Bye bye gitmo

KookyCurlKookyCurl Posts: 1,980Registered Users
Obama signed an executive order today calling for the closing of Gitmo. That's hopping right on the campaign promises!
«1

Comments

  • ninja dogninja dog Posts: 23,780Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    So glad.....Gitmo has been a disgrace.
  • BoomygrrlBoomygrrl Posts: 4,940Registered Users
    Obama wastes no time, does he?
    That's right, I said it! I wear scrunchies!!

    I am a sulfate washing, cone slabbing, curly lovin' s.o.b. The CG police haven't caught me yet.
    :blob8:

    3a/3b
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    Stupid does not even BEGIN to describe this move. Where are they going to be put? Unfortunately, here in CO they have a SUPERMAX prison that already houses some terrorists, so I wouldn't be surprised if they end up here. Great. Thanks Obama.

    Terrorists are treated better at Gitmo and have better living conditions than our soldiers guarding them. Our soldiers are under such rigid rules regarding prisoners that I'm surprised that they can look them in the eye! They are terrorists. They are not uniformed soldiers in a fight, they are enemy combatants. So far 61 of those released have been found BACK on the battlefield trying to kill our guys. The countries that are telling us to close it are not willing to take any of them, if we return them to the country of origin, there is no guarantee that these thugs won't be released. The idea is to keep them locked up so they can't hurt anyone any more.

    The Conventions offer no protections to terrorists, and they most certainly don't grant them the right to civil trials under civilian laws. To mention the Geneva Conventions while giving terrorists civil rights under civilian law is one of the biggest oxymorons I have heard. The Geneva Conventions apply to the laws of war, period.

    This order causes me even more concern for my son in Iraq and the one waiting to be deployed, and for the sons of friends who are also in the military.

    And if there is not a prison camp to bring them back to, then hey, battlefield justice. Been done for centuries by both sides. We take prisoners and treat them well. The ones that they manage to get their hands on are tortured and decapitated. And I mean real torture. Cigarette burns, electrical shocks, etc. At the most we deprive them of sleep (hello, that happens to parents of young children--and older kids), loud music they hate (again, parents of teens or anyone who stops a car at an intersection). Waterboarding....very seldom used...our Special Forces undergo this in training so it's not anything that our people haven't done themselves. No permanent damage and it WORKS.

    I honestly fear for the safety and security of our nation...with that simple order.

    Since he is determined to close it, the Order should not have been issued until it is determined where the prisoners will go, how they will get there, etc. There is absolutely NO plan in case, as was apparent from the discussion when he announced it and showed it off.

    This is really serious and a really bad idea.
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • wild~hairwild~hair Posts: 9,890Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Susan, whoever did that Obama clock needs to make an adjustment. There's way more than 1,458± days in 8 years. :D



    Re: the OP — I got really emotional listening to the news today. So much done in so short a time. I was very happy.

    Really glad I pounded the pavement last fall. Totally worth it.
  • curlygirlymecurlygirlyme Posts: 1,340Registered Users
    I just want to know where Obama plans to put them? How can he sign this order and have no plan about where to put them? That's crazy. Make a plan first, then make changes.
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    You're so silly :wave: ;P (I'm too tired to find the emoticon for that one)

    How have you been? Haven't 'seen' you in a while.

    Stupid is probably harsh...how about irresponsible? That order REALLY bothers me, esp in light of trying to shove it under the umbrella of national security. I'm not feeling safer, I'm actually more concerned than I was on Wed.
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • SpringcurlSpringcurl Posts: 8,002Registered Users
    My cousin is a guard at Gitmo. It'd be nice to see him leave there.
    TWINKLES.gifTWINKLES.gifTWINKLES.gif

    Obamacare is not a blueprint for socialism. You're thinking of the New Testament. ~~ John Fugelsang



  • munchkinmunchkin Posts: 2,909Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    I just want to know where Obama plans to put them? How can he sign this order and have no plan about where to put them? That's crazy. Make a plan first, then make changes.

    They are going to end up in one of our "backyards." I can see him not wanting to carry on with some of the Gitmo policies if he thought we were using torture, but I'm not sure why the prison had to be closed down. Couldn't he have just set a policy change in effect. Personally, I would rather keep the terrorists there than in my "backyard."
    3b/c
  • TrenellTrenell Posts: 3,562Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    The place was a disgrace. I hear "Gitmo" I think torture. Perhaps the Obama adminstration is doing a symbolic do-over. Besides, he didn't just walk to the prison unlock the doors and say " Bye, yall"

    When people say they don't want them in our backyard, does that mean in the middle of a heavily populated area or our country. If they mean our country, why is it OK to expose another country to our prisoners?
  • BoomygrrlBoomygrrl Posts: 4,940Registered Users
    Gitmo was a violation of the Geneva convention. Part 3 did take into consideration enemies that did not fight for a country (uniformed enemies). We in the US are better than that.
    If I were Obama, I'd have a more thought out plan first, before stating that it'll be carried out in a year. It might take longer, it might not.
    But overall, I am for the idea of getting rid of Gitmo.
    Also, does it seem fair that they are in Cuba? Cuba doesn't even like us, why should they have them there?
    I'm not sure what the solution is, but Guatanamo Bay was not a good idea to begin with and it is wrong to continue it. We just need to be responsible in how we carry this out.
    That's right, I said it! I wear scrunchies!!

    I am a sulfate washing, cone slabbing, curly lovin' s.o.b. The CG police haven't caught me yet.
    :blob8:

    3a/3b
  • journotravelerjournotraveler Posts: 2,816Registered Users
    susancnw wrote: »

    And if there is not a prison camp to bring them back to, then hey, battlefield justice. Been done for centuries by both sides. We take prisoners and treat them well. The ones that they manage to get their hands on are tortured and decapitated. And I mean real torture. Cigarette burns, electrical shocks, etc. At the most we deprive them of sleep (hello, that happens to parents of young children--and older kids), loud music they hate (again, parents of teens or anyone who stops a car at an intersection). Waterboarding....very seldom used...our Special Forces undergo this in training so it's not anything that our people haven't done themselves. No permanent damage and it WORKS.

    wow. i find your cavalier attitude toward torture to be deeply disturbing.

    i've interviewed torture survivors from around the world... torture is the gift that keeps on giving. you don't recover from it. ever.

    and no, it does not work. the torture survivors that i spoke to told me that they would say anything to make the pain stop--so they lied. it's not reliable information.

    by the way, i don't expect to change your mind about any of this. i'm not going to get into a debate with you about enemy combatants, the geneva convention, et al.

    i just wanted to register my disgust.
    3B corkscrews with scatterings of 3A & 3C.
  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • misspammisspam Posts: 5,318Registered Users
    susancnw wrote: »

    And if there is not a prison camp to bring them back to, then hey, battlefield justice. Been done for centuries by both sides. We take prisoners and treat them well. The ones that they manage to get their hands on are tortured and decapitated. And I mean real torture. Cigarette burns, electrical shocks, etc. At the most we deprive them of sleep (hello, that happens to parents of young children--and older kids), loud music they hate (again, parents of teens or anyone who stops a car at an intersection). Waterboarding....very seldom used...our Special Forces undergo this in training so it's not anything that our people haven't done themselves. No permanent damage and it WORKS.

    wow. i find your cavalier attitude toward torture to be deeply disturbing.

    i've interviewed torture survivors from around the world... torture is the gift that keeps on giving. you don't recover from it. ever.

    and no, it does not work. the torture survivors that i spoke to told me that they would say anything to make the pain stop--so they lied. it's not reliable information.

    by the way, i don't expect to change your mind about any of this. i'm not going to get into a debate with you about enemy combatants, the geneva convention, et al.

    i just wanted to register my disgust.

    I hope you registered your disgust towards the terrorists and enemy combatants who are being detained.

    And who here can define torture? The military as well as CIA operatives who are tasked with protecting US citizens should have at their disposal all necessary means available to extract information, in my opinion.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • journotravelerjournotraveler Posts: 2,816Registered Users
    misspam wrote: »

    I hope you registered your disgust towards the terrorists and enemy combatants who are being detained.

    And who here can define torture? The military as well as CIA operatives who are tasked with protecting US citizens should have at their disposal all necessary means available to extract information, in my opinion.

    sorry. i don't condone torture. and labeling detainees "enemy combatants," rather than prisoners of war, is a convenient way to circumvent the Geneva Convention.

    a pentagon official recently refused to prosecute a detainee there because she said he had been tortured by the U.S.

    as for definitions of torture, this is how the UN defines it:
    Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
    3B corkscrews with scatterings of 3A & 3C.
  • wild~hairwild~hair Posts: 9,890Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    There are many instances where I will read a conservative viewpoint and think, "they have a point there."

    This is not one of them.

    This was the right thing to do. We are better than that.

    I am not looking to convert anyone to my opinion, either. Just wanted to register my own disgust at the old way of doing things.
  • journotravelerjournotraveler Posts: 2,816Registered Users
    wild~hair wrote: »

    This was the right thing to do. We are better than that.

    i so agree.
    3B corkscrews with scatterings of 3A & 3C.
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    Okay, someone define 'torture'. Examples from Gitmo. Gitmo specifically as that is where we are talking about. Torture is what happened to our POWs in Japan, Germany and Vietnam. Torture is what goes on in China and Russia. Torture is broken bones, bleeding and death. Scaring someone into talking through waterboarding is not torture.

    Why are we affording these detainees the protections of our Constitution? They are NOT US citizens, they are ununiformed enemy combatants. They come from nations that are not signators of the Geneva Convention, therefore they are also not entitled to those protections.

    Detention of this scum is not a civil matter, it is a federal matter. Moving them to US soil and farming them out around the nation is to put a strain and added expense on the states. They do not belong in the civilian prisons. The federal government cannot cover the costs of these monsters’ maintenance, so it will fall to the individual states to cover the costs. CO has a Supermax in the southern part of the state that already holds a couple of them, and our ‘illustrious’ governor has volunteered to take more. Leavenworth has been suggested--I have friends in KS who are not at all happy about that idea, and the governor has already said No. Murtha has offered to take them in exchange for federal funds to build a prison. There is no need to build more prisons for them. We have a perfectly good one at Gitmo. Tropical sun and breezes, air conditioning, they can insult and abuse our troops all they want and not be in trouble. They are very well taken care of, most of them live in better conditions than they have in their entire lives.

    And yes, we DO need to figure out which ones belong there and which ones don't, but when you have nations that won’t cooperate or don’t want them back and the individuals who answer any questions with vile filth, then it is a little hard to figure it out where to put them. Can they move into your neighborhood or guest room while that is figured out? They should be tried under military law with military tribunals. Even if they are in custody, see the above. Their living conditions are pretty nice.

    There is an old saying that if you are innocent you are better off in a military courtoom, if you are guilty, you are better off in a civilian court. Backing down or compromising is a sign of weakness to them, not strength and we cannot afford to show any weakness.

    Closing Gitmo would not be in the best interests of our national security and having two sons in the military (one adopted), then it concerns me more for their safety and the safety of the sons of other friends.

    Obama has absolutely NO plans on what to do with these prisoners. Send them back to their own countries? No, they might undergo actual torture there and they don't want to go.

    I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours...and I think this is a supremely stupid and dangerous idea.
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,258Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    susancnw wrote: »
    I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours...and I think this is a supremely stupid and dangerous idea.


    You're entitled to it, but you're just going to have to get over it. Elections count. Obama ran on the platform that he would close g'mo, so he has to do it. If McCain had won, he would have kept it open, but...McCain didn't win. You should have gotten more people to vote for him I guess.

    Closing g'mo will raise the USA's status with the rest of the world. This is all about how we don't want to look like scumbags anymore. And I'm all for it. I'm tired of the rest of the world thinking we're torturers. We manage to hold really vicious and dangerous people in our jails. We can hold the g'mo prisoners too. There aren't that many of them. They deserve to be tried. These wars have been going on for 7 years, with no end in sight. We have to put them on trial at some point...might as well be now. Welcome back Rule of Law. We've missed you.
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users
    Susan:

    If someone stripped you naked, hooked up cords to your genitals and nipples and told you they were live wires, hooded you, and brought in dogs to bark and snap at you at different intervals, would that be torture? Or would they have to draw blood, break a bone, or kill you in order to torture you.

    For future reference, Susancnw's definition of torture:

    To make someone bleed, break someones bones, or kill someone because they won't talk; Only applies to people of USA nationality.

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • RedCatWavesRedCatWaves Posts: 31,258Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    susancnw wrote: »
    So far 61 of those released have been found BACK on the battlefield trying to kill our guys.



    This argument makes no sense to me. These 61 recidivists were let out while g'mo was OPEN. Under Bush's watch. Um...that's some safety. :roll:
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users
    Also, Susan, wasn't at least one of the detainees Canadian?

    Can someone educate me? Is Canada not a signator of the Geneva Convention? Or does this only apply to Canadians that look like Becky or John?

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • Koukla72Koukla72 Posts: 1,680Registered Users
    You want a definition of waterboarding as torture? How about a couple of its non-euphemistic descriptions? Simulated drowning. Mock execution. Illegal under international law.

    You want someone in the military to characterize it as flat-out torture instead of the Bush administration's bulls#it euphemism of "enhanced interrogation"? (A phrase also enjoyed by the Gestapo, btw. "verschaerfte vernehmung") Here you go. A Navy SERE Instructor saying so, and disputing your own reasoning" at the same time. Or how about CIA interrogators themselves? WARNING: This includes a description of the simulated drowning. Sleep derivation comparable to a new mommy's crankiness?? Try induced sleep psychosis.

    But you don't care that it really *is* torture. You don't care that we routinely violated international law and the Geneva Convention for these years. You don't care that many of these prisoners were kidnapped into our custody because they couldn't be gotten through legal means, or that many of them weren't who our crack band of war criminals even thought they were. You don't care that the real reason the Bush administration did everything possible to avoid bringing them onto US soil was not to save our delicate criminals from possibly having to endure an ACCUSED terrorist's presence in their favorite hometown prisons. It was to avoid allowing the Constitution to apply to them - because the Constitution legally applies to every human being in this country, citizen or not.

    Guantanamo Bay and what it allowed our country's war criminals to get away with is a disgrace. It is an embarrassment to any American who values the Constitution and what it, and we, were supposed to stand for but didn't. It is an emblem of every unpatriotic and every unamerican thing these people did in our names, and I hope they burn it to the ground. If not that, then I hope these people are prosecuted and imprisoned there, themselves. It would be the only fitting thing to do with them OR the prison.
  • ScarletScarlet Posts: 3,125Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    Obama signed the order so quickly to appease a very vocal base of his support. Don't be surprised if, as time goes by, we start hearing noise about the specifics and technicalities of actually shutting it down being too complicated. While I'm bothered by the order, I'm skeptical that it will happen by 2010.
    The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics - Thomas Sowell
  • misspammisspam Posts: 5,318Registered Users
    Here is an interesting article pointing out that even the Obama administration is hesitant to totally destroy our interrogators ability to extract information, effectively giving them some leeway.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123267082704308361.html
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    susancnw wrote: »

    And if there is not a prison camp to bring them back to, then hey, battlefield justice. Been done for centuries by both sides. We take prisoners and treat them well. The ones that they manage to get their hands on are tortured and decapitated. And I mean real torture. Cigarette burns, electrical shocks, etc. At the most we deprive them of sleep (hello, that happens to parents of young children--and older kids), loud music they hate (again, parents of teens or anyone who stops a car at an intersection). Waterboarding....very seldom used...our Special Forces undergo this in training so it's not anything that our people haven't done themselves. No permanent damage and it WORKS.

    wow. i find your cavalier attitude toward torture to be deeply disturbing.

    i've interviewed torture survivors from around the world... torture is the gift that keeps on giving. you don't recover from it. ever.

    and no, it does not work. the torture survivors that i spoke to told me that they would say anything to make the pain stop--so they lied. it's not reliable information.

    by the way, i don't expect to change your mind about any of this. i'm not going to get into a debate with you about enemy combatants, the geneva convention, et al.

    i just wanted to register my disgust.

    Consider it registered. I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind...just stir a few thoughts.

    You've interviewed torture survivors. Show me where I claimed that they 'get over it'. You would be a good source for the definition of torture. I gave mine. What is yours?
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • susancnwsusancnw Posts: 1,374Registered Users Curl Novice
    Boomygrrl wrote: »
    Gitmo was a violation of the Geneva convention. Part 3 did take into consideration enemies that did not fight for a country (uniformed enemies). We in the US are better than that.

    Geneva Convention does not apply. Article 3 does not take into consideration enemy combatants. It specifically discussses UNARMED combatants.
    My son wears combat boots (and a parachute). So does my son-in-law.
    The older I get, the less patience I have with cleverness. Thomas Sowell.
    Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Benjamin Franklin.
    Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. Mark Twain.

    s-event.png

  • EilonwyEilonwy Posts: 12,391Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    susancnw wrote: »
    We take prisoners and treat them well. The ones that they manage to get their hands on are tortured and decapitated. And I mean real torture. Cigarette burns, electrical shocks, etc. At the most we deprive them of sleep (hello, that happens to parents of young children--and older kids), loud music they hate (again, parents of teens or anyone who stops a car at an intersection)...Waterboarding....very seldom used...our Special Forces undergo this in training so it's not anything that our people haven't done themselves. No permanent damage and it WORKS.

    In the first place, no, torture absolutely does not work. It just gets you false information from desperate people, many of whom don't even know any real information. What actually works is building personal relationships with the prisoners. It lacks the catharsis of hurting people, but that's not supposed to be the point.

    Secondly, everything you listed is real torture. If you accept the existence of emotional and verbal abuse, and the harm caused by it, then you accept that many forms of torture are psychological. To begin with, techniques such as sleep deprivation and constant, extremely loud music physically wear a person down (please don't draw a false equivalency with the neighbor's noisy kids). However, they psychologically break people down, too. Acting with the intent to drive people insane is torture. Unfortunately, the damage is permanent.

    And if you think that waterboarding isn't a big deal, please read this account (and watch the video) by a reporter who willingly underwent it. Waterboarding creates the feeling of dying through drowning--the exact same sensations of blind, animal terror experienced by someone who is actually drowning.

    Anyway, those are the facts. It's a choice between the catharsis of knowing that people--many of them innocent--are being inhumanly punished, or the knowledge that America is being made safer through the use of techniques that actually work.
  • EilonwyEilonwy Posts: 12,391Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Scarlet wrote: »
    Obama signed the order so quickly to appease a very vocal base of his support. Don't be surprised if, as time goes by, we start hearing noise about the specifics and technicalities of actually shutting it down being too complicated...I'm skeptical that it will happen by 2010.

    Yeah, I agree.
  • Myradella3Myradella3 Posts: 2,481Registered Users
    What confuses me is why we're just 'holding' them. If they're guilty of something, why don't we kill them? If we're not sure, investigate and either free them or kill them. Why are we housing, clothing, feeding, and giving spiritual support to people we say are no good? If we don't know for sure, why don't we find out?
  • EilonwyEilonwy Posts: 12,391Registered Users Curl Connoisseur
    Well it turns out that the information on the prisoners is scattered in bits and pieces throughout various departments of the executive branch. On top of that, the CIA doesn't want to share its information on the prisoners with the executive branch.

    What is it with the various intelligence and defense agencies not wanting to share information with each other? That's not a rhetorical question. It's resulted in so many unnecessary catastrophes in Iraq and elsewhere, that I don't understand how they could be outweighed by the benefits. A bureaucratic system requires the flow of information in order to function.
«1

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file