Bye bye gitmo

[tjg_marantz]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/ ... index.html" target="_blank

It's been grand.

NEW: President Obama signs orders to close Gitmo, ban torture
NEW: Sen. John McCain issues statement supporting Gitmo closure

[noxiousdog]

I understand the banning torture part, but I don't understand the closing Guantanamo part. What do you do with enemy troops that surrender?

[Octavious]

I'm still shocked that it went on this long. We're supposed to be the leaders of the free world and we are holding people for years without even letting them be tried for the crimes they are accused of.

[noxiousdog]

I'm still shocked that it went on this long. We're supposed to be the leaders of the free world and we are holding people for years without even letting them be tried for the crimes they are accused of.

Closing Guantanamo doesn't change that. In fact, Obama delayed Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri's trial further.

[LordMortis]

What do you do with enemy troops that surrender?

Shoot them in the head or back?

[Octavious]

I understand the banning torture part, but I don't understand the closing Guantanamo part. What do you do with enemy troops that surrender?

A third executive order establishes an interagency task force to lead a systematic review of detention policies and procedures and a review of all individual cases.

The task force, Obama stated, will also "provide me with information in terms of how we are able to deal (with) the disposition of some of the detainees that may be currently in Guantanamo that we cannot transfer to other countries, who could pose a serious danger to the United States."


Sounds like they will try them for whatever crimes they committed and move their sorry butts somewhere else if needed.

[noxiousdog]

What do you do with enemy troops that surrender?

Shoot them in the head or back?

Change we can believe in!

[LawBeefaroni]

I understand the banning torture part, but I don't understand the closing Guantanamo part. What do you do with enemy troops that surrender?

Enemy troops? Aren't they covered under the Geneva Convention?

Gitmo is a detention camp for enemy combatants and other extra-military prisoners (to whom only one article of the Geneva Convention was applied).

[noxiousdog]

I understand the banning torture part, but I don't understand the closing Guantanamo part. What do you do with enemy troops that surrender?

Enemy troops? Aren't they covered under the Geneva Convention?

You'd think so, but what does that mean? What are we using for keeping prisoners of war in the last 20 some odd years in Bosnia and or Iraq I/II?

Gitmo is a detention camp for enemy combatants and other extra-military prisoners (to whom only one article of the Geneva Convention was applied).

Gitmo was open for a lot longer than Bush 43 was in office.

[LawBeefaroni]

Gitmo is a detention camp for enemy combatants and other extra-military prisoners (to whom only one article of the Geneva Convention was applied).

Gitmo was open for a lot longer than Bush 43 was in office.

What is being closed down now (or within a year) isn't a POW detention center.

If I turn a day care center into a burrito shop, it's a burrito shop.

[noxiousdog]

I'm clearer, but I still don't understand where you keep them until they can be tried (easier said than done if you want it done fairly) or once tried repatriated (there's 50-60 currently at Gimo whose countries won't take them back).

[Isgrimnur]

That's why there's a delay, "as soon as practicable," and they have a hard deadline of a year to get all of this figured out. The Chinese nationals don't stand a chance of anything as "humane" as Gitmo if they were re-patriated. There's talk of moving some to federal prisons, but that's chocked full of NIMBY issues.

[Dr. Sugardaddy]

What do you do with enemy troops that surrender?

Shoot them in the head or back?

I suspect you have your tongue planted partially in your cheek here, but there are two problems with this as a real solution. LawBeef has addressed one, which is that the individuals currently in Gitmo aren't precisely enemy troops. This, in turn, calls into question whether they are being held legally. Blah blah blah...everything we've talked about here before.

The second problem with executing surrendered combatants (and non-combatants who act like combatants) summarily is that it is thought to reduce the frequency of surrender as a potential combat behavior. When word gets around to the enemy that, "the Americans don't take prisoners," it encourages enemy combatants to continue to fight even in hopeless situations, which increases casualties on both sides. From my discussions with some older, career infantrymen, it was clear to me that they would vastly prefer an enemy who surrenders to one that fights to the last man, and they (by and large) discourage summary execution as a prisoner management routine among their younger colleagues. Exceptions exist, of course.

[noxiousdog]

That's why there's a delay, "as soon as practicable," and they have a hard deadline of a year to get all of this figured out. The Chinese nationals don't stand a chance of anything as "humane" as Gitmo if they were re-patriated.

...

You have a need: Housing for enemy combatants that aren't quite prisoners of war, but certainly aren't civilians.

Why are you closing housing for said people? This is going to be a problem as long as terrorism is a problem. I'd expect to see that terrorism is far more common than outright state sponsored war going forward.

There's talk of moving some to federal prisons, but that's chocked full of NIMBY issues.

Not to mention jurisdiction, oversight, and whether they should be treated like convicts.

[Isgrimnur]

Reverse extraordinary rendition?

[msduncan]

This will be a mistake that will impact American lives --either soldier or civilian. I guess unless we figure out a way to release them in the middle of the desert and follow it up by a napalm strike as soon as our boys dust off.

[tjg_marantz]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

[Mr. Sparkle]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

If only it was paranoia... but, in fact, it's part of the new GOP strategy to pray for terrorist attack so they can regain power.

During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

[LawBeefaroni]

This will be a mistake that will impact American lives --either soldier or civilian.

How exactly? Is the symbolism of Gitmo as a deterrant so strong?

Don't worry, it's not like rendition and black sites will disappear along with the Cuban location.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Don't worry, it's not like rendition and black sites will disappear along with the Cuban location.

The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

And also set up a commission who's mission(in part) will be:

(ii) to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

Yay rule of law!

[LawBeefaroni]

Don't worry, it's not like rendition and black sites will disappear along with the Cuban location.

The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

And also set up a commission who's mission(in part) will be:

(ii) to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

Yay rule of law!

Wow. We're screwed now. It is impossible to protect the nation without torture and kidnapping.

Of course, they wouldn't be called black sites if they were subject to disclosure. The CIA can transfer official control so they are technically no longer CIA operated. Might have to come up with a new name, too...

[Isgrimnur]

Of course, they wouldn't be called black sites if they were subject to disclosure. The CIA can transfer official control so they are technically no longer CIA operated. Might have to come up with a new name, too...

Chuck E. Cheese?

[msduncan]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

If only it was paranoia... but, in fact, it's part of the new GOP strategy to pray for terrorist attack so they can regain power.

During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

Big giant rolley eyes here.

You folks roasted me when I suggested that Democrats were praying for failure in Iraq or something smiliar. Do you get a fucking pass when you suggest the same thing of Republicans? In this forum? Probably fucking so. Please continue your Obama orgy.

[Mr. Sparkle]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

If only it was paranoia... but, in fact, it's part of the new GOP strategy to pray for terrorist attack so they can regain power.

During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

Big giant rolley eyes here.

You folks roasted me when I suggested that Democrats were praying for failure in Iraq or something smiliar. Do you get a fucking pass when you suggest the same thing of Republicans? In this forum? Probably fucking so. Please continue your Obama orgy.

I didn't mean to imply that you were praying for a terrorist attack, but that fucknut I cited certainly is... and your boy Limbaugh is on record saying he hopes Obama fails.

[msduncan]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

If only it was paranoia... but, in fact, it's part of the new GOP strategy to pray for terrorist attack so they can regain power.

During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

Big giant rolley eyes here.

You folks roasted me when I suggested that Democrats were praying for failure in Iraq or something smiliar. Do you get a fucking pass when you suggest the same thing of Republicans? In this forum? Probably fucking so. Please continue your Obama orgy.

I didn't mean to imply that you were praying for a terrorist attack, but that fucknut I cited certainly is... and your boy Limbaugh is on record saying he hopes Obama fails.

Ok.. I accept that. There are nuts on both sides that hope for the worst if it helps them.

Back on the topic -- there is some evidence that these detainees will return to fight us. NY Times link

[farley2k]

Saw an interesting post about some of the evidence that the people at Gitmo are terrorists.

In 1995, US intelligence recovered a document in Manila by Ramzi Yousef describing how to use this watch as the timing device for a bomb. Ahmed Ressam, the "millennial bomber" was captured with two Casio F91Ws. As a result, when Pakistani police and the Northern Alliance turned over alleged Taliban members to the military, their ordinary watches were identified as evidence that they were terrorists.

I certainly hope that was all the evidence that the people detained were terrorists.

[Isgrimnur]

Saw an interesting post about some of the evidence that the people at Gitmo are terrorists.

In 1995, US intelligence recovered a document in Manila by Ramzi Yousef describing how to use this watch as the timing device for a bomb. Ahmed Ressam, the "millennial bomber" was captured with two Casio F91Ws. As a result, when Pakistani police and the Northern Alliance turned over alleged Taliban members to the military, their ordinary watches were identified as evidence that they were terrorists.

I certainly hope that was all the evidence that the people detained were terrorists.

A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches ... You'll never prove a thing copper, I'm just a part time electrician. I... I... I... BAD IS GOOD, BABY! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT!

[pr0ner]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

If only it was paranoia... but, in fact, it's part of the new GOP strategy to pray for terrorist attack so they can regain power.

During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

Where in that article is he praying for a terrorist attack? That passage you quoted doesn't look like praying to me; neither does the entire article.

[CGMark]

I think the point more is that we ARE sort of bending rules here with Gitmo with these people....which they are......and as americans we would not begin to tolerate another country doing the same thing to Americans.

SOMETHING needs to be done with the people there. Other than hold them indefinitely, classing them as 'enemy combatants' so that they dont fall under Geneva Convention rules. Close it. Move em SOMEWHERE. Prison here, prison in europe. Somewhere, where SOMETHING can be done.

I am sure, since there is a year for this to happen, its not overnight. They will work it through. Its a right step in a direction to show the rest of the world that we are not above the rules we want everyone else to follow.

[RunningMn9]

Are they just closing the detention facility? Or are they closing the entire base?

[noxiousdog]

Are they just closing the detention facility? Or are they closing the entire base?

Just the detention facility.

[noxiousdog]

Don't worry, it's not like rendition and black sites will disappear along with the Cuban location.

The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

And also set up a commission who's mission(in part) will be:

(ii) to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

Yay rule of law!

So where are we holding nationals of countries that don't comply with the domestic laws, internation obligations, and policies of the United States?

[LawBeefaroni]

So where are we holding nationals of countries that don't comply with the domestic laws, internation obligations, and policies of the United States?

Various prisons and facilities in the countries in which they were apprehended, for Iraq and Afghanistan (and the US). Elsewhere, I don't know. How many do we legally apprehend in other countries?

[Victoria Raverna]

Back on the topic -- there is some evidence that these detainees will return to fight us. NY Times link

No. That was one evidence that one of ex-detainees was joining or rejoining al-qaeda. It was not some evidence that these (which imply all or most) detainees will return to fight your country.

It is like saying that since one or two Americans who visited middle east became terrorists, then Americans who visited middle east will return to fight your country.

[Mr. Sparkle]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

If only it was paranoia... but, in fact, it's part of the new GOP strategy to pray for terrorist attack so they can regain power.

During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

Where in that article is he praying for a terrorist attack? That passage you quoted doesn't look like praying to me; neither does the entire article.

Well, no, he doesn't explicitly pray. I'm reading between the lines of Bush's former speechwriter and #1 Superfan who has a vested interest in Bush's policies being vindicated... who has also written recently that he thinks history will vindicate Bush's policies, and is now arguing that a terrorist attack would... vindicate Bush's policies. That really doesn't seem like so many dots to connect.

[Anonymous Bosch]

So where are we holding nationals of countries that don't comply with the domestic laws, internation obligations, and policies of the United States?

[The Preacher]

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

If only it was paranoia... but, in fact, it's part of the new GOP strategy to pray for terrorist attack so they can regain power.

During the campaign, Obama pledged to dismantle many of these policies. He follows through on those pledges at America's peril -- and his own. If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

Where in that article is he praying for a terrorist attack? That passage you quoted doesn't look like praying to me; neither does the entire article.

Well, no, he doesn't explicitly pray. I'm reading between the lines of Bush's former speechwriter and #1 Superfan who has a vested interest in Bush's policies being vindicated... who has also written recently that he thinks history will vindicate Bush's policies, and is now arguing that a terrorist attack would... vindicate Bush's policies. That really doesn't seem like so many dots to connect.

There is a fundamental difference in actually believing that his policies help prevent terrorism (and thus the elimination of them will result in more terrorism) and praying for those acts to occur.

[Mr. Sparkle]

There is a fundamental difference in actually believing that his policies help prevent terrorism (and thus the elimination of them will result in more terrorism) and praying for those acts to occur.

Indeed it is possible that he is a sincere idiot, but I read it as a reiteration of Limbaugh's "I hope Obama fails" to show the world how wrong they were to criticize Bush! As far as I'm concerned, he's welcome to hope for a terrorist attack to "vindicate" his boss... and whether or not he is simply a drone is immaterial... I only point it for the hypocrisy of wingnuts now being "We're all gonna die! Obama's going to get us all killed!" when a couple of months ago it was time to summon the firing squad if you called "enhanced interrogation" torture.

[noxiousdog]

So where are we holding nationals of countries that don't comply with the domestic laws, internation obligations, and policies of the United States?

Various prisons and facilities in the countries in which they were apprehended, for Iraq and Afghanistan (and the US). Elsewhere, I don't know. How many do we legally apprehend in other countries?

We don't. We've killed them in the past. This idea of a non-state sponsored "army" is new as far as I can tell.

Though, I'm missing the difference between an American military run prison in Iraq vs. an American run military prison in Guantanomo Bay.

[pr0ner]

An example of what happens to prisoners the US releases from Gitmo.