63 Comments

1. Craig:

“It’s the GOP’s job to force the administration to confront the hard facts and the reality…”

Whoaaaaaaa. You better stop right there. Hard facts and reality? They’ve successfully avoided ‘confronting the hard facts and the reality’ ever since Sir Thomas More walked the earth.

Mar 16, 2009 - 4:07 am 2. vivo:

I said it before: move Guantánamo to Antartica.

*

The ploy of keeping detainees in Gitmo indefinitely is practical but does not serve as American justice. The World knows that. The new administration needs to clean up Bush’s doing.

Mar 16, 2009 - 4:18 am 3. Rotwang:

Wow. Mitch McConnell wants you to think it’s OK to abduct and imprison people for decades because we give them free sandwiches and reading material.

Bill Kristol says it’s a “PR” move to shut down a patently illegal, morally repulsive and utterly dickheaded contrivance of our previous President that puts the lie to America’s arrogant posturing about Freedom and Justice.

And Rubin is ENCOURAGING more Republicans to emulate them? THIS is their “winning issue”?

You know, it’s no wonder that Republicans appear to be tone-deaf and irrelevant. It’s because they ARE.

Mar 16, 2009 - 4:57 am 4. Meryl:

Once again, a pundit declaring the obvious (with which I agree) and demanding the impossible.

If this “administration” has proved anything, it’s that they have a sufficient following in the ranks of the ignorant voter and the loud (worshipful) MSM that they will never be required to confront either facts or reality about anything.

Mar 16, 2009 - 5:13 am 5. Craig:

“Mitch McConnell wants you to think it’s OK to abduct and imprison people for decades because we give them free sandwiches and reading material.”

Connecting dots isn’t your strong suit. He made no such claim. That’s your projection.

“Bill Kristol says it’s a “PR” move to shut down a patently illegal, morally repulsive and utterly dickheaded contrivance of our previous President.”

The Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp has been operated by the United States since 1987. George Bush did not contrive it. All he did was keep it open. Get your facts straight bub.

Mar 16, 2009 - 6:13 am 6. RV:

“If the Obama team understands that alternatives to Guantanamo will be scrutinzed and the Republicans will rally the public if the detainees are transfered either to the U.S….”

What the heck should people in the US care if these detainees are transferred to US prisons, where they will most likely meet an unfortunate end? We have people in US prisons right now who are far worse human beings than these detainees. So why should there be an outcry?

Mar 16, 2009 - 6:30 am 7. The Shadow:

Just close the damn thing down. It is complete nonsense that somehow they terrorist would be more dangerous in a US prison. It is great advertising for the terrorist that we are willing to compromise our values by keeping prisioners without trial.

Mar 16, 2009 - 6:45 am 8. Pete:

You know, guys, you would have been able to keep Gitmo open and would have been able to hold the alleged terrorists as long as you wanted if Bush had simply declared them to be Prisoners of War. Oh, that’s right. If he had declared them to be POWs, then the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations would have had access to the facility. But Bush had to be cute about this, trying to classify these guys outside of both the Geneva Conventions AND US Law in order to use the “enhanced interrogation techniques” in secret and outside of any oversight.

I honestly don’t think most of you PJ guys even realize how schizophrenic your positions are about the so-called War on Terror. You call it a “war” in order to justify Bush’s memos declaring that the President could unilaterally suspect Posse Comitatus, the 1st Amendment, and the 4th Amendment in the name of the “war”. Then you turn around and insist that this really ISN’T the kind of war where Congress has any oversight power or international treaties should be obeyed. Yet, when you received pushback about Iraq, Republicans were oh so quick to declare that criticizing the President “in a time of War” was tantamount to treason.

Mar 16, 2009 - 7:05 am 9. Delia:

Oh just let ‘em all go free. Those precious, adorable prisoners are harmless, you big meanies.

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/23/oops/

*eyeroll*

Mar 16, 2009 - 7:23 am 10. Canuckistani:

It appears the nutroots are here and as always on the moral highground. You go girls! Reminds me of the guy who thought he could live peacefully with grizzlies.

Mar 16, 2009 - 7:32 am 11. David Thomson:

This is the number one thing you must understand about Guantanamo: dark people are being incarcerated! If these individuals possessed blue eyes and blond hair—and suspected of being Nazis—we would not be hearing these naive complaints. When push comes to shove, the complainers don’t believe in the war on terror. It’s perceived as a ploy of the radical right to take over the United States.

Mar 16, 2009 - 7:45 am 12. BattleofthePyramids:

Why keep them alive at all? According to the Geneva Convention, which all Liberals adore, they are unlawful combatants (no uniform, no carrying weapons openly, no recognizeable symbol, no chain of command, etc;) so why not simply shoot them out of hand? Captured spies and illegal combatants were routinely executed in previous wars, and if executions were OK in WWII they are OK now.

Mar 16, 2009 - 8:09 am 13. Michael:

Pete is right. I say close Gitmo.

Move them the Pete’s neighborhood.

As long as I don’t live close to Pete, of course.

Mar 16, 2009 - 8:16 am 14. Pete:

#12. Don’t you think that Congress, who has the power to authorize war would want a little say about a policy of summary executions? Of course, what makes this all a little problematic is that at no time did the previous President formally ask Congress for a formal declaration of War.

#13 Ho, ho, ho…man you right-wingers are so hysterical. Since I don’t have a prison in my neighborhood, it would make no sense to transfer prisoners from Gitmo to my neighborhood. I know that its a difficult concept for you clowns to grasp, but what would have been so hard actually CHARGING some of these guys with some crimes and then PROVING the charges in a court proceeding with some actual due process. In the seven years after 9/11, the Bush legal team managed to convict one person of the crime of driving Bin Laden’s car using the Gitmo system.

Mar 16, 2009 - 8:40 am 15. donttreadonme:

Rotwang (is that German for “idealistic?”),
What would you do with these enemy combatants captured? You only have three choices – hold, kill, or set free.
Which country in the world IS the touchstone of “freedom and justice?”
Your senseless immature rant looks good on the Kos, but conservatives deal in facts, not feelings. Grow up.

Mar 16, 2009 - 8:42 am 16. Robert Hurley:

Pete:

There is no way yu can actually talk sense to people like Mikey. It would take someone undertood logic. That lets out most of those here. They hate Obama and feel threatened by him and all their statement flow from that feeling

Mar 16, 2009 - 8:53 am 17. Just Passing Through:

8. Pete: said

‘You know, guys, you would have been able to keep Gitmo open and would have been able to hold the alleged terrorists as long as you wanted if Bush had simply declared them to be Prisoners of War. ‘

They aren’t. Will address in a moment.

‘Oh, that’s right. If he had declared them to be POWs, then the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations would have had access to the facility.’

They do.

‘But Bush had to be cute about this, trying to classify these guys outside of both the Geneva Conventions AND US Law’

Which is true. They choose to operate outside the conventions of the first – they are illegal combatants by definition and so not due the considerations laid out in the Geneva Convention. They are not ‘prisoners of war’ (see first point you tried to make). The judicial oversight of the second does not apply to crimes committed by foreign nationals on foreign soil.

‘in order to use the “enhanced interrogation techniques” in secret and outside of any oversight.’

Nonsense. Gitmo is under the strictest application of guidleines taken from the UCMJ. Oversight is constant and thorough. They are illegal combatants being given all the advantages of being prisoners of war. Nothing in their treatment during incareration supports your contention without assuming hidden evidence. I’d rather go with the offical explanation for special incareration at Gitmo rather than yours. Unlike yours, it passes the logic test, makes complete sense as an alternative to shooting them out of hand, and has the added advantage of actually being supported by the evidence.

You really do not know much about this other than the usual talking points jackassery at all, do you?

Mar 16, 2009 - 9:16 am 18. BattleofthePyramids:

#14, Pete:

Congress voted on and passed a formal authorization for use of force. Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1941, as you well know. However, Congress not only authorized President Bush to use force, they continued to support him for every year of his administration, which means congress approved of all his policies, including Gitmo. After all, if they did not approve, all they had to do was cut off the funding, as the Constitution allows.

I expect that had President Bush asked for authorization to execute terrorists after 9/11, Congress would have given it to him. We do in fact execute terrorists with air strikes in Pakistan to this day, and Congress certainly funds (and therefore approves) of that. So what is the big difference between a predator launching a missile onto a terrorist safe house in Afghanistan or Pakistan and the President ordering up a firing squad in Gitmo?

Mar 16, 2009 - 9:19 am 19. David Thomson:

“Congress has not declared war on anyone since 1941″

The United States has engaged in roughly three hundred military conflicts. A formal declaration of war has only occurred five time during our entire history! In other words, it’s a rare occurrence.

Mar 16, 2009 - 9:34 am 20. Pete:

#18 Can you point to the FORMAL Declaration of War that Congress passed in either Afghanistan or Iraq? The Constitution is pretty clear about just who has the power to declare war. Frankly, if Congress had been more diligent about its authority in regards to declaring war, maybe we wouldn’t have militarily invaded so many countries since 1941 (which is up to 8 now, one country every seven years)

I find it debatable that Congress would authorize summary executions. Considering the sheer number mistakes made and innocent people rounded up, it’s good that we didn’t go down that path.

#17 So you’re comfortable with the US engaging in policies outside of its own systems of law? If what we were doing with our torture programs were that correct, then why did the Bush people go to such great lengths to conceal just what they were doing?

Mar 16, 2009 - 9:36 am 21. ExDemocrat:

Gee, I wonder what the family and friends of the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 think about letting the people in Gitmo free?

Or for that matter, even being treated better than our own United States citizen prisoners.

Ok fine, move them to our federal prisons. But, put them in general population.

Problem taken care of, permanently. Our fellas in federal prison don’t need no congressional authorization to take care of OUR problem.

Mar 16, 2009 - 10:26 am 22. BattleofthePyramids:

#20, Pete:

Congress AUTHORIZED the president to wage war, period. That is what an authorization for the use of force does. Congress, for whatever reasons, has not issued formal declarations of war since 1941 on anyone, as we both agree. That may be good or bad, (I personally think its bad) but that is the way it is. You could argue that this is not in keeping with the spirit of the constitution and congress should either formally declare war or not allow the President to wage war, but that is an arguement you need to take up with your Senators and Congressmen, not me.

As for authorized summary executions, what are our air strikes in Pakistan? They are de facto summary executions, carried out by the armed forces. The armed forces answer to the President. The military actions are known to Congress, approvced by them and funded by them. If congress did not approve they could cut the purse strings any time. They have not. It is reasonable to conclude that Congress approves of these air strikes and therefore approves of the policy of summary executions that they comprise.

Mar 16, 2009 - 11:04 am 23. Pete:

21. Who said anything about freeing the Gitmo prisoners. I think the whole point is to actually charge the prisoners with a crime and actually put them on trial to determine guilt or innocence. For all their blustering about “enemy combatants”, the Bush administration dragged their feet so much about actually filing any charges, that you had some people being held without due process for over seven years. Remember, until the Padilla decision went the wrong way, the Bush crowd felt that an ACCUSATION of being a terrorist was an appropriate substitute for a FORMAL CHARGE.

If all of these guys are indeed “the worst of the worst”, then how freaking hard would it be to charge them and put them on trial? Oh, that’s right, a trial would end the torture..err..enhanced interrogation of the prisoners.

I challenge you to produce a single instance of an American prisoner in our current federal system that has been incarcerated for over seven years without ever being formally charged with a crime. If you can find me some examples, great. Until then, putting forth a fiction that the Gitmo people are treated “better than our prisoners” is a road you ought not to be going down.

Mar 16, 2009 - 11:07 am 24. The Historian:

DUPLICITY: OBAMA IS THY NAME
Sorry Barack, you can’t have it both ways. That is not effective leadership.

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/duplicity-thy-name-is-obama.html

Mar 16, 2009 - 11:17 am 25. wGraves:

Well, the administration has a little problem. In some future campaign, their opponents are going to be on TV with the bereaved mother of some American kid who was murdered by a released Guantanamo inmate. So they should think carefully before they act. Because even if that mom was once a Democrat and an Obama booster, she isn’t going to have any patience…none at all…and her accusation is going to resonate with the whole country.

Mar 16, 2009 - 11:32 am 26. Marc Malone:

Nice article. Good commentary. It all begs the question. Are these guys enemy combatants (Prisoners Of War), or are they Spies and Saboteurs?

If they are the latter, then we can do what we want with them. Extract any useful info by whatever means, then execute them summarily.

If they are the former, then hold them as POW’s until the current conflict ends, or repatriate them.

There is one more category of prisoner. Those accused of terrorism, but not because they were caught on the battlefield. These need to be tried. I recommend a special panel of judges be created IN GTMO for this express purpose. This creates the problem of whether or not a jury is required. Perhaps it would be best for those accused of terrorism to be tried by the Iraqi government if caught in Iraq, and so forth.

We need special courts to deal with them, no matter what, because they are *not normal criminals*. This is the problem. They are square pegs. We need square holes.

Mar 16, 2009 - 11:58 am 27. Marc Malone:

Btw, the idea of having the Pubs pick a fight on this issue is stupid. This is an emotional issue. The Dems are heavyweights when it comes to this kind of thing. You’re just asking for a beating and further discrediting. The facts will never be heard by the populace. They can never deal with this rationally.

The only way for the Pubs to win on this issue is to legislate a solution. If it’s a good answer, stick to it. Don’t engage in the forthcoming strawmen arguments. Stick to it. KISS.

Mar 16, 2009 - 12:03 pm 28. Parabellum:

They are unlawful enemy combatants. This means they have some rights:

A. A cigarette
B. An interrogation
C. A bullet in the brain

Mar 16, 2009 - 12:08 pm 29. AThinkingPerson:

Vivo… If President Pork is going to “clean up” after Bush, do tell what massive entity will be around to clean up after President Pork is done dismantling the USA? He’s already worked his magic on the economy and everyone’s retirement accounts. Then he’s on to “fix” health care. He’s mentioned education as another possible victim of his “help”.

It’s going to take the GOP years to repair what they will inherit (just had to borrow President Pork’s favorite term) from President Pork and his merry band of tax cheats.

Mar 16, 2009 - 12:11 pm 30. Войска ПВО:

Just so Rotwang will feel at home — as though he were over at KOS — I am given to understand that “Rotwang” means “Red Wang” or Commie Schwanz.

Mar 16, 2009 - 12:20 pm 31. geoffgo:

Rothead@3

You may have a point about Republicans. But, us conservatives would rather execute the remaining excuse-for-human dirtbags and fill Gitmo with every elected official who voted for a spending bill they hadn’t read.

Mar 16, 2009 - 12:44 pm 32. geoffgo:

Marc@26

There is one more category of prisoner.

The one you left out is the category into which the detainees actually fall – enemy combatants. They are not prisoners of war, who must operate under the rules of war as outlined by the Geneva Conventions and other such treaties. Nor, are they criminals, subject to trials on US soil.

Other than that, everything you’ve suggested is pretty much exactly what was happening under the previous administration. IE, military tribunals are designed for exactly this circumstance.

Mar 16, 2009 - 1:04 pm 33. Robert Hurley:

HISTORIAN – Solipsism is thy creed

Mar 16, 2009 - 1:07 pm 34. Pete:

26. Marc, your analysis is faulty in one major respect. It is ILLEGAL for the US to torture prisoners, and those laws aren’t contingent on Geneva Convention semantic games. Bush tried to thread the needle by disregarding the Geneva Conventions but pretending that these prisoners represented some sort of previously unheard of supercriminal that was so dangerous that even charging them with a crime was too risky.

Either way. Let’s look at this another way. In the past decade, we openly supported efforts to overthrow the Chavez regime in Venezuela. (for sake of this exercise, let me state for the record that Chavez is a despicable dictator, so don’t play the appeasor crap on me). So, obviously, Chavez would understandably feel that American officials are actively seeking to destroy his regime. Would THAT give him the right to kidnap American citizens abroad, fly them to a secret prison in Venezuela and torture them to make sure they don’t know anything about impending American attacks? Once the US tortures in the name of security, that means that other countries would get to do the same.

Mar 16, 2009 - 1:35 pm 35. Marc Malone:

#23 Pete – Your statement demonstrates an ignorance of our dysfunctional court system. It is simply not eqipped to deal with this new paradigm of terrorism. This kind of thing goes beyond mere crime. We simply don’t know how to deal with it.

Mar 16, 2009 - 1:43 pm 36. ChipD:

OK, first things first-
1. Some of the people in Gitmo are innocent- so says the US Government- link regarding the Chinese Uigurs-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6242891.stm

2. The cases against some of them are such a travesty the ARMY prosecutor quits in disgust-
Link regarding a 17 year old boy soldier-

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/700445.html

3. The argument that they are non-uniformed soldiers so they are not entitled to humane treatment is absurd- weren’t the Minutemen at Concord and French Resistance fighters guerrillas, defined the same way?

4. How the heck do we know these guys are “bad guys”? oh, because the Government says so? Sorry, that’s not good enough- the Government also said those lacrosse players at Duke University were terrible no-good rapists…until the defense attorneys showed that to be false.

5. By defining non-uniformed forces as being open to be tortured and abused- if American forces are working on Special Ops, they could be treated the same way- beaten, tortured, with complete legality-
here is a link discussing from the Army Times (a noted left wing rag!)-

http://www.militarytimes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1575006

For years we went around the world giving lectures about “human rights” and the rule of law and the Bill of Rights….and yet when it becomes difficult for us to live up to it, we find all sorts of excuses why we should be allowed to do anything we please, when it suits our purpose, in a sort of grand vision of moral relativism, of “when we do it, it is not illegal”.

I think it is sad that conservatives, who pride themselves on being skeptics of government programs, somehow lose all their skepticism when it comes to government police or military power and continually cheer on greater and greater expansions of government power.

Mar 16, 2009 - 2:13 pm 37. GDT:

Pete
They aren’t going to be charged with a crime. That isn’t the point. They are there to prevent them from returning to the battle and killing our soldiers because they were caught in the act of doing just that. This is a war of attrition. We must remove the bad guys from the field of operations. There are only two alternatives:

1. Take no prisoners. All active combatants are killed on the battlefield. Or…

2. If we are going to allow people to put down their weapons and surrender on the battlefield so as to save their own skin – there must be a way to detain them.

They are not being held at Gitmo as punishment for some crime. They are being held to prevent them from reentering the battle they just left. Their detention isn’t punishment. It is the only viable alternative to shooting them as they surrendered.

This is something the left doesn’t seem to get; there is a HUGE difference between the prosecution, conviction and incarceration of criminals as punishment for a criminal act – and the detention of unlawful combatants so as to prevent them from reentering the fray. Both things sometimes use a cell, but that is where the similarity stops. You can not think of combat with an armed foreign enemy whose stated goal is the elimination of our way of life as the equivalent to policing American streets of domestic criminals.

GDT

Mar 16, 2009 - 2:52 pm 38. Pete:

35. Seriously, when I say that elevating terrorists into cartoonish supervillains as a justification for turning our back on due process and prohibitions against torture, you respond with a statement that the US and its system of LAWS “is simply not eqipped to deal with this new paradigm of terrorism. This kind of thing goes beyond mere crime. We simply don’t know how to deal with it.”

What’s so hard to understand. If someone is plotting to commit an act of terror on our soil, we arrest them, charge them with a crime and ajudicate the charges in a court with due process. If it is so blazingly obvious that the Gitmo guys are all murdering terrorists, then securing a conviction wouldn’t be too hard, would it?

The guys who bombed the WTC were arrested, tried in a court of law, convicted, and went to prison. Under Bush, the guys who planned 9/11 roamed free while we took time out to invade another country that had nothing to do with the attacks. Oh, wait, our powerful military tribunals did managed to take seven years to convict one Afghani of driving Bin Laden’s car, although they couldn’t secure any convictions for actual terrorism.

Mar 16, 2009 - 3:09 pm 39. GDT:

Pete,

I really don’t get your perspective here. Perhaps you are just incredible naïve. If we capture a team of combatants in a fire fight are you suggesting that someone stop to read them their rights? Do we give them the right to remain silent? Do they get a lawyer before we can ask them where the bomb is and when it will go off? What are the rules of evidence? Do our soldiers have to collect DNA evidence while they are being shot at? How much classified information can their lawyer get in discovery? Do they get bail?

Pete – war is not the criminal justice system. It’s not even close. We are not trying to convict these people we are trying to survive their attempt to end our way of life.

GDT

Mar 16, 2009 - 3:29 pm 40. Pete:

GDT,

So, the purpose of holding the Gitmo guys indefinitely without due process is to prevent them from rejoining the battle might make a person think that they are “prisoners of war”. I mean, we have called this whole deal the “war on terror”, no? You are still missing a few salient points:

1. MANY of the Gitmo prisoners weren’t actually captured “on the battlefield”. Some of them were grabbed off of city streets. Some were grabbed out of their homes.

2. If we’re holding them to “keep them from returning to the battle”, then why did we let anyone go in the first place? You know, like those Chinese Muslims that were determined not to have actually done anything.

3. It is still illegal for the US to torture anyone for any reason. Trying to pretend that POW’s aren’t really POW’s as a means to do an end around US law is reprehensible.

It is utterly fascinating to see how some of you guys will argue simultaneously that we don’t torture but we should torture but if we do torture we have a good reason to do so.

Frankly, if Bush and Cheney thought that torturing prisoners was both moral and legal, then why did they go to such great lengths to conceal what they were doing?

Mar 16, 2009 - 3:50 pm 41. Pete:

GDT, the phony baloney “Miranda” strawman isn’t going to fly with me, pal. All of this torture/due process stuff wouldn’t be hung around Bush if he had treated the prisoners as POW’s. Then they could have taken their sweet time determining if the prisoners had actually committed terroristic acts. Oh, and POW tribunals have much less strict rules of evidence and whatnot. For god’s sake, after WWII, the Allies only took 15 months to begin the Nuremberg Tribunals. 15 months for the Nazis but over 7 years for Al Queda? Give me a break.

Bush made a conscious decision to try and evade the Geneva Conventions. But, I’m sorry, in AMERICA, we don’t put people in prison camps without charging them with a crime and try to justify that with a moronic “but they’re such awful awful bad people”. In AMERICA, we don’t torture.

Of course, since we consciously chose to invade Iraq with a de facto Declaration of War, how exactly do we get to classify Iraqi citizens as “illegal enemy combatants”, when we’re the ones who invaded their country.

Mar 16, 2009 - 3:55 pm 42. D Foster:

I have noticed some time ago, that President Bush and Now President Obama, and the Military Commanders, CIA, NIA had agreed upon one thing about Gitmo as a Detention Center. Do not bring any additional Terrorist Muslim Combatants to Gitmo.
In fact, they appear to have a plan for the Terrorist, that we should all agree. If we find the Terrorist combatants in the current area’a of U.S. Military Deployment, WE KILL THEM, BY ANY MEANS AVAILABLE. We use Airborne/Ranger Infantry, Marines, C-130 Gun Ships, Drone Missle , F-18 Airforce Fighter. Expert Sniper Sharp Shooter from 5000 yards, We ambush them, we blow up their buildings, and, every one in the Building, everyone. Blow up their Cars and every one in the Car. Sweet.
There is nothing sweeter than watching a C-130 Gun Ship taking out a group of terrorist in the night.
THERE ARE NO PRISONER’S TAKEN, NONE. The Military announces the results of a Terrorist Strike in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, where they take out a number of Combatants, and it is just a one day spike in the news cycle. One.

And we do not hear one word from the Political Left, The New York Times, ACLU, The “Media”. They appear to be in agreement, or, more in likely, do not care if it is not a Political Issue for their gain.

I guess it is okay to Kill these Terrorist, but God forbid we would Water Board them for Information.
Since the Geneva Convention applies to Uniformed and Commanded Country Military, the Muslim Terrorist do not fall within these “Rules of War”. This is witnessed by the manner they Kill and Torture any and all of the American Military captured in this current conflict.

We can be sure our Military Commanders and Field Operation Infantry approve of the Orders “FIND THE ENEMY AND ENGAGE, ELIMINATE IF REQUIRED.” One on one, The American Infantry and Marine will always win this type of fight. Our guys are the best. If the Gitmo Prisoners are released and they return to the War, they will not be captured the second time, they will be ELIMINATED. That works for me.

The Prisoners in Guantamano Prison is just a Straw Dog of the democrat’s and Political Left against George Bush. Nothing More, Nothing less. Blame every thing on George Bush
Everything, And the Republicans never challenged the Left.

Mar 16, 2009 - 4:39 pm 43. ExDemocrat:

D Foster:

I see you “get it”.

Enough said.

Mar 16, 2009 - 6:07 pm 44. Just passing Through:

pete,

Hard to know how to respond to your comments. I’ll just deal with the response to mine then sum up.

20. Pete: said

#17 So you’re comfortable with the US engaging in policies outside of its own systems of law?….

This is just drivel. The US has a system of laws that accommodates the cooperative needs of it’s citizens. Those needs are civil or criminal affairs. It does not apply to military conflicts with foreign nationals. For that we have what is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ. That is the code of military law approved by congress. It applys to all military personnel worldwide, whether in CONUS or not. It contains both the codes for US military conduct during conflicts and the judicial remedies for violations of that code (think Abu Ghraib – the responsible parties were prosecuted for violations of the UCMJ and the judicial remedies in the UCMJ were applied…jail time).

But the UCMJ also codifies and adheres to all Geneva Convention protocols relevant not just to the conduct of the US military but also those in arms against the US military. It lays the responsibilities for treatment of those in arms against the US before, during, and after a conflict squarely on the US military, not the US courts.

20. Pete: said

#17 continued… If what we were doing with our torture programs were that correct…

‘our torture programs’ is a straw man statement. Looney left nonsense. The US did not have ‘torture programs’.

20. Pete: said

#17 continued…why did the Bush people go to such great lengths to conceal just what they were doing?

Straw man. The ‘Bush people’ did no such thing. You can stretch a lot of interpretations, even point at some CIA documents or lack thereof and crow ‘’see! see!’ but it won’t support the ‘Bush people’ straw man nor the ‘great lengths to conceal just what they were doing’ straw man.

You are nothing but a talking point salesman who, I repeat from comment 17, shows little or no real understanding about the operative legalities, procedures, oversight, rationale, conditions, etc concerning Gitmo. No matter how many times people have pointed out to you above that you are oblivious to the fact that except for the few US citizens involved, the detainees at Gitmo do not fall under the umbrella of the US courts. You just keep on as if your pronouncements that they do, or rather your endless regurgitation of the talking points that they do, is the correct viewpoint. It isn’t and displays utter ignorance of the separation of the US civil/criminal legal system and responsibilties and the US military legal system and responsibilities and the codified rights of citizens and non-citizens in each system.

Grow up. Educate yourself and stop letting nonsensical soundbites and talking points push your arguments. All you’ll be doing is catching up to Obama who used then abandoned the talking point merchants on the left after the election and is now doing nothing more thans politically posturing to forestall the inevitable blowback.

As a matter of fact,it’s hard to understand why you’re in this discussion trying to convince people here when your current buy in says your time would be better spent writing the WH with your arguments and urging Obama to stop the posturing and commit to a decision on Gitmo.

Which by the way, is the point of the original post – forcing Obama into a decision on Gitmo. If he actually thinks you’re right, he’ll go your way. If not, he’ll continue to do exactly what he’s doing – defer the decision until he can announce under cover of some other crisis that most or all the Gitmo detainees are staying right were they are. Smart money is on the latter. Which is another point being made in the original post.

Mar 16, 2009 - 7:33 pm 45. ChipD:

@44
Sorry, but your points don’t hold up any better:
Regardless of what is stated in the UCMJ, prisoners were in fact tortured- and some military personnel were even prosecuted by the DoD itself. People were in fact hidden in secret prisons, out of the sight of the American people.

What disturbs so many people is that the torture was not just perpetrated by rogue low level guys- it was condoned and authorized at the highest level by the very same people who baldly stated that we “don’t torture”.

So yeah, I am sure a sharp legal mind can ferret out all sorts of legalistic rationales for why its ok to waterboard somebody, or use sleep deprivation and so on, but in the end it is just smoke and mirrors to conceal the truth- that the Bush Admin tortured people and used “national security” as a veil of secrecy to conceal it all.

Mar 16, 2009 - 9:04 pm 46. vivo:

29. AThinkingPerson:

“He’s already worked his magic on the economy and everyone’s retirement accounts.”

That cleanup was made by the bright Bush bankers.
And they wanted to privatize Social Security . . .
The GOP will not get a chance to clean up anything, they are dead.
Maybe the Chinese will do the cleanup . . .

Mar 16, 2009 - 10:45 pm 47. typos_R_us:

I hate to agree with the demonrats on anything, but of all the stoooooopid decisions made by the Bush administration, Gitmo was by far the dumbest. Worse even then not invading Iran in ‘04.
The CIA claims that they stopped many plots with info from Gitmo. No evidence, of course. We are supposed to accept the word of professional liars about it. The other side of the ledger sheet is how many allies it cost us. Gitmo is a classic case of winning the battle and losing the war.

There were other choices that could have been made. Terrorists ARE NOT covered by any of the Laws of war treaties the USA is party to. The GC IV allows terrorists to be executed outright. Spies and saboteurs have to be given a trial first, which might have been even better, The administration choose to use the enemy combatants term instead. BIG mistake.
One assumes that choice was made to avoid disclosing interrogation techniques. Another BIG MISTAKE. Waterboarding is several thousands years old, it was called the Chinese water torture back when the English started to use it. The Chinese prolly got it from somewhere.
As a rule of thumb torture works, which is why men have been using it for thousands of years. Those that claim it doesn’t are fools. Torture has it’s limitations, you can torture information out of a man that he doesn’t have, nor can you produce willful co-operation with torture. Stick to simple answers to simple questions and torture becomes a useful if distasteful tool.
If the Bush administration had brought this issue out in the open from the getgo, a compromise between the no torture anytime any place any way crowd and the sadists that just like to cause pain could have been reached.
Interrogation is more mental then physical. If the terrs knew when they were captured what sort of things they faced, then were presented with a list of allowable techniques at their first interrogation and asked to choose which one to start with, the interrogation might not need to get into the rough stuff.
ALL the people at gitmo have been there to long to have any usable information. Try ‘em, then shoot ‘em. Send the bodies back home sprinkled with bacon bits.

Mar 16, 2009 - 11:17 pm 48. Moogie:

#44 Just passing through: If I could inject a sound track of applause in here I would. Outstanding response! And thank you for bringing the discussion back on point. Well done.

Mar 16, 2009 - 11:25 pm 49. GDT:

Pete, Pete. Pete

You missed the entire point of my post in 39. The question was “What do you suggest we do?” It is easy to find fault and take pot shots without an alternative. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. What would you do Pete? Would you try to run an overseas military operation in the model of domestic law enforcement?

GDT

Mar 17, 2009 - 4:08 am 50. Just passing Through:

45. ChipD: said

‘@44
Sorry, but your points don’t hold up any better:
Regardless of what is stated in the UCMJ, prisoners were in fact tortured- and some military personnel were even prosecuted by the DoD itself.’

You’re not clear what event and where you are talking about. Since I know of no such events at Gitmo, I’ll assume you mean overseas and the only instance, off topic, Abu Ghraib. If so what your saying here actually reinforces what I said. The UCMJ does not guarantee compliance. It codifies conduct and response to violations. The UCMJ worked. Again off the topic but the only example you can be referring to – saying loudly ‘Look at Abu Ghraib, the military is out of control and…’ was used as an example of a US miltary out of control by a lot of ignorant people. Nice talking point, but and completely ignored the fact that the military response to the individuals responsible was to investigate, charge, prosecute, and where the evidence warranted incarcerate.

So ya, the DoD did, does, and will prosecute violations of the UCMJ.

‘People were in fact hidden in secret prisons, out of the sight of the American people.’

At Gitmo? By the military? Examples? Evidence? Again, limiting your examples and evidence to Gitmo and the military, not overseas and the CIA. Straw man.

‘What disturbs so many people is that the torture was not just perpetrated by rogue low level guys- it was condoned and authorized at the highest level by the very same people who baldly stated that we “don’t torture”. So yeah, I am sure a sharp legal mind can ferret out all sorts of legalistic rationales for why its ok to waterboard somebody, or use sleep deprivation and so on…’

Again, this has drifted off topic, as the incidents you’re calling torture did not occur at Gitmo. The waterboarding anyway. What disturbs so many people is an inaccurate and unknowledgable characterization of water boarding as torture. From your point of view it is. From the former administration’s viewpoint, and mine, you’re wrong, it isn’t. We have also seen an intense effort to also include sleep derivation, which may have occurred at Gitmo (memory does not serve me here) as torture. You try it in your post. Also lighting, and verbal interrogation techniques under the term torture. More talking points used in the US tortures meme.

‘but in the end it is just smoke and mirrors to conceal the truth- that the Bush Admin tortured people and used “national security” as a veil of secrecy to conceal it all.’

This is rich. It gives you away completely. In the few waterboarding instances that could even be in question here (because there is no evidence it was a widespread policy) occurred only when the subjects had already been intimately involved in the most extreme assaults on national security and anything more they had up their sleeves had to be known immediately. From this you take away the inference that the concern for national security was used as a veil of secrecy to conceal…what exactly? The talking point, as talking points usually do, breaks down completely when considered on it’s merits.

Again, and again, all off topic anyay. The issue at hand is not the CIA, not characterizing waterboarding, not secret prisons, and NOT the Bush administration.

It is about Gitmo and the Obama administration.

BTW: I know you said it in reference to understanding the realities of waterboarding, but it does not take a sharp legal mind to understand what should be the topic of discussion – Gitmo and the questionable position that illegal foreign combatants have the right to be processed by civilian courts. Just becoming knowledgeable about the facts works. I’m an engineer.

Mar 17, 2009 - 5:23 am 51. Pete:

49. What would I do? Classify the prisoners as Prisoners of War and follow the Geneva Conventions.

Mar 17, 2009 - 6:53 am 52. Sarah - WTF!!!:

Just think, we wouldn’t even be having this problem if our guys just shot the b*stards where they found them in the first place – that will teach us to try and be merciful and understanding, excuse me, I meant “politically correct.”
I will never understand why we’re so worried about trying to appease everyone but the people that matter, the citizen’s of the United States – if we want to make it fair how about we put it to a vote just like an election – do we shoot the SOB’s or give them a wing seat back to where they found them, oh wait I forgot, their countries don’t even want them back because they consider them to be dangerous to their own citizens….
My vote says “Shoot them all and let God (or Allah or who the frick ever) sort out the mess!” If we started treating criminals like criminals maybe they’d think twice before they attacked our country again because how many of those that have been released have been found going right back to where we found them???
61? – soon to be more?

Mar 17, 2009 - 7:47 am 53. AThinkingPerson:

Vivo, Vivo, Vivo… Perhaps you haven’t been following along with the almost total collapse of the stock market SINCE Obama took office? Did you not notice along with the rest of the financial markets and economists how the stock market took a nose dive every time Obama opened his mouth? I know it’s easy and comforting for you and fellow democrats to blame Bush but in reality, although the economy was sucking air pre-Obama, it’s in the toilet since he took office (bailout after bailout, monstrous budget, etc, etc.).
http://www.newsweek.com/id/188261
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2FjNWVkODA5ZDdjMDAzOTU4ODMzMzM5NDFmMzE0Yzg=
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4940559/Democrats-turn-against-Barack-Obama-over-spending-plans.html

I think Vivo, when the moderate Democrats are turning on Obama, it’s time to admit that the jig is up. He’s exactly what we all knew him to be. Way out of his league. Definitely unqualified. I just hope we don’t have to put all of the Obama fanatics on suicide watch. There is definitely a ground swell coming from both sides of the aisle that Obama is unfit. His polling numbers are now below Bush’s at the same time in their Presidency’s. Is that not telling?

Join the movement Vivo. You gave it a go. He’s disappointed all of us but surely his supporters most of all.

Mar 17, 2009 - 12:50 pm 54. AThinkingPerson:

Vivo… Just a few of the MANY unbiased resources about Obama’s falling poll numbers. No more smoke and mirrors buddy. America is waking up and reality is hitting them in the face (and the retirement account)….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1563748/obamas_poll_numbers_dropping.html
http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n12/obama-president-approval.html

Mar 17, 2009 - 12:57 pm 55. typos_R_us:

“What would I do? Classify the prisoners as Prisoners of War and follow the Geneva Conventions.”

Have you ever read the GC? I think not, because the GC is very precise as to what a POW is. The terrorists DO NOT fit the POW category. Not even close.
When the GC’s were written, the category of ‘irregular’, guerrilla or terrorist was intentionally excluded. Including them now, expost-facto, would make the GC null and void.
I’m good with that. I’m surprised you are.
The GC the USA signed was done in ‘49. It is GC #IV, IIRC. There was another GC, done in the late 70’s ( 77, I think) that the USA is NOT a party to. GC V covers terrorists and guerrillas, irregulars, etc. That is why the USA didn’t join it.
To call the terrs POW’s would be a sneaky, underhanded, backdoor way of getting around the Senate’s right to vote on treaties. That is something a leftoid would do, NOT a conservative administration.

The best thing we could have done was to hold them for ransom. The Nuslims would have understood this and it would not have been a problem. Set the ransoms for the real dangerous one at several trillion dollars, so that we could keep them as long as we liked. This violates GCIV, so we would need to withdraw from that treaty.
Every President should withdraw from a certain number of treaties, just to keep State awake and aware that their job is advancing the interests of the USA, NOT creating treaties. State loses sight of that fairly often.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

“A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. ”

Check out #6. To get POW status, the terrs have to meet that criteria. They don’t, so they CANNOT get POW status.
Period. They are not “lawful combatants”, which is why the Administration labeled them in the manner it did.

Like I wrote, the USA REALLY, REALLY needs to withdraw from the GC IV. Give notice and let State negotiate a new one that defines and covers terrorism while we are wait for the expiration period to elapse on GC IV.

Mar 17, 2009 - 1:33 pm 56. ChipD:

Passing Thru-
Actually, you are correct on a few points- I did stray off-topic a bit, and mixed refernces to the CIA secret prisons and Gitmo.

No one really KNOWS if torture was conducted at Gitmo- there are allegations aplenty- from former prisoners, and from former Army guards, and from the Red Cross:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/28/60minutes/main691602.shtml

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1710491,00.html

So even though it has not been proven in a court of law, I think there is plenty of reason to suspect that the US military did in fact torture prisoners at Gitmo.

However, you clearly separate Gitmo from the overseas prisons- we know even less about them, because they are…secret. Their existance is acknowledged, as reported by the NY Times, and not-plausibly denied by the Bush Admin.
What happened over there? No one knows, but the mere fact that the Government set up secret prisons, deliberately shielded from the view of the people, is , lets say, deeply suspect.
Here is an article from the Washington Post-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702214.html

So all in all, there is a lot we don’t know about what our government has done to the people it imprisons.
And it is true, I am not an international rights attorney, and can’t parse the law the way some can.
What IS very clear, is that there is plenty of reason to think that our government had a systematic program, authorized at the very top, of imprisoning people who may or MAY NOT have been armed soldiers from the battlefield, and treating them in a way that, if not the legalistic definition of “torture” was inhumane and shameful.

As for your dismissal of “waterboarding”…Here, you are in direct opposition to our own US Army. The United States Army JAG clearly defined it as a war crime:
again a link-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

What makes this so important is that when we make these things legitimate, it makes it also legitimate to treat our own soldiers the same way. Authorizing torture actually endangers every US service man and woman.

Mar 17, 2009 - 2:00 pm 57. GDT:

Wow Pete (51),
It would be easer to consider you wrong, but well meaning, if you were at least consistent. Your whole argument to this point has been to try them as criminals in the courts using criminal due process.

OK – here is the response to your new direction. They are NOT POWs as defined by the Geneva Conventions. That is simply not what they are. I could define what that means – but there are several posts here that already do that. The Geneva Convention no more addresses the guys in Gitmo than it addresses lemonade stand construction.

It would be lots easier to take you seriously if you didn’t throw around terms you don’t understand to try to make points you haven’t thought through.

Mar 17, 2009 - 2:56 pm 58. vivo:

53. AThinkingPerson:

“Perhaps you haven’t been following along with the almost total collapse of the stock market SINCE Obama took office?”

I saw today in Fox News somebody being interviewed on the NY Stock Exchange floor saying that the administration was doing the right thing. What am I supposed to believe?

Besides what Obama says doesn’t drive the stock market. The market drives the market. They create their own ups and downs. Everything else is just fog and excuses.

Mar 18, 2009 - 5:11 am 59. Pete:

Someone again explain to me why following the Geneva Conventions for the Gitmo prisoners is completely unacceptable? Why, exactly? You get to keep them off the battlefield, you get to hold them as long as you want to, you’re not even obligated to put them on trial. Oh, that’s right, the Geneva Conventions explicitly forbid torturing of prisoners. Ultimately, the torture ban is the sticking point, isn’t it?

By the way, if the US withdraws from the Geneva Convention, we no longer get to piously condemn the human rights records of any other country ever again.

Mar 18, 2009 - 6:41 am 60. Sarah - WTF!!!:

I happen to completely agree with Pete (#59) on one point – we need to stop piously condemning the human rights recoerds of any other country ever again and just stay out of everyone else’s business!

It quite honestly is no skin off our nose if we let the rest of the world slaughter each other, just as long as they leave us alone! Quite honestly, if we started treating our “captives” like our men are treated when they are captured all we would have to do is start cutting off their heads in front of a video camera and sending it out to every major news organization.

The U.S. is not the rest of the world’s police – let them do whatever the hell they want! It would be much more benficial for us to have the rest of the world’s RESPECT and not worry about having their “FRIENDSHIP” – which most of them conveniently forget about when it suits their own purpose anyway. Let them call us a “bully” – sticks and stones – they are going to do it anyway so they might as well have a legitimate reason for it! Some inflated sense of moral highground is just making us look like the rest of the world’s freaking doormat!

Mar 18, 2009 - 7:12 am 61. saleboter:

I tried as hard as i could but i just couldn’t figure out a way to close it.

Mar 18, 2009 - 9:48 am 62. AThinkingPerson:

Vivo…. Not sure who you think the “they” that drives the market are. Let me let you in on a little secret…it’s you and me and our parents and our children and our 401ks and our investments. It’s all of those who do or do not have enough confidence in the market to buy into it. It’s not the traders on the exchange floor. They are buying for US.

THERE IS NO CONFIDENCE IN THE MARKET SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE. There is no way to get around that fact. The market has tanked and his lack of a plan to help is causing fear in the population.

When “they” have confidence in if their money is going down a rabbit hole or not, then the market will turn around. Geithner needs to go. Obama needs to get a clue. Congress needs to stay out of the banking business.

Mar 19, 2009 - 6:42 am 63. deguello:

Close down Guantanamo, and send all the inmates to New York’s Upper West Side.

Mar 20, 2009 - 10:01 am