"It Hurts Our Standing in the World."

[Ramone45]

What does that mean? How do you assess that objectively? Why should we care? What does an unprovoked terrorist attack on civilians do to our standing in the world? What does it do to the standing of the terrorists and their supporters? Would Guantanamo exist had the US not been attacked? The statement reminds me of that statement that "mistreatment" of terrorists is a recruiting tool. As though finding them guilty by a jury of their peers(?) is not going to aid in recruitment.

 

[RUlookingup]

What does that mean? How do you assess that objectively? Why should we care? What does an unprovoked terrorist attack on civilians do to our standing in the world? What does it do to the standing of the terrorists and their supporters? Would Guantanamo exist had the US not been attacked? The statement reminds me of that statement that "mistreatment" of terrorists is a recruiting tool. As though finding them guilty by a jury of their peers(?) is not going to aid in recruitment.

Do you mean the French won't like us? God forbid.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The idea is to win with honour. Torture is not honourable. Special prison in Cuba. Perfect place for them. But no place for kids.

Churchill was quoted talking to Truman about the Nuremburg Trials, 'I sure hope we win the next one'.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Do you mean the French won't like us? God forbid.

No but the French/German/UK/? people may not allow their politicians and intelligence services to share information with states that use torture, evidence gathered may not be valid in another country if obtained by torture. That is a minus. The minuses for torturing prisoners far outweigh the pluses.

Guantanamo's rep is torture. Not just as an ultra high security prison for terrorist. That is PR. Shit like that stains.

You get a swing of popular opinion going and watch the billions of $ go down the tube.

 

[oggbashan]

Extraordinary Rendition and Gitmo worried the US's allies, so much so that we in the UK are frequently concerned that our own secret services were involved.

Why?

Because the whole point of Western Democracies is that we operate within the law, particularly international law.

Extraordinary Rendition and Gitmo took people who have never been proven to have committed any act against the US and jailed them without trial, nor any attempt to prosecute them. They are accused but should have been considered innocent until proven guilty.

If they had committed acts of terrorism, then they should have been tried by a competent court that could decide on the evidence. Habeus Corpus is a basic principle of US law. Those in Gitmo have been denied it for years.

So, from an outside point of view, Extraordinary Rendition and Gitmo jailed people who could have been innocent, and kept them in prison for years with no prospect of a fair trial, nor any means of proving themselves innocent.

That compares with the worst excesses of dictatorial regimes who jail political opponents. Those in Gitmo are political prisoners, not criminals or terrorists. If the US thinks they are? Then prove it in an independent court!

The worst part about it? These people were not brought to the mainland US because the US government KNEW it couldn't prove anything in an unbiased court, so Gitmo was a way to keep them in prison illegally.

PS As for what the US's enemies think? They probably think the US is as bad as they are and will treat its stated principles of democracy and the rule of law as meaningless words. That's not the freedom the GIs fought WW2 to retain.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Extraordinary Rendition and Gitmo worried the US's allies, so much so that we in the UK are frequently concerned that our own secret services were involved.

Why?

Because the whole point of Western Democracies is that we operate within the law, particularly international law.

Extraordinary Rendition and Gitmo took people who have never been proven to have committed any act against the US and jailed them without trial, nor any attempt to prosecute them. They are accused but should have been considered innocent until proven guilty.

If they had committed acts of terrorism, then they should have been tried by a competent court that could decide on the evidence. Habeus Corpus is a basic principle of US law. Those in Gitmo have been denied it for years.

So, from an outside point of view, Extraordinary Rendition and Gitmo jailed people who could have been innocent, and kept them in prison for years with no prospect of a fair trial, nor any means of proving themselves innocent.

That compares with the worst excesses of dictatorial regimes who jail political opponents. Those in Gitmo are political prisoners, not criminals or terrorists. If the US thinks they are? Then prove it in an independent court!

The worst part about it? These people were not brought to the mainland US because the US government KNEW it couldn't prove anything in an unbiased court, so Gitmo was a way to keep them in prison illegally.

You're perfectly valid and true explanation will fall on the deaf ears of the likes of ramone and RULookingUp.

 

[RUlookingup]

You're perfectly valid and true explanation will fall on the deaf ears of the likes of ramone and RULookingUp.

Expect nothing.less from a Quisling.

 

[Sean Renaud]

What does that mean? How do you assess that objectively? Why should we care? What does an unprovoked terrorist attack on civilians do to our standing in the world? What does it do to the standing of the terrorists and their supporters? Would Guantanamo exist had the US not been attacked? The statement reminds me of that statement that "mistreatment" of terrorists is a recruiting tool. As though finding them guilty by a jury of their peers(?) is not going to aid in recruitment.

It means they like us and respect us less.

How do you assess it objectively? Polls. Interviews. Read their media. Talk to their people.

We should care because it directly effects how likely they are to aid us. They are not under any obligation to give us information or to join our coalitions to fix this that or the other. Some countries won't extradite to us because we have the Death Penalty. So in REAL terms your choices are between the scumbag walking free or rotting in jail forever and tons of other similar reasons.

A terrorist attack on the US massively raised our standing (or at least our sympathy) around the globe and we got a pretty goddamn free pass on Iraq because of it. People even signed on to help.

Terrorists (whatever that term means outside of context) don't generally have much in the way of supporters. But how hated they are for their actions IS influenced by how we act during the interim.

Yes Gitmo would exist if we hadn't been attacked. That base has been around for longer than anybody posting here has been alive. Would it be famous? Probably not.

Mistreatment is definitely a recruitment tool. That isn't even a thing rational people debate. A trial by their "peers" would of course recruit some people but far fewer and may in fact recruit some for us.

 

[about_average]

A terrorist attack on the US massively raised our standing (or at least our sympathy) around the globe and we got a pretty goddamn free pass on Iraq because of it. People even signed on to help.

Tons of sympathy after the attacks and free pass in Afghanistan, not so much in Iraq.

 

[phrodeau]

If you want to start a war with East Burkastan, it helps if you have the support of the people of West Burkastan.

It's simple foreign policy. Gitmo is preventing alliances.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Ogg. I usually agree with your posts. We're on opposite sides on this one.

Rule of Law in Western Societies - We agree. 100%

Enemy Combatants or UnLawful Combatants: Do not qualify for Geneva Convention protections. War doesn't lend itself to courtrooms. The folks in
gitmo aren't entitled to US Law protections. I know people are probably gasping for air, but it's simply true. It's why countries can execute spies...they don't qualify for normal criminal legal protections.

There is no presumption of innocence on a wartime battlefield. The US and many other countries have declared a war on terror.

You're correct. Gitmo was setup so US Legal protections would not be provided to Gitmo prisoners.

What do our enemies think? Our enemies think taking slaves women, and girls as sex-slaves is fine. Allowed within the Koran and Islam. Our enemies routinely lop off the heads of people they consider their enemy. Our enemies burn their own troops alive. Our enemies burn prisoners alive. Our enemies would gladly burn or decapitate most of the people who participate on this website.

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what our enemies think...I'm not sure most people who actually want to WIN this conflict do either.

P.S. I agree with you on Rendition. That crap needs to end.

Except your incorrect. Enemy combatants DO get Geneva protections. It's unlawful combatants that don't.

Gitmo was set up to circumvent the law, but Bush got taken to court and the SCOTUS effectively told him you can't play rules lawyer. That's supposed to end it.

You're not supposed to be worried about what the enemy thinks anyway. It's the ones who aren't our enemy. . .yet that you are supposed to concern yourself with.

 

[renard_ruse]

We need to close Guantanamo, get out of the Middle East, and bring our troops home.

We are wasting billions of dollars on the other side of the world for these no-win foreign adventures when we can't even take care of our own senior citizens and handicapped here at home.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's not that we can't, it's that we choose not to.

 

[oggbashan]

What our enemies think of us doesn't matter. It helps if they are afraid of us.

What our friends and allies think of us is important. It influences decisions on whether they will stand with us, fight on our side, or stand aside.

Extraordinary Rendition and Gitmo worry the US's allies. That alone should make the US think that both are not worth the damage being done to their ability to have allies on their side.

But the real damage is done in relations with countries that are neither our friends nor our enemies. If they think that the US and its allies are unprincipled, cannot be trusted to abide by international laws, and will jail people without trial, why should they consider supporting us? It puts the US and its allies on the same level as one-party states and unpleasant dictatorships.

When torture is alleged as well? What makes the US any different from North Korea?

IF another Iraq war or Afghanistan were to be proposed, the UK electorate and Parliament would probably refuse to be involved. Why not? Extraordinary Rendition and Gitmo might feature in the decision but the most telling factor is that the US Government breached, and continues to breach, its own principles of freedom and lies to its allies and its own people.

 

[Jessie_Pinkman]

P.S. I agree with you on Rendition. That crap needs to end.

Would you call the execution of Bin Laden a rendition?

 

[Ramone45]

The terrorist enemy is difficult to fight. They follow no principles. It is hard to combat them effectively by applying the rule of law. These concerns about our "standing" were brought about in the aftermath of a massive terrorist attack on civilians. I think it is important to focus on the events that triggered these concerns. A response to these attacks was required. Everyone agrees about that. We were thrust into a war that our country was not used to fighting. Parts of our response were in fact just awful. But fighting this type of enemy was going to be a very unpleasant proposition. No matter what, parts of our response were going to be objectionable to our civilized values. But we are fighting an uncivilized enemy.
Some of the criticism can fall into the "people who live in glass houses" category. I also think that despite their objections, allies would still co-operate to a large extent. The US brings a lot to the table with regard to intelligence and ability to combat threats to our allies. Guantanamo was not closed because it couldn't be closed. The political climate early in the administration should have permitted closing it, but I think the administration was informed of the potential risks.
Please don't misinterpret. The attacks on the US were horrible. The response by three administrations since 1993 has been poor. However, in a war such as this, I think concerns about our "standing" should be further down on the list.

 

[oggbashan]

...
Please don't misinterpret. The attacks on the US were horrible. The response by three administrations since 1993 has been poor. However, in a war such as this, I think concerns about our "standing" should be further down on the list.

The ends justify the means?

That argument was dismissed at Nuremberg.

As Churchill put it about Nuremberg "Thank God we won." If not, the Allies could have been tried as war criminals.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

OGG knows the WOGS want nuthin to do with Britain or America. They wouldn't dream of emigrating to either place.

OGG I added you to my DUM FUCKS List, without application or reference requirements. From merit alone.

 

[oggbashan]

...

OGG I added you to my DUM FUCKS List, without application or reference requirements. From merit alone.

That would seem to indicate more about you than me.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I hear this argument a lot. "What will other countries think. We're no better than the terrorists".

Respectfully, it has no objective or identifiable merit.

Name the country who doesn't want to do business with the U.S., or Britain for that matter. Honestly, if a country can't tell the difference between the US, a country that has always tried to do the right thing (even when we fail), and who was savagely attacked on 9/11, then truthfully, we.don't.need.them.

We're going to disagree on this next point, but Gitmo is no breach of our Constitution. It's no breach of our criminal law. Finally, if these individuals were not in Gitmo, they would be planning attacks like the one in Paris, or San Bernandino. No....UK citizens are smart enough to realize the value of Gitmo.

Not surprisingly, no country wants these individuals back either. If the UK is concerned about due process...they're more than willing to take them. I don't see it happening. Has anyone in Britain advocated for these terrorists to be moved their shores? Undergo the legal process in Britain? If they're innocent, they can be integrated into the muslim/islamic pockets in britain.....

You are aware that even the UK won't extradite to us if they fear we'll kill the person right?

No we have not always tried to do the right thing, that's what Gitmo is absolute proof of. Knowing it's wrong and not carying. Gitmo is a breach of our Constitution plain and simple. It was set up that way intentionally, went to the Supreme Court and they flat out stated that Bush was wrong. What more do you want than that?

Maybe they would be planning more attacks like San Bernadino. Maybe they wouldn't. Is the risk worth it is the question.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Time to support your argument. Which article of the consitution does Gitmo violate? What SCOTUS case are you referencing? If you're correct...why hasn't the most liberal president in decades closed gitmo?

Yes. The risk is always worth it.

The Constitution is written, specifically to limit the powers of government. Whether you believe rights come from God or are simply inherent in being human the Bill of Rights logically applies to anything human on that basis. So being held without a trial.

However Gitmo was chosen specifically because it was part of Cuba and allowed special rights Boumediene vs Bush challenged the idea essentially that a military base that America controls is not subject to American law. 5-4 it came down that they absolutely do.

Now without going too far into the woods this does not allow them to have a trial as we know it, it gives them a chance to prove their innocense which is functionally impossible but still a right.

As for Obama because he's a putz and everybody knows it. You make it sound like he goes around doing whatever he wants like this mythical giant instead of bending over backwards to appease people who will never be appeased.

You don't think the risk is worth it. If you did you'd be arguing to close down Gitmo. What you mean is no, the risk is never worth it and we should live in a police state.

From sheerly practical stand point at this point just take them all out back quietly and put bullets in their heads. Tell the press that you set them free and call it a day. Because the war with terror is never ever going to end. There will never be a last terrorist. The Middle East could turn into a sugar coated gumdrop factory and shit will pop off in Russia or Australia or Africa or South America. So if you aren't going to try these people after 15 years (which is solid proof that we know these people are if not innocent certainly that we have no way in hell of convincing even the military of their guilt.

I get it. You're afraid. I'm not. On this particular subject that is the bottom line. Even if these guys are bad how bad can they possibly be? This is real life not a movie. They aren't gonna return to Afghanistan and build an Ironman Suit in a cave with a box full of scraps. They in all likelihood going to do nothing but looking at history they'd be lucky to outscore the next school shooter. And what's the attitude towards them? Oh right. Better people die because we believe in rights than people live because we change the rules.

 

[oggbashan]

At worst, the people held in Gitmo were bit players. They weren't the Bin Ladens of terrorism. They weren't even his gofers. They were small scale people arrested on suspicions that can't be proven.

The harm done to US interests by keeping Gitmo open is greater than anything the prisoners in Gitmo could have achieved as terrorists - even if they were terrorists.

But logic doesn't matter. President Obama promised to close it. That is enough for other US politicians to ensure that he can't.

The argument isn't about Gitmo and its prisoners. It's about US internal politics which are more about foiling the other party than doing the best for America.

 

[about_average]

You are aware that even the UK won't extradite to us if they fear we'll kill the person right?

No we have not always tried to do the right thing, that's what Gitmo is absolute proof of. Knowing it's wrong and not carying. Gitmo is a breach of our Constitution plain and simple. It was set up that way intentionally, went to the Supreme Court and they flat out stated that Bush was wrong. What more do you want than that?

Maybe they would be planning more attacks like San Bernadino. Maybe they wouldn't. Is the risk worth it is the question.

It's actually unlikely that Daesh had anything to do with San Bernadino, beyond just being inspiration. They've always claimed responsibility for their attacks, like Paris. They even made a video featuring the attack.
San Bernadino they were pretty quiet. If they'd carried out a successful attack on US soil it's very unlikely they wouldn't play it up.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It's actually unlikely that Daesh had anything to do with San Bernadino, beyond just being inspiration. They've always claimed responsibility for their attacks, like Paris. They even made a video featuring the attack.
San Bernadino they were pretty quiet. If they'd carried out a successful attack on US soil it's very unlikely they wouldn't play it up.

I agree it's highly unlikely but that's not really the point. This is ultimately about the broader point of if these men who remain in Gitmo are SO dangerous that setting them free would be like something out of a comic. You don't let Doctor Doom and Magneto out because DUH!

 

[phrodeau]

I agree it's highly unlikely but that's not really the point. This is ultimately about the broader point of if these men who remain in Gitmo are SO dangerous that setting them free would be like something out of a comic. You don't let Doctor Doom and Magneto out because DUH!

If they weren't harboring ill will towards the US before they were jailed, they certainly are now.