It Is Long Past Time to Close Gitmo

[Unkotare]

But regardless - these people should NOT be denied the right to a fair trial. And, in passing, what are you and those of your ilk so afraid of, anyway? If they are all so guilty, a trial should show that, and they could then be punished according to law.

Why, it almost looks as though you are in favor of just keeping all of them, both the innocent and the guilty, in custody forever merely because something bad happened and they might have been part of it. That almost looks like bigotry to me, hmmmm?

That is taking the most generous view of it.

To my mind, it more resembles Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
.

Yes, and I bet there are a number of good Americans who would be all for rounding up all the Muslims in this country and similarly incarcerating them. Deja vu.

The democrats do have a history of that sort of thing, but it's not going to happen here again.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That is taking the most generous view of it.

To my mind, it more resembles Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
.

Yes, and I bet there are a number of good Americans who would be all for rounding up all the Muslims in this country and similarly incarcerating them. Deja vu.

The democrats do have a history of that sort of thing, but it's not going to happen here again.

You'd best have a caution on how blasphemous you are willing to be about Saint Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Lolberals tend to get all pissy when the topic of the Japanese internment camps in America during WWII gets raised.

(By the way, our present day sensibilities clearly reflect how that was wrong. I am not so sure it was viewed in the same light back then. I don't jump on FDR's shit over it, for that reason. But it DID fucking happen and it is far from a shining moment in U.S. history.)

 

[Unkotare]

The democrats never want to take responsibility for their defense of slavery (up to and including starting a civil war), their KKK, their Jim Crow Laws, their concentration camps, their continuing tradition of racism, or any other reality that sullies what they want to think about themselves.

 

[George Costanza]

That is taking the most generous view of it.

To my mind, it more resembles Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
.

Yes, and I bet there are a number of good Americans who would be all for rounding up all the Muslims in this country and similarly incarcerating them. Deja vu.

The democrats do have a history of that sort of thing, but it's not going to happen here again.

Yes, I can see how I, as a 2013 Democrat, must bear responsibility for something that happend in 1942. What POSSIBLE relevance do the Japanese internment camps have to do with Gitmo, except to offer up another example of what should NOT be done?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Yes, and I bet there are a number of good Americans who would be all for rounding up all the Muslims in this country and similarly incarcerating them. Deja vu.

The democrats do have a history of that sort of thing, but it's not going to happen here again.

Yes, I can see how I, as a 2013 Democrat, must bear responsibility for something that happend in 1942. What POSSIBLE relevance do the Japanese internment camps have to do with Gitmo, except to offer up another example of what should NOT be done?

OT

Did you know that George Takei (Sulu of the original Star Trek series) and his family were in those interment camps? He was four years old when they were placed there.

With the outbreak of World War II, Los Angeles, California, Takei and his family were placed behind the barbed-wire enclosures of United States internment camps along with 120,000 other Japanese Americans. Takei spent most of his childhood at Camp Rohwer in the swamps of Arkansas and at wind-swept Camp Tule Lake in northern California. At the end of the war, Takei’s family returned to their native Los Angeles.

George Takei - Allegiance

/OT

 

[Meathead]

Yes, and I bet there are a number of good Americans who would be all for rounding up all the Muslims in this country and similarly incarcerating them. Deja vu.

The democrats do have a history of that sort of thing, but it's not going to happen here again.

Yes, I can see how I, as a 2013 Democrat, must bear responsibility for something that happend in 1942. What POSSIBLE relevance do the Japanese internment camps have to do with Gitmo, except to offer up another example of what should NOT be done?

In 1942, Japanese internment camps "had" to be done. In 2003 Gitmo "had" to be done, but today still really does.

I wish people would stop being so self-righteous to the point where they insist the real world outside away from their keyboard are too.

 

[FA_Q2]

[What are you trying to say here - that Obama has some kind of secret desire that Guantanamo remain open and is lying when he says he wants it closed, blaming everything on Congress when, in reality, he has the power to close it himself without getting Congressional approval?

[...]

George,

I'm surprised you haven't learned by now that nothing Obama says has any merit. He is an instinctual liar. It comes natural to him. How many things has he promised or assured and then either casually ignored or done the complete opposite?

I don't know why he won't close Guantanamo. But I do know where government figures are concerned when a mysterious question arises, look for the answer in some form of surreptitious payoff.

We know Guantanamo costs billions of dollars to operate. So somebody is making a lot of money from it. I believe that is the table to look under for packages changing hands.

Qui bono?

Don't overstate your case, Mike ("Everything Obama says is a lie" - I don't think you really believe that. I know I don't.)

I am a little disturbed by what I am learning by the responses on this thread, however. As I understand it, he signed legislation designed to keep Gitmo open, some time after he was elected in 2008. The stated reason for his signing of the legislation (as opposed to vetoing it) was that it had strong bipartisan support in Congress. OK - let's assume that was the case. What was going on between the time he was re-elected and the time he signed the legislation? Why didn't he shut the joing down THEN, before Congress had time to come up with debilitating legislation?

And that the rub George, Obama CLAIMS to want to close GITMO but he really does not. He signed that legislation willingly. Simple as that.

You can’t blame congress when the president needs to sign the legislation as well. Personally, I think that he wanted to when he was a candidate but ran up against a hard wall after. The number of released that return to the ‘front’ lines cannot be ignored and the military are not police. IOW, they do not gather evidence. What we are faced with is the simple fact that many there are guilty and there is simply no way to prove that in court. The military is not built or trained to make a court case – they are trained to stop the enemy.

It might sound harsh but there is one thing that you must face and that is the harsh realities of war. It is one of the reasons that we should not be engaged in so many damn wars. Nothing you do in one is moral and you cannot come out clean.

For the most part, I think that the current status of GITMO is just a political stick now. Obama wanted to close it, found that it was FAR more difficult than he thought and now is simply using it as a political ploy as he is now aware that it is not going to be closed. Truth be told, it is terrible but no more terrible than the average day to day bullshit we are handed by politicians on a continual basis.

 

[FA_Q2]

In 1942, Japanese internment camps "had" to be done. In 2003 Gitmo "had" to be done, but today still really does.

I wish people would stop being so self-righteous to the point where they insist the real world outside away from their keyboard are too.

No, the internment camps did not ‘have’ to be done. It is horrific the lengths an afraid populous will go to when they think that they are threatened no matter how fallacious the fear is. It is one of the reasons that things like GITMO is such a sticky concept. We should not be breaking our values to appease our fears.

That does not mean that I think GITMO was not necessary, that is another debate but the Japanese internment camps might be the strongest argument AGAINST GITMO.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It is time to expand the GITMO facility.

Just tossing that out there for a litle countervailing consideration.

 

[Trajan]

Remember how, in 2008, then-candidate Obama was touting how he was going to "close Guantanamo Bay" if elected? He was, and he didn't. Gitmo is very much open for business today, housing over 100 prisoners who have been in custody since 9/11 or thereabouts, with no sign of a trial anywhere around. Did you also notice that, when he was running for re-election last year, we didn't hear too much, if anything, about Gitmo during the 2012 campaign?

How come? Why is Gitmo still in operation? It certainly is not because Pres. Obama has given up on his desire to close it.

Answer: Congress. Pres. Obama does not have the power to close Gitmo by himself. He has to have Congressional approval, and he isn't getting it.

Obama renews call to close Guantanamo prison - latimes.com

It's long past time to close this place and either give these prisoners trials or release them.

you do realize that most of these folks have been classified as the worst of the worst, but evidence doesn't exist to lock them up that might stand in a court........


and finding countries to take them is difficult in some cases...

and those that may, will I suspect provide way less calories and exercise time than we do.....

and the recidivism rate is 20%....


and , lets say we do close it and move them to super max, how does that address the legal issue?


and, what difference does it make if they are in gitmo or supermax? they will hardly know the difference........can you explain the difference to me , *shrugs*other than gitmo being raised to some huge boogey man, its a prison, so is supermax....

Remember how, in 2008, then-candidate Obama was touting how he was going to "close Guantanamo Bay" if elected? He was, and he didn't. Gitmo is very much open for business today, housing over 100 prisoners who have been in custody since 9/11 or thereabouts, with no sign of a trial anywhere around. Did you also notice that, when he was running for re-election last year, we didn't hear too much, if anything, about Gitmo during the 2012 campaign?

How come? Why is Gitmo still in operation? It certainly is not because Pres. Obama has given up on his desire to close it.

Answer: Congress. Pres. Obama does not have the power to close Gitmo by himself. He has to have Congressional approval, and he isn't getting it.

Obama renews call to close Guantanamo prison - latimes.com

It's long past time to close this place and either give these prisoners trials or release them.

you do realize that most of these folks have been classified as the worst of the worst, but evidence doesn't exist to lock them up that might stand in a court........


and finding countries to take them is difficult in some cases...

and those that may, will I suspect provide way less calories and exercise time than we do.....

and the recidivism rate is 20%....


and , lets say we do close it and move them to super max, how does that address the legal issue?


and, what difference does it make if they are in gitmo or supermax? they will hardly know the difference........can you explain the difference to me , *shrugs*other than gitmo being raised to some huge boogey man, its a prison, so is supermax....

????

If the detainees were not being denied trials and if they were not being "treated badly," there might not be any purpose in closing Gitmo.

I saw Giuliani on the tube last night. He was asked how long are we going to detain these people without giving them a trial. He said, "as long as the war on terror continues." When confronted with the fact that something as vague as the "war on terror" could continue literally for an indefinite period of time, he laughingly minimized such an idea, saying that "it will be over long before you think it will."

Golly, I'm sure the detainees feel much better now.

Sorry George, but the detainees feelings are simply not an issue for me. They should have rethought their position on waging war against infidels like us before they landed themselves in GITMO.

Horse shit. First of all, when I mentioned the feelings of the detainees, I was speaking figuratively, not litlerally. Secondly, you are assuming that all of the detainees were "waging war" against us and this simply is not the case. There are a number of detainees who undoubtedly are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time or not being liked by someone they should have gotten along with (and who turned them in just because they didn't like them).

But regardless - these people should NOT be denied the right to a fair trial. And, in passing, what are you and those of your ilk so afraid of, anyway? If they are all so guilty, a trial should show that, and they could then be punished according to law.

Why, it almost looks as though you are in favor of just keeping all of them, both the innocent and the guilty, in custody forever merely because something bad happened and they might have been part of it. That almost looks like bigotry to me, hmmmm?

hummmmm?


hello....

 

[George Costanza]

Sorry George, but the detainees feelings are simply not an issue for me. They should have rethought their position on waging war against infidels like us before they landed themselves in GITMO.

Horse shit. First of all, when I mentioned the feelings of the detainees, I was speaking figuratively, not litlerally. Secondly, you are assuming that all of the detainees were "waging war" against us and this simply is not the case. There are a number of detainees who undoubtedly are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time or not being liked by someone they should have gotten along with (and who turned them in just because they didn't like them).

But regardless - these people should NOT be denied the right to a fair trial. And, in passing, what are you and those of your ilk so afraid of, anyway? If they are all so guilty, a trial should show that, and they could then be punished according to law.

Why, it almost looks as though you are in favor of just keeping all of them, both the innocent and the guilty, in custody forever merely because something bad happened and they might have been part of it. That almost looks like bigotry to me, hmmmm?

Even our own government doesn't know what to do with them, every time we release some of them they end up back on the front lines shooting at our troops. All feelings aside, I don't give a damn if they rot in jail for the rest of their lives if it keeps our troops safe. Horseshit is having compassion for those who would kill you in the blink of an eye. People like you are exactly why we will never win the WOT because you simply cannot fathom that no matter what you do and how nice you try to be, they will always hate you and view you as their enemy and a pathway to 72 virgins. Now pull yourself together, and grow some backbone. Bigotry my ass... Try squeezing tennis balls it will make your limp wrist a lot stronger than it is.

There is nothing "limp wristed" about giving accused persons a trial, rather than letting them "rot in jail for the rest of their lives." In fact, denying such accused people trials is the cowardly way out - limp-wristed, if you will. Where is YOUR backbone, Mr. Internet Tough Guy? Why not sort out the guilty from the innocent with trials? What are you afraid of?

How about just putting ALL Muslims in detention for the rest of their lives, denying them the right to a trial? Would you be in favor of that, tough guy? I suspect you would.

It's people like you who would destroy our Constitution by "exceptions" that should, according to you, be implemented in "certain cases." I would hope that, some day, you find yourself accused of something which you did not do and faced with the prospect of being in custody for over ten years without a trial. Then we might see who the tough guy really is.

 

[George Costanza]

you do realize that most of these folks have been classified as the worst of the worst, but evidence doesn't exist to lock them up that might stand in a court........

Oh, well why let a little thing like that ("evidence doesn't exist to lock them up that might stand up in a court') stop us from keeping them in custody for ten years or so?

You're smarter than that. Where is this coming from?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Horse shit. First of all, when I mentioned the feelings of the detainees, I was speaking figuratively, not litlerally. Secondly, you are assuming that all of the detainees were "waging war" against us and this simply is not the case. There are a number of detainees who undoubtedly are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time or not being liked by someone they should have gotten along with (and who turned them in just because they didn't like them).

But regardless - these people should NOT be denied the right to a fair trial. And, in passing, what are you and those of your ilk so afraid of, anyway? If they are all so guilty, a trial should show that, and they could then be punished according to law.

Why, it almost looks as though you are in favor of just keeping all of them, both the innocent and the guilty, in custody forever merely because something bad happened and they might have been part of it. That almost looks like bigotry to me, hmmmm?

Even our own government doesn't know what to do with them, every time we release some of them they end up back on the front lines shooting at our troops. All feelings aside, I don't give a damn if they rot in jail for the rest of their lives if it keeps our troops safe. Horseshit is having compassion for those who would kill you in the blink of an eye. People like you are exactly why we will never win the WOT because you simply cannot fathom that no matter what you do and how nice you try to be, they will always hate you and view you as their enemy and a pathway to 72 virgins. Now pull yourself together, and grow some backbone. Bigotry my ass... Try squeezing tennis balls it will make your limp wrist a lot stronger than it is.

There is nothing "limp wristed" about giving accused persons a trial, rather than letting them "rot in jail for the rest of their lives." In fact, denying such accused people trials is the cowardly way out - limp-wristed, if you will. Where is YOUR backbone, Mr. Internet Tough Guy? Why not sort out the guilty from the innocent with trials? What are you afraid of?

How about just putting ALL Muslims in detention for the rest of their lives, denying them the right to a trial? Would you be in favor of that, tough guy? I suspect you would.

It's people like you who would destroy our Constitution by "exceptions" that should, according to you, be implemented in "certain cases." I would hope that, some day, you find yourself accused of something which you did not do and faced with the prospect of being in custody for over ten years without a trial. Then we might see who the tough guy really is.

My old pal, George:

I think you DO have a point. It is not a WHOLE point, imho. But you have a point nonetheless.

For those ALLEGED enemy combatants who get captured about whom there is no concrete proof of involvement with al qaeda or whatever group is bent on committing these illegal acts of war, I agree there ought to be some mechanism to establish WHETHER OR NOT they are complicit.

ON the OTHER hand, there are SOME captured enemy illegal combatants about whom there is NO doubt of their complicity. For one easy example, just think of the fucking underwear-bomber fucker. You know, the one with the smoking crotch from when his bikini panties failed to go boom.

As to that category of detainees, there is NO reason to "try" them. There is no grounds upon which they should be "tried." Maybe we forgo the immediate execution shit, but we treat them (in effect) as POWs to be held by us to prevent them from returning to the "new" battlefield. And they get held until the cessation of hostilities.

Oh. I know. That's so unfair. That could be 100 years! And I don't give a shit. Their choice; their consequence. Fuck 'em.