[besson3c]

Have any of you read this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/op...bay.html?_r=1&


It's pretty heavy and emotional stuff. I honestly don't understand the argument for not giving detainees a trial, wouldn't that potentially uncover some useful info?

[Snow-i]

Where is Obama on this one? I thought he was supposed to shut it down 4 years ago.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Where is Obama on this one? I thought he was supposed to shut it down 4 years ago.

Sigh. Maybe you could read the paper once in a while?

Regarding the story, it is fncking astounding that this man and so many others may never see justice. Give the man his fncking day in court, you goddamn pr!cks!

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Sigh. Maybe you could read the paper once in a while?

That's obnoxious.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Where is Obama on this one? I thought he was supposed to shut it down 4 years ago.

President Obama was blocked from shutting Gitmo down by Congress. Which, ironically, was probably the greatest single act of bipartisanship that Congress has done since he was elected.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's obnoxious.

I'm tried of hearing conservatives asking dead-obvious questions over and over again. I'm tired of the broken record act. When people don't ask obnoxious questions, I don't give obnoxious answers.

[subego]

Snow-i isn't "conservatives". I see no reason to take out your bad experiences with others on him.

Or do you two have history I'm unaware of?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

Snow-i isn't "conservatives". I see no reason to take out your bad experiences with others on him.

I find Snow-i to be the most intolerable person on this board. I unloaded on him on the North Korean thread too. I just can't stand his posts and his insinuations. I mean, this thread is about the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, and his first instinct is to bash Obama. He doesn't even try to address the subject of the thread.

Or do you two have history I'm unaware of?

Not really, I just don't like the guy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I find Snow-i to be the most intolerable person on this board. I unloaded on him on the North Korean thread too. I just can't stand his posts and his insinuations. I mean, this thread is about the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, and his first instinct is to bash Obama. He doesn't even try to address the subject of the thread.

Not really, I just don't like the guy.

Wow.

If you think Snow-i, of all people, is the most intolerable person on this board, I... umm... ahh... my brain is just full of **** on that one.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I find Snow-i to be the most intolerable person on this board. I unloaded on him on the North Korean thread too. I just can't stand his posts and his insinuations.

How dare he have a different opinion :grr:

I mean, this thread is about the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, and his first instinct is to bash Obama.

Or appeal to Obama's authority as an expert on the subject. If anyone in the world was going to have the motivation and ability to end the gitmo situation, it would be Obama right? If Obama ultimately decided to drop the issue, then doesn't that indicate there's more to consider than a simple War on Terror dick measuring contest?

[lpkmckenna]

OAW and myself are the only people in besson's thread who actually addressed the subject. It's filling up fast with people who want to attack me, though.

Snow-i, subego, Skeleton, anytime you want to chime in about the tortuous forced-feeding of prisoners or people held without trial for 10 fncking years, the floor is yours.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How dare he have a different opinion :grr:

I never attacked him for having a different opinion. I attacked him for deflecting the issue, a typically disgusting conservative strategy when they don't want to talk about something. Just like you are.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Or appeal to Obama's authority as an expert on the subject. If anyone in the world was going to have the motivation and ability to end the gitmo situation, it would be Obama right? If Obama ultimately decided to drop the issue, then doesn't that indicate there's more to consider than a simple War on Terror dick measuring contest?

It looks to me like Obama did what he could with his powers as President; if you're aware of a more powerful tool than a presidential order, I'd be glad to hear about it.

I don't think he went far enough in condemning those who blocked him in Congress. It's not like liberals like myself aren't disgusted with Obama's decision to more-or-less drop the issue; look at any thread at Fark or Reddit, or articles at Salon or AlterNet, and you'll see liberals are pissed about this, and pissed at Obama specifically.

I think ultimately this issue is about how broken and dysfunctional the United States Government is. When one President establishes indefinite detention without trial without needing to Congressional approval, but the next President can't remove that same policy without Congressional approval, clearly your political system is utterly fncked. Your deposed Leader has more power than your actual Leader!

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

OAW and myself are the only people in besson's thread who actually addressed the subject. It's filling up fast with people who want to attack me, though.

Oh, poor you.

[subego]

Since I know it bothers you when conservatives deflect blame, here's that bastion of conservative thought The Atlantic slamming Obama.

Obama's Failed Promise to Close Gitmo: A Timeline - David Wagner - The Atlantic Wire

And NPR, another conservative hideout.

Obama's Promise To Close Guantanamo Prison Falls Short : NPR

Since you like reading the paper, here's another conservative rag, the LA Times.

Obama and Guantanamo: A chronology of his broken promise - latimes.com


Is it okay I be disgusted with Obama now? Can I be disgusted with him for expanding the warrantless wiretapping program? Relentless drone attacks? Do you think we stopped torturing people?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

OAW and myself are the only people in besson's thread who actually addressed the subject. It's filling up fast with people who want to attack me, though.

Yeah, because of you deflecting away from the subject by starting with personal attacks. That's exactly why personal attacks are a bad thing, because they deflect from the subject. I wouldn't have bothered calling you on it, if I wasn't certain you would keep escalating it (as you yourself pointed out).

Snow-i, subego, Skeleton, anytime you want to chime in about the tortuous forced-feeding of prisoners or people held without trial for 10 fncking years, the floor is yours.

I don't approve of the situation in any way, but I can admit that once we found ourselves in it, that any possible way of getting out of it might make things worse. After all, that's one of the major reasons I don't approve of the situation in the first place.

I never attacked him for having a different opinion. I attacked him for deflecting the issue

That's a lie. In the North Korea thread (which you brought up in this one), there is no possible reading under which this description is accurate.

, a typically disgusting conservative strategy when they don't want to talk about something. Just like you are.

Hah! Doctor, heal thyself. You're doing it (deflecting, scape-goating, cheer-leading, grudge-holding) in this very sentence.

It looks to me like Obama did what he could with his powers as President; if you're aware of a more powerful tool than a presidential order, I'd be glad to hear about it.

His influence among his own party extends beyond constitutional limits, yet he couldn't get them to support this issue either.

clearly your political system is utterly fncked.

As long as we're airing our laundry, I laugh whenever I see this pathetic work-around of the language filter. Not only are you so one-dimensional that you can't not be vulgar, not only is your creativity of vulgarity limited to a single option, not only can you not come up with a more convincing or apropos argument than this utterly generic fluff, but of all possibilities you choose to make it sound like.... snarf.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

OAW and myself are the only people in besson's thread who actually addressed the subject. It's filling up fast with people who want to attack me, though.

Don't throw stones in a glass house then, eh?

Snow-i, subego, Skeleton, anytime you want to chime in about the tortuous forced-feeding of prisoners or people held without trial for 10 fncking years, the floor is yours.

You sure? I can speak my opinion without you grouping me with an ambiguous term then calling that group the scourge of the earth?

I never attacked him for having a different opinion.

I attacked him for deflecting the issue, a typically disgusting conservative strategy when they don't want to talk about something. Just like you are.

You attacked me because I demonstrated the failure of your man to fulfill his campaign promise four years ago. "Oh well its not his fault a democratic congress blocked his move." Then why did he make a promise in absolution that it would get done? Who else would be better suited to the task? Those hairy republicans who hold a majority in the house and the house alone?

It looks to me like Obama did what he could with his powers as President; if you're aware of a more powerful tool than a presidential order, I'd be glad to hear about it.

Then he should have kept his mouth shut on it if he wasn't positive he could get it done. He failed, and people continue to suffer. It would be a great day to see you transcend your rampant partisanship and admit that Obama failed in this particular instance, and really hasn't done all that much to rectify his failure. He was blocked 4 years ago, what's he been doing since then? I haven't heard a word from him on the issue.

I don't think he went far enough in condemning those who blocked him in Congress.

The Congress controlled by Obama's party?

It's not like liberals like myself aren't disgusted with Obama's decision to more-or-less drop the issue; look at any thread at Fark or Reddit, or articles at Salon or AlterNet, and you'll see liberals are pissed about this, and pissed at Obama specifically.

I'm not going to go read thousands of comments on other boards to extrapolate a view you should have stated 10 posts up, before attacking me. Infact, with this admission, you should be in agreement with me not calling me names.

I think ultimately this issue is about how broken and dysfunctional the United States Government is. When one President establishes indefinite detention without trial without needing to Congressional approval, but the next President can't remove that same policy without Congressional approval, clearly your political system is utterly fncked. Your deposed Leader has more power than your actual Leader!

I'm not convinced Obama couldn't get it done if he tried. It's obviously not important to him. He passed healthcare without the public ever getting a chance to understand the bill. He could absolutely get it done if it were important for him to do so. I haven't heard of any republicans opposing the shuttering of Guantanamo in years. They have opposed bringing them here for trial, which would be absurd.

[OAW]

Here's my criticism of President Obama when it came to Gitmo ...

After all the fanfare about doing it he issued an Executive Order to basically "study" how it should be done. Which given his cautious nature is not surprising. He wanted to dot all the I's and cross all the T's to make sure everything was done in an orderly fashion. The problem is that his team didn't anticipate the irrational backlash that ensued. Again, understandable because it was irrational. I just wished he had approached it more like a "Commander In Chief" instead of "President" ... if you know what I mean. Just order Gitmo closed and transfer the prisoners to another US military base already! It would have been a done deal by the time Congress got wind of it. They certainly couldn't force him as Commander in Chief to send them back. All they can do is withhold funding to house them in super max prisons in the US ... which they did. As silly as that was. But at politically if not substantively Obama could have checked that off as a "promise kept". Oh well ...

OAW

[BadKosh]

Perhaps after other terrorists had their day in US courts they didn't want another circus. The logistics of such a trial isn't worth it. That's the life of a terrorist.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Perhaps after other terrorists had their day in US courts they didn't want another circus. The logistics of such a trial isn't worth it. That's the life of a terrorist.

How do we determine who is and isn't a terrorist without a trial?

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Perhaps after other terrorists had their day in US courts they didn't want another circus. The logistics of such a trial isn't worth it. That's the life of a terrorist.

and apparently the life of someone who may or may not be a terrorist. It's hugely inspiring to know you can decide which they are. Without a, you know, trial or anything?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

and apparently the life of someone who may or may not be a terrorist. It's hugely inspiring to know you can decide which they are. Without a, you know, trial or anything?

I'm guessing BadKosh will just look for an Al Qaeda membership card in their wallets.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have any of you read this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/op...bay.html?_r=1&


It's pretty heavy and emotional stuff. I honestly don't understand the argument for not giving detainees a trial, wouldn't that potentially uncover some useful info?

Stuff like this isn't entirely new and is part of the reason why they hate us. I wonder if the government fears releasing them at this point because if they weren't terrorists before this might be a good reason to become one... from their perspective.

Edit: you might find some research on Sayyid Qutb interesting; theres some documentaries relating to him out there.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

On a bit tangent. Stuff like this isn't entirely new and is part of the reason why they hate us. I wonder if the government fears releasing them at this point because if they weren't terrorists before this might be a good reason to become one... from their perspective.

Guantanamo: Precrime Prison™

[el chupacabra]

Im not saying I agree with what they're doing

[The Final Dakar]

I wasn't trying to imply you were

[Buckaroo]

I believe everything in the letter is a lie.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I believe everything in the letter is a lie.

Based on? Good ol' gut feeling?

My gut feeling tells me that you are a gay midget.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm guessing BadKosh will just look for an Al Qaeda membership card in their wallets.

If that Al Qaeda membership card looks ANYTHING like a blockbusters membership car so many of you are so screwed!

[Doc HM]

I do hate teh "but these people are SO bad" whining excuse. As far as I can tell, the worse the crime, the more heinous the act, the more important it becomes to treat the perpetrator with the full weight of the law.

Note: there is absolutely NO upper limit to this. The worse they are and the more we stick to our own laws the better our society is.

Also, the more you are personally touched by any act of terror/violence. The less i want you involved in the draughting of any laws in response.

[subego]

I more or less agree with you, but I still have a pretty strong streak of "justice trumps law".

That said, the Gitmo situation is anything but just.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

I do hate teh "but these people are SO bad" whining excuse. As far as I can tell, the worse the crime, the more heinous the act, the more important it becomes to treat the perpetrator with the full weight of the law.

Note: there is absolutely NO upper limit to this. The worse they are and the more we stick to our own laws the better our society is.

Also, the more you are personally touched by any act of terror/violence. The less i want you involved in the draughting of any laws in response.

What I don't get is why a full trial is not seen as a great opportunity to gather new intelligence?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What I don't get is why a full trial is not seen as a great opportunity to gather new intelligence?

You'll have to explain this to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'll have to explain this to me.

When somebody under trial is allowed to tell their side of the story, and is allowed to be questioned with some semblance of hope for an eventual verdict of innocence, they might reveal something potentially useful to intelligence communities. They may also provide a lot of false leads, but even with those, it might lead to discovery of patterns and techniques for putting up these false leads. It will also be interesting to study how the rest of the world responds to these trials. Surely, at this point given that it is no secret that Gitmo exists, no trial is worse than some sort of trial in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Besides, if these prisoners were put in Gitmo because there is certainty of their guilt, how would a trial hurt?

[subego]

I'd say the main concern is it would be too easy for them to game the legal system, especially considering the dodgy circumstances many were captured under.

Bush didn't even want to go for a trial by a military court, he tried to swing that tribunal thing as a substitute.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say the main concern is it would be too easy for them to game the legal system, especially considering the dodgy circumstances many were captured under.

Bush didn't even want to go for a trial by a military court, he tried to swing that tribunal thing as a substitute.

Good point, although maybe if they were to game the system it would provide pressures to close these loopholes? The totality of what is gamed in the legal system on a regular basis is surely equal to the hypothetical relatively occasional terrorist manipulation.

[subego]

Those "loopholes" are the things which protect you from the cops.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say the main concern is it would be too easy for them to game the legal system, especially considering the dodgy circumstances many were captured under.
.

So the fact that many of these people were captured in contravention of your exiting laws is the best reason to keep them without trial in convention of your existing laws. I see what you did there. Don't want those pesky maybe terrorists using the law against you.

Why not go for it. If a judge upholds their concerns then they get released. ON the plus side you get to live in a country where people uphold their own laws without fear or favour, which may just come in useful for tens of thousands of people, balanced against the slight threat that these people may pose a threat to the US in the future. Which is probably unlikely, more likely now, after being treated so badly by the US (see what extra dangers ignoring your own laws can breed).

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

So the fact that many of these people were captured in contravention of your exiting laws is the best reason to keep them without trial in convention of your existing laws. I see what you did there. Don't want those pesky maybe terrorists using the law against you.

I think you may be mistaking me answering a question the same as me agreeing with the rationale for the answer.

[Doc HM]

sorry, no I was actually expanding on your answer/comment. I get that you agree. Should have been clearer

[Ω]

Who was Buckaroo again? I lose track.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

sorry, no I was actually expanding on your answer/comment. I get that you agree. Should have been clearer

No worries.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Here's my criticism of President Obama when it came to Gitmo ...

After all the fanfare about doing it he issued an Executive Order to basically "study" how it should be done. Which given his cautious nature is not surprising. He wanted to dot all the I's and cross all the T's to make sure everything was done in an orderly fashion. The problem is that his team didn't anticipate the irrational backlash that ensued. Again, understandable because it was irrational. I just wished he had approached it more like a "Commander In Chief" instead of "President" ... if you know what I mean. Just order Gitmo closed and transfer the prisoners to another US military base already! It would have been a done deal by the time Congress got wind of it. They certainly couldn't force him as Commander in Chief to send them back. All they can do is withhold funding to house them in super max prisons in the US ... which they did. As silly as that was. But at politically if not substantively Obama could have checked that off as a "promise kept". Oh well ...

OAW

Couple of things, First Obama had to get reelected and trying Gitmo detainees in the US was decidedly unpopular. This is why keeping Gitmo open had so much bipartisan support. I think what happened here is Presidential on-the-job training and the product of information privy to that capacity. To Uncle's point, Gitmo may not have been the best idea just as bombing people from a remote-controlled airplane 3 miles away may not be the preferred option, but... you have to do something to eliminate the threat from the field of battle. Once the capability is there, you either use it or weigh the implications of not using it which may be even less desirable. We've chosen against taking prisoners found in the field of battle nowadays, instead bombing them less discriminately from the sky. No trial here or abroad, no due process -- just a death sentence carried out from nameless, faceless technology. The good news is Gitmo remains a handful of living, former combatants with a propensity of returning to the field of battle once freed. The population there isn't growing and you can say that's a good thing unless information leads you to believe their justice is being delivered prematurely by a different kind of court.

[Waragainstsleep]

Surely the obvious answer is to launch drone strikes on Gitmo? After all, they know theres terrorists in there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The good news is Gitmo remains a handful of living, former combatants with a propensity of returning to the field of battle once freed.

Do you believe this to be the case with everyone at Gitmo? None of the detainees were mistakenly captured, etc?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do you believe this to be the case with everyone at Gitmo? None of the detainees were mistakenly captured, etc?

Good question, subego. Of course I couldn't say for sure, but I'm working from some (IMO) reasonable conclusions;

• It's really in no one's best interest to capture and house/imprison a bunch of people unnecessarily.
• The most ever detained at Gitmo were 779 people which is an infinitesimally small percentage of the total number of people we've fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush released over 500 of them which I believe supports the first point while also supporting the notion that they can't all be terrorist operatives or combatants.

However, "propensity" may not be the most fair way to describe the approximately 28% who re-engaged in terrorist activities since release from Gitmo.

[subego]

You make points worth pondering, but that last point indicates a pretty abysmally low hit rate when it comes to getting the right people.

Even after potential false imprisonment, 7 out of 10 people they put in there ended up terrorizing squat.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You make points worth pondering, but that last point indicates a pretty abysmally low hit rate when it comes to getting the right people.

Even after potential false imprisonment, 7 out of 10 people they put in there ended up terrorizing squat.

That we know of.

Perhaps the remaining 72% were disappointed enough with their time at Gitmo that they decided not to re-engage which of course would be a good thing.

[subego]

I don't buy that. Do you?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't buy that. Do you?

Can't say for sure, but we typically don't abandon ideas due to a less than 100% success rate or for falling short of perfect. There may not be a wealth of more elegant options.

I don't think we're doing it for fun. Do you?

[subego]

I don't think we're doing it for fun, but I'm not convinced the people in charge care all that much.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

we typically don't abandon ideas due to a less than 100% success rate or for falling short of perfect.

Perhaps not abandon them, but certainly refuse to adopt ideas in the first place.