|
Post by Organized Chaos on Jan 23, 2009 17:55:20 GMT -5
So what does everyone think about Obama closing Gitmo?
Personally I'm tired of hearing about the bad treatment of these prisoners. They are not there because they are good people.
We need a place to imprison terrorists & possible terrorists. I think even after Gitmo is closed, our military will find another place to keep them. Even if it means doing it behind closed doors...out of sight, out of mind of the President. I feel that "black ops" are a necessary tool in our military's arsenal.
I also have no problems with pouring some water over a terrorists head or doing what it takes to get information out of them. If our methods prevent the deaths or injuries of Americans & other innocents, then do it.
These politicians who fight for the fair treatment of these prisoners...I can't help but feel that if it were to happen that some of our less than desirable methods would prevent an attack that would kill them or their family, they just might change their views.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Jan 24, 2009 0:17:30 GMT -5
I don't get you, you were a soldier. The Geneva Convention, the US Code of Milatary Conduct, the Army field manual. These are important rules.
And when others use these techniques on our operatives and soldiers: is that okay?
After years of using these techniques on the IRA, England learned torture didn't work, didn't stop the bombings, the deaths, they had to go back to diplomacy, and gee wheez it worked.
The US tried and executed Japanese found guilty of water boarding.
George Washington railed against the idea of torture.
We are the United States, we are supposed to be the good guys. We are supposed to be the shinning example the a country of laws.
The worse part is, that now the torture has been admitted too by the outgoing administration, that makes all cases tainted. And inmates left there, sometimes for 7years with no charges. If they were not terrorist before, they sure are now.
|
|
|
Post by Connie on Jan 24, 2009 0:36:55 GMT -5
Ohhh this is a tough one.... Like Eileen I would love to believe that all is fair and wonderful and that we are mistreating these prisoners but I don't.
I haven't heard where we plan to send these prisoners? Will we be putting them in a nice little federal prison here to be treated kindly? I hope not..
Eileen.. do you really believe that American POW's are being treated according to the Geneva Convention? I don't believe they are... and yes we SHOULD be a Country to look up to.. but when it comes to terrorists... I really don't care if they are treated badly.... I also don't care if American citizens are treated badly when they are in prison for crimes like sexual abuse of a child.. the Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Bundys can be torturted until they die as far as I am concerned... and I have no problem saying the same for the terrorists who have attacked us... I do not believe they treat our POW's any better..
In a perfect world... my response would be much nicer.... in this world and having been a military wife with a teeny tiny bit of insider information (Im sure OC and Louis could share some insight) my response IS harsh and I know it.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Jan 24, 2009 1:00:42 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong. I don't care if we lock them up or execute them. I just want my country to follow the law, due process.
As for other countries, I also know all countries do not follow the rules, but when they didn't we could complain, we could take action, we could use deadly force. We had the moral authority to do so. We no longer have that.
Some of our citizens visiting Eastern European countries are finding that out. One man, thought to be suspicious was arrested for having a controlled substance, his diabetes medicine, he is not being charged. The foreign service is having a harder time dealing with these moderate and boarder line countries now more than ever. They can't demand, charges, who are we to talk.
And what happens if any of the outgoing administration is stupid enough to take a foreign vacation? They could be picked up as War Criminal and tried in the World Court. It could happen.
Do you think that there are any Federal Prisons for violent criminal that are comfy? That is a myth. If the prison is high security, it is hell. You are no longer human, you are caged.
|
|
|
Post by Organized Chaos on Jan 24, 2009 15:22:54 GMT -5
Yes Eileen, I was a soldier and my views are shared by many soldiers, past & present. Just because someone is or was a soldier doesn't mean they think the life of the enemy is so precious we should treat them with kid gloves. What does being a soldier have to do with it? Being a soldier doesn't mean we're required to feel a certain way. I followed the rules of the UCMJ when I was in and I'm a law abiding citizen now...that doesn't mean I have to agree with every little rule & law written.
Is it ok that our soldiers have been, are being, and will be treated badly? No. Is it ok if we treat theirs badly? It doesn't bother me. That's a double standard I can live with.
My views may be a little bit harsher than the next guy's, maybe even a little bit cold-hearted. So be it, I'm not alone. Guess I'm just not a peace & love type of guy. I say it's a great thing for a man to have to answer for the wrong that he's done and in many cases we're far too kind to criminals.
Sometimes diplomacy fails. How many people have to be killed before it's ok to step away from the table? Hell I believe there are truly instances when diplomacy should be thrown out the window. This country is what it is today because we were willing to fight for it.
As the saying goes, it's either him or me. That applies on a grand scale as well.
The outgoing administration this, the outgoing administration that. Is there anything bad that happened that you AREN'T willing to blame on the Bush administration? How long before Liberals move on? And just because some of you don't like them doesn't mean they're "stupid" for traveling abroad.
If someone believes that certain interrogation techniques weren't being used LONG before G.W. came along, they're awful naive. They have been and probably will continue to be used. If it saves lives, it's worth it. I'm not so hot on big government or a lot of government secrets, but there are some things I'm ok with that the govt. does behind closed doors.
Personally I think we should play it nice in the public's eye, but I don't care what goes on behind closed doors to these evil people. They are not terrorists because we held them w/o being charged, they are terrorists because that is what they were born & bred to be.
If you want to talk about ways of hurting our country then I say this country suffers greatly for what the biased media is allowed to cover & report. For no other reason than they don't like the guy on the other side of the political line.
As far as prison goes, it's no party I'm sure. But these hardened criminals are still able to control their gangs from the inside, still able to do drugs on the inside, still able to murder on the inside, etc. etc. And what happens? They get thrown in solitary or something like that. Do you think they care? No, to them it becomes a slap on the wrist. I say execution is vastly underutilized.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Jan 24, 2009 19:37:28 GMT -5
Apt new avatar you got there.
That the vast majority of the prisoners at GitMo are round ups from the $5000 bounty put on them so that any nasty neighbor or pissed off local could turn in a problem in for cash. People are hungry there, $5000 is a lot of money to turn in someone you don't like. You know the mentality, it's him or me.
You have to try diplomacy to judge weather it works or not. It has been off the table for the last 6 years when the weapons inspectors didn't come up with anything.
How many people do need to be killed? what people are you talking about, Humans or just Americans.
And GW did know about the torture, that was why he was so against it.
Liberal, Conservative, get over yourself. I am worried that they could be picked up, put on trial, and possibly found guilty or war crimes. It would be bad for them and America.
I don't blame President Bush for all our ails, just the ones we have been talking about here and other topics. I blame President Clinton for raising the Presidential pay and therefore Presidential retirement pay.
More an more of the boots on the ground keep saying torture doesn't work. A person being tortured will say anything. That bogus information has to now be checked out wasting time on many a wild goose hunt. Then it turns out to be useless.
Media bias - your a broken record. In the US we are quite lucky to have many sources, from many sides and no sides, sharing information. And the media is not the last say on wrong and right. In the end we are.
As for prisons, the operative word in 'inside'. If that's a slap on the wrist to you, you have been brutally treated in your life - but it explains a lot.
|
|
|
Post by havingfunnow on Jan 27, 2009 19:20:26 GMT -5
I have avoided posting on this topic for awhile, but will add my two cents for what it's worth. Part 1: This topic started out with the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison, for which Haliburton was given $30 million to expand in 2005. Due to the fact that the prison is on a US Naval Base, technically it is located on US soil. So just because it has developed a bad name, it is going to be closed? To me, it seems like another gross waste of resources to make a political statement. They are going to close it, but haven't the slightest idea of what they are going to do with the 245 prisoners being held there. Many states with Federal prisons have gone on record that they do not want the prisoners moved there, and there is a building backlash that the Obama Administration has not expected. The European Union has not received the news well, and Saudi Arabia has announced that they have re-arrested nine more former Guantanamo Bay detainees. Yesterday and today, 'innocent' prisoners that have been freed from Guantanamo Bay in the past, are coming out of hiding, reaffirming their ties to al-Qaeda, and stating that their imprisonment had only strengthened their resolve for the Jihad they are involved in. So much for the innocence of the prisoners, and these were some of the ones freed because of lesser evidence against them. I foresee big problems for the Obama Administration in trying to stick with this campaign promise. Part 2: Another part of what President Obama signed was the closing of CIA prisons and the fact that interrogations have to follow the Army Field Manual. The CIA is going to be allowed to continue the 'renditions' (extractions of persons of intelligence value), just not to countries that condone torture or to their own black prisons. The Obama Administration is also setting up a review of more aggressive interrogation techniques to be added to the Army Field Manual. President Obama has said the War on Terror will be won on our terms, but he doesn't want to make the wrong decision between successfully waging war against terrorist organizations and sticking to U.S. human rights ideals in the process. The above information came from the Obama Administration, so I don't see much really being done; except for good press releases, and the knowledge that many people don't dig deeply for information, and are content to be spoon-fed. I agree with OC that the press has bias, but I also agree with Eileen that we have access to more media than ever before. I regularly access foreign news networks to get different views. Part 3: Eliminating torture of prisoners: What is torture? Causing pain to the body or mind? Then preventing a suicide bomber from blowing up others and themselves, in their transition to another existence, can be defined as torture. In an ongoing war against terrorism, it is torture to confine suspected terrorists; instead of letting them run free until they have been caught red (bloody) handed or blown themselves up. What about the use of drugs? And what if there is a bad reaction to sodium pentathol or another drug? Would that be torture? There will be always those who scream torture, and it is not up to us to decide what is and what is not acceptable. What I do know is that unless you have Been There, Done That - don't judge others on what they have done as mission essential. There are more gray areas than many people realize, and then proper training has to take over. Part 4: Life in prison: The only times I was at a Federal penitentiary, I was assisting in the escort of a prisoner. They were not happy campers. I do know that there were various levels of confinement depending on what the person did. Misc: When politicians set the Rules Of Engagement, we end up with Vietnam. Rules Of Engagement are funny things, as normally only one side knows them. They apply to military and police forces: when force can be used; where force can be used; how much force can be used; etc... Rules of Engagement require a reachable goal. i.e. Israel wanted to stop the recent Hamas rocket attacks, so they did a limited strike (spanking) against targets in Gaza - letting Hamas know why and what they were doing. The rocket attacks stopped and Israel withdrew their troops. Without ROEs, Gaza could be a smooth glassy plateau that glows at night. Al-Qaeda is a whole different animal, and the entire concept of Rules Of Engagement needs to be thrown out the window. What goal do you have when you have an enemy whose avowed purpose is to destroy your way of life? The only option is strike first, strike hard, and make sure no one gets up. Governments have been figuring this out, and there used to be mercenaries that did most of the dirty work. Now mercenaries are called 'contractors', and the Geneva Conventions of War (of which the United States hasn't signed all) and the Army Field Manual do not apply to them. When I was in the service, we felt like we were prize fighters being sent out to fight with our hands tied. Although my nation was not at 'war' during the time, my unit was at war 24/7/365. Those bonds were cut in response to 9/11, but now I feel that the current Administration is trying to bind those hands again. The American public has to realize that the world has changed, and in order to maintain Freedom as we know it, then certain changes have to occur. Anyone who has walked through foreign airports or train stations will immediately see a difference. As far as US citizens being able to be arrested in foreign countries, anyone can be arrested in a foreign country (Thailand canning a US minor, Turkey keeping US prisoners in inhumane conditions). I am not too concerned that former US officials will be arrested as war criminals - the International Court of Justice (World Court) is not a high and mighty organization that dispenses justice when and where it sees fit. It cannot enforce anything that goes against one of the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) of the UN Security Council. The International Criminal Court is different, but can generally only enforce against actions that have taken place by a member state, on a member state's territory, or by recommendation of the UN Security Council. Three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, United States) are NOT members of the ICC, and not expected to join soon. Sorry so long, but this is not an easy topic Louis
|
|
|
Post by Connie on Jan 28, 2009 22:37:45 GMT -5
No it's not an easy topic and I applaud your response. I have truly lived some of it and understand.. My first time in a foreign airport was hilarious and downright scary all at the same time.
Life in prison.... I can say I have NOT been brutally treated in life.. I do believe that life in federal prison is EASY... ask Martha Stewart.. does she really seem traumatized? If life in prison were as hard in the US as it is in other countries, I firmly believe we would NOT have such a high crime rate.. I can tell you from living in Germany that something as simple as a speeding ticket was treated so harshly that I did NOT speed and was terrified of getting busted if I did.
Rules of engagement.. oh wouldn't it be a nice lovely "WAR" if everyone followed the rules? NOT going to happen.. yes the US COULD set an example and fight "above board" but really... until everyone decides to fight with the same honor and respect that we expect... it won't happen and if it did.. we wouldn't ever need to go to war.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Feb 4, 2009 23:25:33 GMT -5
It is a hard topic. But again, we have many places to keep dangerous prisoners if we want and need. How many military JAG lawyers have quit over the facts that they could not in good conscious work within these Star Chamber courts.
Looking at the records they are finding that many of the prisoners have no coherent records. Never charged, no access to who accused them, or even what they were accused of. We are a country of laws. We tried our enemy at Nuremberg, we tried the Japanese war criminals for water boarding. We executed them for it.
As for Martha, she was no where near a Max Security prison, no prison is a vacation spot but she went to a relatively sane institution.
No one wants to coddle prisoners, I just don't want the constitution to be chucked out the window because of fear mongers.
I am still looking into the rendition thing. I understand their will no longer be "extraordinary rendition" Rendition in general has some world community backing because of how it was used as the last option to get Nazi war criminals from the countries they were hiding in. Because rendition also is the practice of going and getting people from other countries and bringing them to the supposed injured party. Israel in that case. I am reading more about it, facinating stuff.
This new administration isn't perfect, but it seems to be trying to do the right things for the right reasons.
|
|
|
Post by havingfunnow on May 24, 2009 9:44:03 GMT -5
... Part 1: This topic started out with the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison, for which Haliburton was given $30 million to expand in 2005. Due to the fact that the prison is on a US Naval Base, technically it is located on US soil. So just because it has developed a bad name, it is going to be closed? To me, it seems like another gross waste of resources to make a political statement. They are going to close it, but haven't the slightest idea of what they are going to do with the 245 prisoners being held there. Many states with Federal prisons have gone on record that they do not want the prisoners moved there, and there is a building backlash that the Obama Administration has not expected. The European Union has not received the news well, and Saudi Arabia has announced that they have re-arrested nine more former Guantanamo Bay detainees. Yesterday and today, 'innocent' prisoners that have been freed from Guantanamo Bay in the past, are coming out of hiding, reaffirming their ties to al-Qaeda, and stating that their imprisonment had only strengthened their resolve for the Jihad they are involved in. So much for the innocence of the prisoners, and these were some of the ones freed because of lesser evidence against them. I foresee big problems for the Obama Administration in trying to stick with this campaign promise... So I have been monitoring President Obama's reaction to the bloody nose he got from Congress. I have to admit that President Obama is persistent, but his response on using Florence Colorado's SuperMax prison (the ONLY Federal SuperMax Prison) will not garner him any more support. As of Thursday, there is currently only room for one (1) prisoner available in the Florence SuperMax prison. Placing the 202 remaining detainees at Guantanamo Bay into the one available room would have to be considered torture, as the space in the room would quickly run out and pretty soon the guards would have to mash them in there. Using a blender might be easier. So is President Obama going to build a new Federal SuperMax Prison? They are a lot more expensive to build than regular prisons, and the cost to keep a prisoner is twice that of regular prisons. One thing is certain, President Obama has a fight on his hands over this issue. Maybe he should just bandage his nose on this one, and concentrate on the US economy more.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Jun 1, 2009 23:44:51 GMT -5
Now that the top Generals are calling for Guantanamo to be closed including Sec. Gates it will take a bit of the wind out the sails of opponents.
We have prisons that have terrorist in them already including our home grown ones. We will manage. At least I hope so.
|
|
|
Post by havingfunnow on Jun 2, 2009 0:27:00 GMT -5
Generals? Without a link to an article, I can only assume you mean the US Attorney General, who will testify to Congress. I dunno I do know that Generals do a lot of politicking, just like Congress persons. What I do know, is that yet another wrinkle has loomed up to complicate matter for the Obama Administration. See here. I still say in this matter, he leaped where he should have tread carefully.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Jun 2, 2009 1:26:46 GMT -5
Sorry Admiral Mullen, (ABC''s "This Week with...")Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Petraeus, chief U.S. Central Command to Radio Free Europe, Secretary Gates, former General Colin Powell, and Senator McCain. I will see if I can find one article that mentions all of them.
If only Pres Bush had thought ahead before he leaped into this mess in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by havingfunnow on Jun 18, 2009 7:23:44 GMT -5
I have been watching for articles about the General staff calling for Guantanamo Bay to be closed, I'm not finding it. However, I have been watching President Obama's efforts at transferring the detainees to other countries, since he hasn't made any progress at home. Admittedly, he has transferred a few, but 200+ remain and there is stiffening resistance to his continued efforts. Can you imagine what his staff is going through? ****** Da boss made this his first executive action, so we gotsta make it work. How we gunna do that? We make it somebody else's problem! How we gunna do that? I dunno... ...maybe Health Care Reform to distract the public, and then they will forgetaboutit...
|
|