Closing Guantanamo (from Townhall.com)

[KVLG]

Closing Guantanamo
Linda Chavez
Friday, January 23, 2009



President Obama is learning it is a lot easier to reverse unpopular positions of his predecessor than it is to come up with better ones of his own. On Thursday, he signed executive orders aimed at shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, which houses some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. His orders also restricted interrogation methods that can be used by the CIA to elicit information from suspects and eliminated secret overseas detention facilities run by the CIA. Earlier, he suspended military commission hearings that were established to hear cases against those held at Guantanamo, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
Now he has to decide what to do with the 245 men held at Guantanamo. And, if he is lucky enough to see Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri captured on his watch, he'll have to decide what to do with them. Ensure they're read their Miranda rights and appointed taxpayer-funded legal counsel, perhaps?
It's no joke. The philosophical shift between treating accused terrorists captured on foreign soil as enemy combatants or simply heinous criminals is an important distinction. The Clinton administration dealt with those responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 as the latter. (In fairness, no one knew at the time that the perpetrators were involved in more than a criminal conspiracy.) But Mohammed Atta and his 18 fellow soldiers made sure we understood on Sept. 11, 2001, that their attacks were acts of war against the United States.
It is tempting to believe that the worst is over -- that we won't be hit again, maybe even harder than we were just eight years ago. Some Democrats are sure that nothing George W. Bush did made us safer, and many of them would argue Bush sacrificed important constitutional guarantees without gaining any measure of security. But I think it is highly implausible that pure luck has protected us. Waterboarding may be nasty business, but if the technique indeed forced KSM to reveal details in 2003 of planned attacks and thus saved lives -- as Bush officials have asserted -- is it responsible to say that there are no circumstances, ever, in which it might be used again? And would the Obama administration go further, as Attorney General nominee Eric Holder hinted in his confirmation hearings, and seek to prosecute those who ordered or carried out waterboarding?
So what will the Obama administration do with KSM and the others at Guantanamo? If the military commission established to try these men will no longer do so, will they be turned over to criminal courts in the U.S.? If so, it is likely that many would be acquitted on the basis of "tainted evidence" and lack of due process alone. Then what? Do we put them on airplanes and ship them home? Or will human rights groups protest that countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt might torture these men so we must not send them there? Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero has offered his support and help in closing Guantanamo to President Obama, but is he willing to take any of those prisoners deemed too dangerous to release and put them in Spanish jails?
In his inaugural address, President Obama promised "for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." But actions speak louder than words. We'll see if he means it. As President Obama no doubt has figured out, closing Guantanamo while preserving national security will take more than a stroke of the pen. He risks alienating the leftwing base of his party if the barbed wire doesn't come down immediately. But the stakes are much higher if he lets terrorists loose on the world.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=b987a313-ddcd-4268-b3f5-0e02c350c269&t=c


Do all the moonbats, biased liberal media types or those "human rights" groups even know what kind of people are at Guantanamo?

[Invisigoth]

Do all the moonbats, biased liberal media types or those "human rights" groups even know what kind of people are at Guantanamo?

Yeah, apparently they are the evil twins of batman, superman and megaman, who, once released into the wild, will single-handedly destroy Western Civilization. Especially if they are brought to trial.

Oh you crazy Republicans...:roll:

[Connaught Ranger]

Linda, Linda, Linda,

until the inmates are tried in some form of a court of law,

then its got to be worded so:-


"alleged" most dangerous terrorists in the world,

not gonna get a Pulitzer this way Babywoot

[Weasel]

Do all the moonbats, biased liberal media types or those "human rights" groups even know what kind of people are at Guantanamo?

Hmmmm, many innocents, maybe some terrorists. But atleast not too many convicted people.

[little icebear]

Ensure they're read their Miranda rights and appointed taxpayer-funded legal counsel, perhaps?
It's no joke.

I bloody hope it is no joke ´cause that´s exactly what I think a democratic state should do.

Terrorists are criminals and so they should be treated.

[khaz]

I bloody hope it is no joke ´cause that´s exactly what I think a democratic state should do.

Terrorists are criminals and so they should be treated.

I guess the military should be re trained to capture them alive and only use deadly force as a last resort, or just pull out the troops and beef up the FB of I to go over and do the fighting ,,,,I mean arresting.

[budgie]

Do all the moonbats, biased liberal media types or those "human rights" groups even know what kind of people are at Guantanamo?

Do you have a comprehensive list you can share with us? Otherwise none of us is in a position to assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. In fact a number of people have been released on such grounds already.

[Supe]

I thought this article relevant to the discussion.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24960741-601,00.html


anuary 25, 2009

Article from: Agence France-Presse
TWO men released from Guantanamo Bay prison have defiantly appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website.

News of the defiant video follows US President Barack Obama's order to close Guantanamo Bay, ban the use of torture by US personnel and for the Central Intelligence Agency to shut down its secret "black site" overseas prisons.

One of the two former inmates in the video, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shihri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of al-Qa'ida in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an al-Qa'ida field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No 333.

A Pentagon spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, declined to confirm the SITE information.

Cont... (refer to link)

[budgie]

So Camp Delta has created some monsters as well. maybe we should keep it open indefinitely for a permanent resupply of fresh Jihadists courtesy of Uncle Sam? Didn't think so...

[Supe]

So Camp Delta has created some monsters as well. maybe we should keep it open indefinitely for a permanent resupply of fresh Jihadists courtesy of Uncle Sam? Didn't think so...

There is that possibility that Gitmo created terrorists... or that some were in fact already terrorists. Pay attention now.


On the video, al-Shihri is seen sitting with three other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the front for al-Qa'ida in Iraq.

"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our principles for which we went out, did jihad for, and were imprisoned for," al-Shihri was quoted as saying.

I'd be interested in your solution as to what US/ISAF should do when they capture AQ members? Care to propose a realistic solution?

[budgie]

There is that possibility that Gitmo created terrorists... or that some were in fact already terrorists. Pay attention now.

Oh I agree totally, but it's not for us to decide everyone is guilty regardless. After all some have already been proven innocent and some have already been corrupted by their stay.


I'd be interested in your solution as to what US/ISAF should do when they capture AQ members? Care to propose a realistic solution?


Well I'm no expert on counter-terrorism but it is obvious to me what is not realistic: a detention facility in far away Cuba that from the start was not subject to any law or military code and where no attempt at due process was made in the beginning.

Trying and convicting terrorists and insurgents in their home countries or in the countries where they've committed crimes seems a far more sensible solution. For all its flaws, at some point we must follow the rule of law. This has been done (belatedly) in some cases but IMO it is too little too late and certainly does not vindicate the existence of the Gitmo detention facility in the first place.

[Supe]

Trying and convicting terrorists and insurgents in their home countries or in the countries where they've committed crimes seems a far more sensible solution. For all its flaws, at some point we must follow the rule of law. This has been done (belatedly) in some cases but IMO it is too little too late and certainly does not vindicate the existence of the Gitmo detention facility in the first place.

I don't think that captured AQ/Taliban (or at least alleged) met the condition of trying them in their home countries or place of capture - given that Afghanistan did not have a Government, rule of law and that which had existed under the Taliban would not meet any acceptable level of human rights based laws anyway. The Taliban were not universally recognised as legitimate authority of that nation and it did not completely rule Afghanistan (hello Northern Alliance). Trying them (suspected terrorists) in their home countries presents another problem. Example. Muslim Uyghurs were captured in Afghanistan. The Chinese Govt views them as terrorists also. Were US to hand them over to trial to Chinese govt, that would put them in jeopardy of being 'persecuted or executed'. Back to square one. US is going to be slammed either way.

People also forget the context for raising Gitmo as a 'solution' to a difficult position. What to do with captured enemy combatants (name rank serial number does not apply)? Factor in a need to obtain valuable/timely information (remember the still fresh harm to US psyche 9/11, when pressure was on to determine if another attack of similar magnitude was imminent), a type of war in which US had not participated in before (Vietnam is not Afghanistan) and was still learning the ropes, operating in a State that had long failed institutions, (what law? Sharia? a functioning bureaucracy long gone). This is not to say a civilised nation should operate carte blanche but I think the boot had been put into the US over Gitmo by people not fully comprehending the complexity of the US dilemma nor proffering a solution that catered to legitimate Bush Administration concerns over its need to ensure security for its citizens and requirement for timely information whilst satisfying human rights principles.

The creation of Gitmo was part hysteria (understandable given 9/11 was still fresh), legitimate security concerns, the need to obtain timely information, to determine the innocent from the guilty (bungled failure) and apply the appropriate punishment if found guilty. Unfortunately for Bush, it became an ideological foot in the door wedge, to rally anti-US sentiment or for use in domestic politics. And for Jihadists - perpetuating the victim mentality. Useful in propaganda campaigns to reinforce the false belief that US is a front for 'Crusaders' wishing to be overlords of Muslim lands.

[budgie]

Actually Supe that's a really good assessment: damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either way the place has done more harm than good so far and it's time to close it. It will take smarter folks than I, but a better system has to be implemented.

[little icebear]

I guess the military should be re trained to capture them alive and only use deadly force as a last resort, or just pull out the troops and beef up the FB of I to go over and do the fighting ,,,,I mean arresting.

As far as I´m concerned, this GWOT thing is a joke anyway. What is Afghanistan and Iraq all about?
It is not a Counterterror Thing, it is about the removal of undesired regimes and establishing once we can work with. War on Terror my arse...
If it was about Terrorism, we would go after the ones, who fuel the whole Jihad-thing with their money. Money they originally get from our own pockets, whenever we´re taking our cars to the gas-station.

However, thank god, it seems that Iraq is finally making progress, but I´m not sure how long it´ll take to turn Afghanistan into something one could actually call a state.

As for the Prisoners: If I hab been an evil neocon and in charge of the whole cluster-fvck, I would have left those guys at the very place where I arrested them. Less trouble and you can interrogate them anyway.
Secret prisons in Eastern Europe and Gitmo... worst idea ever!

[Macs.]

As far as I´m concerned, this GWOT thing is a joke anyway. What is Afghanistan and Iraq all about?
It is not a Counterterror Thing, it is about the removal of undesired regimes and establishing once we can work with. War on Terror my arse...
If it was about Terrorism, we would go after the ones, who fuel the whole Jihad-thing with their money. Money they originally get from our own pockets, whenever we´re taking our cars to the gas-station.

The big part of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, but it simply is a sacred place for obvious reasons. The "global" war on terror has it's limits.

If we only used 10% of the money we spend on the military operations in Afghanistan or in the case of the US in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and spent it on Law Enforcement and Co we would be (in my opinion) much safer. I just wish the Afghanistan campaign would have consisted of a fast and strong OEF commitment and not this ISAF nation-building that is pretty much a open-end mission.

[little icebear]

Exactly. I´m more concered about what the (probably saudi-sponsored) Mullah (a.k.a. "recruitment appointee") in the mosque around the corner preaches to our young immigrant community, than about the possibility of a stupid terrorist training camp in some "failed state".
The 9/11 terrorists did not need an obstacle course and a shooting range in order to prepare their actions.

[Expert Marksman 126]

As far as I´m concerned, this GWOT thing is a joke anyway. What is Afghanistan and Iraq all about?
It is not a Counterterror Thing, it is about the removal of undesired regimes and establishing once we can work with. War on Terror my arse...
If it was about Terrorism, we would go after the ones, who fuel the whole Jihad-thing with their money. Money they originally get from our own pockets, whenever we´re taking our cars to the gas-station.

However, thank god, it seems that Iraq is finally making progress, but I´m not sure how long it´ll take to turn Afghanistan into something one could actually call a state.

As for the Prisoners: If I hab been an evil neocon and in charge of the whole cluster-fvck, I would have left those guys at the very place where I arrested them. Less trouble and you can interrogate them anyway.
Secret prisons in Eastern Europe and Gitmo... worst idea ever!

We went into Afganistan in pursuit of Al-Queda and the taliban regime that supported them and allowed them to train there. That is most definitely about counter terrorism. We have gotten away from that unfourtunately, and while Iraq may have not been directly connected to 9/11 they sure as hell werent against it. We do battlefield interrogations but in most cases they only provide tactical information.

It is unfortunate that we cant cut the head off the snake, but we need oil, and Muslims control a lot of it over there. If we start killing off Saudis then we're out on our A$$.

[Expert Marksman 126]

Exactly. I´m more concered about what the (probably saudi-sponsored) Mullah in the mosque around the corner preaches to our young immigrant community, than about the possibility of a stupid terrorist training camp in some "failed state".
The 9/11 terrorists did not need an obstacle course and a shooting range in order to prepare their actions.

The obstacle courses and shooting ranges were put there to make them feel like soldiers in the 'holy war' and to inspire them to kill, not to really train them. Appearently they served thier purpose.

[little icebear]

The whole "overthrow the taliban and spread democracy"-thing can IMHO only be considered part of a war against terror, if you really think long-term. And I truely mean looooong term. Plus you can´t stop there but you´d rather have to go on and on, till there are no states left, that would support terrorism... sounds like a crusade with no end.
You gotta ask yourself whether its is worth the efford and the sacrifices. I´m with Macs and his last posing.

[DS73]

As for the Prisoners: If I hab been an evil neocon and in charge of the whole cluster-fvck, I would have left those guys at the very place where I arrested them. Less trouble and you can interrogate them anyway.
Secret prisons in Eastern Europe and Gitmo... worst idea ever!

1.There is no proof about secret prisons in E. Europe.
Stop repeating idiots' crap. Whole idea is deranged.
2. Riot in Qala-i-Jang fortress happened in November 2001.
Prisoners started to land in Cuba in January 2002.
Do the math.
3. Until 2004 (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=542&invol=466) Guantanamo was a legal black hole.



Hmmmm, many innocents, maybe some terrorists. But atleast not too many convicted people.

Vast majority of prisoners were taken in A'stan holding weapons or in "suspicious" circumstances in fighting areas. The rest were taken in Europe when collected intelligence indicated high terrorist profile.
Majority of released weren't charged because there are no american laws working against them, not because these people weren't militants or haven't participated in terrorist organizations.
For example there is a big number of cases when released militants were later killed in A'stan or Iraq.
Besides one of the reasons to hold them, and one important one, was to hold them away from the fighting area to disturb terrorists actions. Normal action in time of war.

I have general question:
Why do you think american government would bother collecting some "innocents" in Cuba? What would be possible reason for that?

Sometimes I'm really lost with this "left" way of thinking, apparently some of you definitely never use left brain.

[little icebear]

1.there is no proof about secret prisons in e. Europe.
Stop repeating idiots' crap. Whole idea is deranged.


lol. p-)

123456789

[little icebear]

I have general question:
Why do you think american government would bother collecting some "innocents" in Cuba? What would be possible reason for that?

Sometimes I'm really lost with this "left" way of thinking, apparently some of you definitely never use left brain.

Well, they´ll certainly not lock up innocents on purpose. But you must be quiet naive or full of trust in the impeccability of everybody involved in the process, if you dont think it could happen quiet easily, when a system is as obscure and non transparent...

Holy ****, it even happens, when there is in fact habeas corpus and proper investigation including legal counseling and so on... do you know, whether each detainee was in fact caught red handed? Cause you act, as if this was a fact...

[Expert Marksman 126]

Obama closes secret prisons. Right. Has it occured to him that if the CIA doesnt want them closed they wont tell him they exist? I can see how he could have made that mistake, the CIA being so honest and transparent...

[little icebear]

Obama closes secret prisons. Right. Has it occured to him that if the CIA doesnt want them closed they wont tell him they exist?

Now you´re painting a picture, that is even darker than the stuff, leftist conspiracy freaks would come up with. ;)

[DS73]

Well, they´ll certainly not lock up innocents on purpose. But you must be quiet naive or full of trust, if you dont think it could happen quiet easily, when a system is as obscure and non transparent...

There are some cases when prisoners in taliban jails were taken as fighters. I would suspect that some people had unfortunate names and luck to be in a wrong place.
But locking innocents on purpose? Why? Because it's fun? Using military planes, involving hundreds of military personal, spending 127 mil. dollars for what? For the obvious fact that whatever wrong happens there always some GI, or contractor will make book about?

What mechanism CIA or wtvr have to keep their own personal silent about illegal things? Trivial obvious question that everybody should ask himself before diving into "conspiracy swamp".

Anyway, the whole military system is obscure and non transparent. You don't trust them?
Being non transparent and lawless are two very different things.



Holy ****, it even happens, when there is in fact habeas corpus and proper investigation including legal counseling and so on...
These people are not criminals per se, they're mix of terrorists and militants.
They didn't commit crimes on american soil, they are not american citizens.


do you know, whether each detainee was in fact caught red handed? Cause you act, as if this was a fact...You do understand that you are talking about state facility?
After 2004 there was sufficient information released and published. Whole process obviously is bureaucratized (try to spell it outp-)), and the idea that somebody takes and bring somebody somewhere without putting and taking signatures is extremely naive.
Of course you can find some slacks in military service (see nuclear warheads in B-52 case) but you won't expect this, when you do something illegal, will you?
Anyway here is some nice interview if you are interested in this subject:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4697513

[Jobu]

Obama plans to win the Lawsuit on Terror by hoping his lawyers are better than the defense attorneys who'll get in line to represent the enemy.

And if he has to divulge sensitive information on how evidence was collected, by golly that'll just have to do because his ideals come before effective intel.

Aren't you glad we have Mr. Cart..., er I mean, Mr. Obama as President?

[Expert Marksman 126]

Now you´re painting a picture, that is even darker than the stuff, leftist conspiracy freaks would come up with. ;)

Its really not that far out there. The CIA has a history of not fully cooperating with a certain political party...

[Expert Marksman 126]

And if he has to divulge sensitive information on how evidence was collected, by golly that'll just have to do because his ideals come before effective intel.

Darn right they do! lol

Did you happen to catch Hannity on saturday night? He had one of Obamas people on there and he tore him apart over this stuff. The guy basically said that we're not willing to use ANY interrogation methods other than asking 'pretty please?'.