. The only reason he said he wouldn't is because he didn't really ponder the reality of the situation if he did become President. All politicans running for office do that - they make promises they can't keep.

And to respond to Wyatt's comment, it is absolutely true that good Intel is part of winning a war. But intel obtained through torture has to be verified through multiple other sources first, and is usually false. Most intelligence officers put torture confessions on the backburner because the time it takes to verify it could be better spent doing something else. Mostly, verifying intel received from civilians in-country or imagery.

Part of the problem that was going on is that the Administration thought it was valuable intelligence, but the military did not. We told the previous SecDef that validating torture intel was a waste of time, but he kept it coming anyway. If the military isn't using the intel, then why are we torturing people for it? There isn't a reason other than the previous Administration thought it was a good idea from bad advice, and to avoid being proven wrong, wouldn't budge on the subject.

The precedent is there for their terms to be uped. In fact the precedent is established by no other than what is often considered the greatest president, President Lincoln. He jailed thousands of Union Americans without trial on the charges of "suspected Southern Sympathizer" And if I remember correctly, Obama started his campaign where many historians believe Lincoln started his, a very unlikely coincidence. Never discount the possibility just because you don't want it.

You can't take Obama's word before he got into presidency. He will try to stick to his word, but there is much more that he knows now than before.

 

[McClaud]

Except that in less than a year, all the captives will be free to go because the order to hold them will expire.

Before you say, "Well, just re-up the order so it doesn't," I have to remind you that that is not an option they have. There is no legal recourse, or Presidential recourse, to do so. The two options are: 1) get the captives into court and get them sentenced so they can be permanently held before the order expires, or 2) let them go when the order expires.

actualy my good man Obama has the same ability to just make up shit as Bush did should he choose too so there is (there is ALLWAYS) a 3rd option.

And to respond to Wyatt's comment, it is absolutely true that good Intel is part of winning a war. But intel obtained through torture has to be verified through multiple other sources first, and is usually false. Most intelligence officers put torture confessions on the backburner because the time it takes to verify it could be better spent doing something else. Mostly, verifying intel received from civilians in-country or imagery.

Part of the problem that was going on is that the Administration thought it was valuable intelligence, but the military did not. We told the previous SecDef that validating torture intel was a waste of time, but he kept it coming anyway. If the military isn't using the intel, then why are we torturing people for it? There isn't a reason other than the previous Administration thought it was a good idea from bad advice, and to avoid being proven wrong, wouldn't budge on the subject.

the military isnt the only or even the primary recipent of this intell.

you can point out all you like how the military may not find the tacticle intell useful but that doesnt change the fact that perhaps the CIA or our other allied intel agencys (*gasp* to include some of our european allies im sure) found something invaluable.

you cant base your whole case on one facet of something as complex as this otherwise YOU end up looking as stubborn and trying to avoid being proven wrong as you accuse Bush of. btw im no Bush supporter but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Note that I said the previous Adminstration. That does not mean only the President. It means a lot of his staff were making pretty erroneous suggestions at the time, even when other people outside the office were offering good suggestions. I don't fault the President for acting on faulty suggestions - only for acknowledging they were faulty but still clinging to the continuation of a bad course of action.

Your entire previous point was that we use it for the war. Due to the revelation of the little miscalculation of the intelligence that led to the Iraqi invasion - all intel rules for all agencies were cranked up another notch. Mostly because the rules for intelligence and confidential materials are the same no matter what agency you belong to - you have to triple verify any intelligence gleaned from torture. Even the CIA - whether they are using using it for the war or not - has to verify it first. Which takes time. Lots and lots of time.

This was one of my jobs in the military. I interacted with the CIA, the FBI, Britian's MI, Israel's Mossad ... we all went through the same motions. We all traded intel for a billion reasons. All of us looked at torture intelligence with skepticism, sometimes enough to file it in the shredder. Some "terrorism" busts that claimed to use intelligence gathered through torture was after the fact that we already knew that intelligence and set the wheels in motion before it was brought to our attention. We all would shake our heads in disbelief at what aides would tell Administrations was the cause of catching terrorists.

Now, please give me your experience with the Intelligence community so you can back up your criticism of what I've been telling you. And please don't quote Fox News, because their Intelligence experts are usually private consultants hired to analyze anything and make it sound smart.

And RRilef - I'm not saying that Obama is any wiser than McCain. What happened there was that one side got to the particular issue first, and the other was forced to take a provision against it. Can Obama suspend the legal precedent set by his predecessor's executive order on captives? Only with a lot of work and with enough time. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the window for upping it slipped by last year. I'm sure that even McCain would not be happy to deal with that.

Problem is - not enough time. The pressure would have been on whoever sat in that chair. Obama just happens to be the one who has to make the decision that was already made for him two years ago.

 

[McClaud]

On a slightly humorous note, speaking of the British Intel Community:

There were times when the previous Administration misspoke on the type of intelligence used and how it was gathered. During these press conferences, my phone would ring and it would be my contact in the UK.

Him: "Are you watching the telly?"
Me: "Yeah, I am."
Him: "Please tell me you didn't tell him to say that."
Me: "No. We did not tell him to say that. In fact, that's the exact opposite of the truth."
Him: "Oh jolly. I was hoping you'd say that, since I rather enjoy thinking we're both intelligent."

I laughed. Even the Brits had the same train of thought I did.

 

[Marbas]

President Lincoln. He jailed thousands of Union Americans without trial on the charges of "suspected Southern Sympathizer"

Uhh...That was what you would call an extenuating circumstance. The whole Civil War thing.

 

[AntiThom]

Bad fuckin idea. Nobody was tortured there, all investigations showed that they always adherred to the geneva convention, and I'm pretty sure no one had thier fingernails ripped out or had jumper cables attatched to thier balls. Forced interrogations leave no scars and break no bones. The way most of you think is scary to me, and offensive to those who are really tortured by the terrorist and tyrant regimes.

 

[McClaud]

Bad fuckin idea. Nobody was tortured there, all investigations showed that they always adherred to the geneva convention, and I'm pretty sure no one had thier fingernails ripped out or had jumper cables attatched to thier balls. Forced interrogations leave no scars and break no bones. The way most of you think is scary to me, and offensive to those who are really tortured by the terrorist and tyrant regimes.

Well, if that was the real reasoning for shutting down Gitmo, you'd have a valid point. It's not being shut down due to TORTURE as much as it's being shut down because of a large number of reasons - the big one being that these people are sitting there doing nothing and not being tried and if they aren't tried soon, they'll get out. And it's not just Gitmo - there are several other blackout CIA facilities involved that add to the growing problem.

I'm talking about torture not being viable from a stand-point that we have many methods today that make it obsolete. No matter where you torture people. It's wrong no matter who does it and where it's done, and anyone relying solely on information gained by torture without doing the legwork is not using their brain. The toruture discussion was sort of just thrown in there, so I responded. Because someone wrongly defined an article in the Geneva Convention and it avalanched from there.

It kind of pisses me off that the media can't get the facts right on this story, but it's the media. 50% fact, 50% focusing on the wrong fact. I attribute the fact that people think its all about torture to the irresponsible way it's being reported/attended.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

I personally don't agree with the fact that I have yet to hear what he is going to do with the prisoners.

Half the people in Guantonamo aren't even guilty.

Not guilty, as in they have been tried in a U.S. court. If they are not a citizen of the United States they do not deserve any of the rights we get.