Obama orders closure of Guant

[Aontan 0]

Obama orders closure of Guantánamo Bay

Thursday, 22 January 2009 16:50

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Haljackey 17,404]

This is decades overdue. Good for him having the guts to finally close this hellhole.

I'm liking this guy. Hope he can stay consistent unlike some other president....

Best,

-Haljackey

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Aontan

Only two days into office as well... quote>

Well, it was said that he was going to give the order on the first or second day of his term, so this isn't surprising.

Though it's expected to take up to a year to finally close the place.

[_Atticus 10]

This black chapter in the history of the US is finally coming to an end. Hurray!

-Pingangster

[Geronimo 4]

Good news, lets hope mr. Obama find his way through the political mud left behind by his predecessor.

And bless the world.

[Explodingsims 3]

A good move on his part, I would say.

Now, he only has the rest of the country to clean up!

[rainyday 2]

great news

[rawr APPLES 15]

An awesome first move

[Easy Bakes 253]

So umm were do we put the terrorist  we detain now?

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

So umm were do we put the terrorist  we detain now?

quote>

 

Well, we could follow the Geneva Convention.

 

 

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

So umm were do we put the terrorist  we detain now?quote>

 

Well, we could follow the Geneva Convention. quote>

That isn't really all it's chalked up to be though.  First, the Geneva Convention allows some fairly harsh interrogation tactics, such as sustained electric shock treatments to extract information.  Second, it is said that the Geneva Convention actually has nothing in it about the treatment of non-uniformed combatants.  You can do anything you want to that person and it doesn't violate the Geneva Convention.

[Yoman3 5]

If you think about it, calling the terrorists non-uniformed combatants or whatever they called them and sticking them in a place out of the legal reach of both the US and the home country is a pretty smart way to get around alot of legal barriers

And closing it isn't as simple as locking the gate up, still about 400 people that are probably terrorists and you can't just let them go. If one of them is released and participates in a terrorist attack Obama is going to have quite alot to explain

[panthersimcity4 162]

President Obama = epic win.

[toxicpiano 125]

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

So umm were do we put the terrorist  we detain now?quote>

Well, we could follow the Geneva Convention. quote>

That isn't really all it's chalked up to be though.  First, the Geneva Convention allows some fairly harsh interrogation tactics, such as sustained electric shock treatments to extract information.  Second, it is said that the Geneva Convention actually has nothing in it about the treatment of non-uniformed combatants.  You can do anything you want to that person and it doesn't violate the Geneva Convention.quote>

Even if that's true (which is debatable, just because we can do whatever we want to those people doesn't mean we should.

Still, the benefits are mixed. On the one hand, it would seem proper to take the moral high ground and refuse to stoop to their level by torturing people and holding them unjustly.

On the other hand, doing so, strategically speaking, likely would work against us since the Al Qaeda types would view it as weakness on our part and it would help their recruiting and whatnot.

These are brutes we're dealing with. Brutality is all they understand. They'd gladly torture us if they got the chance. Should we really show them courtesy they would not show us?

Doing that may reflect positively on us in the west, but it would reflect quite negatively on us in the middle east.

The tricky question here is: are we willing to play nice and treat these people humanely if it may cost American lives?

Love him or hate him, one thing Bush's iron-fisted warmongering has successfully achieved is that there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Other countries which have been more "soft" and "nice" in their policies have, however been hit.

I have no doubt that, morally speaking, being humane would be the right thing to do.

Problem is, in this case, doing the right thing may cost us dearly.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Yoman3 If you think about it, calling the terrorists non-uniformed combatants or whatever they called them and sticking them in a place out of the legal reach of both the US and the home country is a pretty smart way to get around alot of legal barriers quote>

Hym said: Second, it is said that the Geneva Convention actually has nothing in it about the treatment of non-uniformed combatants.  You can do anything you want to that person and it doesn't violate the Geneva Convention.quote>

I find the term "non-uniformed combatant" and the associated, favorable argument regarding this classification to be complete BS.  The reason that the Geneva Conventions do not mention this term is simple.  There are only two classes in a conflict...  combatants and civilians.  It is really splitting hairs to focus on whether they wear a uniform or not.  There is no justification for this classification.  They are designated one or the other, taken as prisoners of war and tried in accordance with international law.  Period.quote>

Actually, it doesn't mention the term because the Geneva Convention only covers uniformed soldiers and civilians of countries that have agreed to abide by it.  If two signers of the Geneva Convention go to war, they are both obligated to follow the Geneva Convention.  If a signer and a non-signer go to war, the signer is released from its obligations to the Geneva Convention, unless it is clear that the non-signing country is following the Geneva Convention despite not having signed it.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Yoman3 If you think about it, calling the terrorists non-uniformed combatants or whatever they called them and sticking them in a place out of the legal reach of both the US and the home country is a pretty smart way to get around alot of legal barriers quote>

Hym said: Second, it is said that the Geneva Convention actually has nothing in it about the treatment of non-uniformed combatants.  You can do anything you want to that person and it doesn't violate the Geneva Convention.quote>

I find the term "non-uniformed combatant" and the associated, favorable argument regarding this classification to be complete BS.  The reason that the Geneva Conventions do not mention this term is simple.  There are only two classes in a conflict...  combatants and civilians.  It is really splitting hairs to focus on whether they wear a uniform or not.  There is no justification for this classification.  They are designated one or the other, taken as prisoners of war and tried in accordance with international law.  Period.quote>

Actually, it doesn't mention the term because the Geneva Convention only covers uniformed soldiers and civilians of countries that have agreed to abide by it.  If two signers of the Geneva Convention go to war, they are both obligated to follow the Geneva Convention.  If a signer and a non-signer go to war, the signer is released from its obligations to the Geneva Convention, unless it is clear that the non-signing country is following the Geneva Convention despite not having signed it.quote>

You are still stuck on whether or not a uniform is being worn.  What does a uniform matter?  Is an off-duty cop any less of a cop?quote>

You're missing my point.  I'm not debating whether it was moral to do what was done, or whether there was any justifiable logic to it.  I'm pointing out that the idea of "following the Geneva Convention" doesn't mean a whole lot as the Geneva Convention still allows some arguably immoral actions.

[fukuda 351]

Well, shall we continue the lyrics quoting?

I'm just and ageing drummer boy

And in the wars I used to play

And I've called the tune

To many a torture session

Now they say I am a war criminal

And I'm fading away

Father please hear my confession

I have legalised robbery

Called it a belief

I have run with the money

And hid like a theif

I have re-written history

With my armies and my crooks

Invented memories

I did burn all the books

And I can still hear his laughter

And I can still hear his song

The man's too big

The man's too strong

Well I have tried to be meek

And I have tried to be mild

But I spat like a woman

And sulked like a child

I have lived behind walls

That have made me alone

Striven for peace

Which I have never known

And I can still hear his laughter

And I can still hear his song

The man's too big

The man's too strong

Well the sun rose on the courtyard

And they all did hear him say

'You always were a Judas

But I got you anyway

You may have got your silver

But I swear upon my life

Your sister gave me diamonds

And I gave them to your wife'

Oh father please help me

For I have done wrong

The man's too big

The man's too strong

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: fukuda Well, shall we continue the lyrics quoting? quote>

Why not. Topics were meant to be deviated from anyway.

a jail cell is freedom

from the pain in my home

hatred passed on

passed on passed on

a world of violent rage

but it's one that I can recognize

having never seen the color of my father's eyes

yes I dwell in hell

but it's a hell that I can grip

I tried to grip my family

but I slipped

to escape from the pain

and en existence mundane

I got a nine an sign a set

and now I got a name

read my writing on the wall

no one's here to catch me when I fall

death is on my side

suicide

a jail cell is freedom

from the pain in my home

hatred passed on

passed on passed on

a world of violent rage

but it's one that I can recognize

having never seen the color of my father's eyes

yes I dwell in hell

but it's a hell that I can grip

I tried to grip my family

but I slipped

to escape from the pain

and en existence mundane

I got a nine an sign a set

and now I got a name

read my writing on the wall

no one's here to catch me when I fall

caught between my culture

and the system

genocide

read my writing on the wall

no one's here to catch me when I fall

if ignorance is bliss

then knock the smile off my face

yeah

if we don't take action now

settle for nothing later

settle for nothing now

and we'll settle for nothing later

if we don't take action now

we'll settle for nothing later

we'll settle for nothing now

and we'll settle for nothing later

if we don't take action now

we'll settle for nothing later

we'll settle for nothing now

and we'll settle for nothing later

if we don't take action now

we'll settle for nothing later

we'll settle for nothing now

and we'll settle for nothing later

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Love him or hate him, one thing Bush's iron-fisted warmongering has successfully achieved is that there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. quote>

If you by terrorist attack on American soil mean planes flying into buildings, you're right (and it didn't happen before 9/11 either). If you by terrorist attacks on American soil mean terrorist attacks on American soil, you're wrong. The official defintion is “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”, which is documented by the Terrorism publications (http://www.fbi.gov/publications.htm).

And FOX reports that there have been 20 foiled plots between 11SEP01 and 11SEP08. That they did not succed is probably due to heightened security and increased funding, rather than warmongering. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html)

I have no doubt that, morally speaking, being humane would be the right thing to do.

Problem is, in this case, doing the right thing may cost us dearly.quote>

I agree with you. Just as we teach our children, doing the better thing is superior to doing the right thing. Freedom should be free.

Originally posted by: hym

Actually, it doesn't mention the term because the Geneva Convention only covers uniformed soldiers and civilians of countries that have agreed to abide by it.  If two signers of the Geneva Convention go to war, they are both obligated to follow the Geneva Convention.  If a signer and a non-signer go to war, the signer is released from its obligations to the Geneva Convention, unless it is clear that the non-signing country is following the Geneva Convention despite not having signed it.quote>

It is correct that there aren't strictly civilians and combatants. Civilians are protected by the Geneva conventions until they commit hostile acts; in which case they're subject to the existing penal system as other non-combatant individuals. (Convention IV, Art. 64).

The 1977 conventions extended combatant status also to fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, though these aren't as accepted as the 1949 conventions. However, if I'm not entirely wrong, an identifying armlet is considered a uniform (a Red Cross armlet issued by one of the participant forces is considered enough for protection). And although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2).

Though there are no such classifications as an "unlawful combatant", mercenaries are not protected by the Geneva conventions (they are not combatans and cannot be considered prisoners of war). A mercenary is a person "who is motivated by money and is promised substantially higher pay than that paid to other combatants of similar rank, who is not a national of one of the countries involved in the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by any of the parties, is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 47)"

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Regardless of whether they are uniformed or not, lawful or not, the detainees are prisoners of war, especially since Bush himself said we are in a "war on terror".

Detention without trial is in violation of the Constitution, the military commissions are a violation, torturing prisoners is in all relevant documents illegal, and the very existence of the prison is in violation of the original treaty establishing the naval base.

I wholly support President Obama's decision for a 120-day freeze on prosecutions, the closure of the prison within a year, and a task force to reccomend what to do with the detainees.

I believe that the detainees' cases should be examined -- those who did not commit a crime and there is no evidence against them should be released, and those who have evidence saying they committed a crime should be tried. It is the ethical path to take with these prisoners.

With the recent executive orders, it appears that Bush's reign of terror is finally beginning to collapse.

I also believe that the people who authorized the torture of prisoners, those who performed the torture, and those who were complicit in the torture should all be prosecuted for war crimes, since torturing prisoners of war is a war crime.

[hamsterTK 93]

I basically agree, Gitmo was not the right thing to do. We can't keep putting these guys in what's effectively a POW camp, its an injustice

The only thing I worry about is where do we put the people who actually are terrorists and/or criminals? We can't put them in civilian prisons because they'll indoctrinate other prisoners and spread radical islam to gangs and other groups. Disaster waiting to happen.

[duack 14]

I disagree. They should keep guantanamo bay running. Its too risky to close it down for whatever reason. Also, fair trial laws don't apply for terrorists because then that means the government would actually have to pay for lawyers for a terrorist which is just nuts IMO. Besides, the governments of middle eastern countries where most these prisoners come from are nowhere near is fair and just as George Bush, as hard as that is to believe. Why should we be any nicer to them? Especially on account of theyre probably terrorists.

[Geronimo 4]

Originally posted by: duack I disagree. ...that means the government would actually have to pay for lawyers for a terrorist which is just nuts IMO. quote>

 

Well, does that mean everyone whos "nuts" in your opinion doesnt deserve a fair trial? 

That aint justice, thats prejudice. Thats Gitmo.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Regardless of whether they are uniformed or not, lawful or not, the detainees are prisoners of war, especially since Bush himself said we are in a "war on terror".quote>

Just because the head of government calls something a war doesn't necessarily make him right. If you accept a Clausewitzian view of war that it is a continuation of politics, the war on drugs might be seen as a war. However, in an international law perspective, it is not—drug dealers are not prisoners of war, and it is not a war crime when law enforcement kills civilians.

Prisoner of war is a term defined by the Geneva conventions. A prisoner of war must be a member of the armed forces of a High Contracting Party, or an entity that could qualify as such. Being a prisoner of war means basically that you're detained so that you're not available to the enemy (or to wreak havoc upon the nation that detains). When the war is ongoing, you have certain rights, which includes your integrity and your health. Being detained as a prisoner of war is not a punishment per se, and you are not obliged to provide, and the detaining power has no right to extract, any other information than name, rank, and service number. In addition, since you have the right to due process and fair trials if sentences are to be passed, a prisoner of war designation of the Guantanamo inmates doesn't suit the American government.

Originally posted by: hamsterTK The only thing I worry about is where do we put the people who actually are terrorists and/or criminals? We can't put them in civilian prisons because they'll indoctrinate other prisoners and spread radical islam to gangs and other groups. Disaster waiting to happen.quote>

Seems like many of them are not terrorists / criminals at all. The US has been trying to pass their problems (people that they cannot persecute) on to many nations already—for example has Albania already accepted four Chinese citizens that are were deemed innocent, but would be persecuted if they went home on basis of their religious and ethnic affiliations.

Originally posted by: duackAlso, fair trial laws don't apply for terrorists because then that means the government would actually have to pay for lawyers for a terrorist which is just nuts IMO. [...] Especially on account of theyre probably terrorists.quote>

Terrorists are defined by the same laws that defines other criminals. Why is it not nuts for the government to pay for their lawyers?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a very important part of the legal / penal systems of civilised peoples.

Besides, the governments of middle eastern countries where most these prisoners come from are nowhere near is fair and just as George Bush, as hard as that is to believe. Why should we be any nicer to them? quote>

These governments are the very governments that succeed far better than the American in de-radicalising radical islamists—as hard as that is to believe. One of the techniques, among others, is speaking with them, not yelling at them.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: duack I disagree. They should keep guantanamo bay running. Its too risky to close it down for whatever reason. Also, fair trial laws don't apply for terrorists because then that means the government would actually have to pay for lawyers for a terrorist which is just nuts IMO. Besides, the governments of middle eastern countries where most these prisoners come from are nowhere near is fair and just as George Bush, as hard as that is to believe. Why should we be any nicer to them? Especially on account of theyre probably terrorists.quote>

yeah who needs innocent before proven guilty, we should just be able to lock anyone up because we feel like it!!

[fukuda 351]

Also, fair trial laws don't apply for terrorists because then that means the government would actually have to pay for lawyers for a terrorist which is just nuts IMOquote>

Last time I checked, they were human beings. And a lot of them are just suspected of being terrorists, which is not at all the same thing than being a terrorist. The spanish judges managed to get some suspected citizens out of Guantánamo by proving their innocence. They would still be there, being tortured, if the spanish authorities wouldn't have acted, despite them being terrorists or not.

Besides, the governments of middle eastern countries where most these prisoners come from are nowhere near is fair and just as George Bush, as hard as that is to believe. Why should we be any nicer to them? Especially on account of theyre probably terrorists.quote>

I thought we had values to defend? If you want to put yourself at the same level than them...

Oh and by the way, several ain't from middle eastern countries to begin with