Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hopeful Change Down Guantanamo Way
After a Sunday ABC News appearance made Obama critics pissed that he seemed to be equivocating on a swift end to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, now it's leaked that he will at least sign the order to close on day one. But
it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.
The Washington Monthly is scabrous on one of those "legal challenges," that is, can we in fact rely on standard courts to deal with these prisoners, now that the "military commissions" system is probably going to be immediatley nixed? Should a new "hybrid" system be developed, as an AP story speculates? The crux of the problem, says the Monthly:
.....designing a new "hybrid" legal system would be a big, big mistake. Some of the reasons are practical. For instance, the system of military commissions has been litigated for years, which is one reason why so few people have been tried under it. Any new system would be challenged in court as well. If we try detainees under an existing system of law, we can be pretty sure that most of the constitutional questions it raises have been worked out.....
We have already held people without trial for seven years. Their children have grown up without them. We need to bring them to trial quickly or let them go....
More importantly: the time to construct a new system is when events reveal the need for one. That is not the case here. We have not suddenly discovered that there is some gap in our existing system of justice that only a new, alternative system will fill. Rather, there are people we want to detain and might not be able to detain under the existing system, in large part because those clever people in the Bush administration decided to torture them.
Taktix®|1.13.09 @ 2:54PM|#
Any creation of a new, partially-military, partially-civilian
legal system would be a terrible idea. Sure, it's just for "enemy
combatants" now, but hey, why not try other "militant" criminals
too? It is still technically a civilian court, after all,
right?
First mobsters, then drug dealers, then political dissidents. It
would be the last step in a march over the cliff of tyranny...
LurkerBold|1.13.09 @ 2:57PM|#
Posted on January 13, 2009, 2:40pm | Brian Doherty
After a Sunday ABC News appearance made Obama critics pissed that
he seemed to be equivocating on a swift end to the detention center
at Guantanamo Bay, today its leaked that he will
at least sign the order to close on day one.
Today? is
this timewarp Reason?
Tyler|1.13.09 @ 2:59PM|#
I hope that justice is served for both the detainees and whoever was responsible for this mess, even if it goes all the way to the top of the outgoing administration.
Taktix®|1.13.09 @ 3:02PM|#
If only I could install the post filter at work.
Damn you LurkerBold!
*SHAKES FIST*
Fluffy|1.13.09 @ 3:05PM|#
In a few minutes Gilbert Martin will show up and whine, "Wah! Maybe we should send the Guantanamo detainees to stay at your house, Taktix! Wah!"
dhex|1.13.09 @ 3:06PM|#
"We have already held people without trial for seven years.
Their children have grown up without them. We need to bring them to
trial quickly or let them go...."
this is fairly straightforward. and fucking hideous.
as much as the cult of chocolate jesus is starting to creep me out,
closing gitmo is worth *all* of the "he will lead us to paradise!"
nonsense.
|1.13.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Kudos to Obama for not dwadling over this. It won't happen
overnightbut the decision to close the detention facility at GITMO
is long overdue.
I miss the days when only sailors and marines even knew we had a
military base on Cuban soil.
|1.13.09 @ 3:15PM|#
I'm as horrified at the Bush administration's torture and
detention policies as anyone, but what do we do with detainees when
we have solid evidence of their guilt, but it was gathered based on
information wrung out them under torture?
It's easy enough to say that confessions made unders torture are
worthless, but what about evidence that was gathered based on the
details of that confession which confirms it, and the guilt of the
detainee?
We've got a "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine in Anglo-American
law, and it's a good thing we do, too, but should we really try
people in a civilian court who would easilyi convicted on the
evidence, but the evidence will be thrown out?
I can respect the answer "We release them if the only evidence is
tainted, because there are larger interests than a few
convictions," but is that really our only choice?
God damn Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and all of those
bastards for putting us in this position.
LurkerBold|1.13.09 @ 3:17PM|#
Joe, if you were a true liberal this would not be a problem. They should be released and released now.
|1.13.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Oh, and good for Obama for committing to this.
Torture and detention, even more than the Iraq War, are why an
Obama victory was so important. We need to reverse course on this
Big Brother stuff, like, yesterday, or it will spread throughout
the government and we will cease to be a free nation.
What Taktix said. "Would you torture to save American lives?"
sounds like a high standard, but every single bit of intel that
provides even the slightest operational advantage for the military
can be said to "save American lives," so it's really no standard or
bright line at all.
|1.13.09 @ 3:21PM|#
Joe, if you were a true liberal this would not be a problem.
They should be released and released now.
Heh. The spoof troll talking about who is and isn't a real liberal.
That's funny.
Look if that's what we've gotta do, then that's what we've gotta
do, and if our choices are "release them," "kangaroo courts," or
"indefinite detention," I pick A.
But I would really love to hear some alternative.
Reinmoose|1.13.09 @ 3:24PM|#
One can argue that, absent individual justice on those that we have detained and, as joe says, have torture-induced evidence of their guilt, the closing of Gitmo could prevent far more of those that wish to harm us from forming than we are releasing.
LurkerBold|1.13.09 @ 3:27PM|#
We should not just take the government's word for it when they
make an accusation against somebody, but make them prove it beyond
a reasonable doubt in a fair trial (that means no evidence through
torture) before giving them the sharp end of the stick.
I read something like that on Google recently.
BDB|1.13.09 @ 3:28PM|#
We should not just take the government's word for it when they make an accusation against somebody, but make them prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial (that means no evidence through torture) before giving them the sharp end of the stick.
Uh, yeah.
|1.13.09 @ 3:31PM|#
We wouldn't be in this mess if the political "leadership" in the
Pentagon and White House had listened to the FBI, JAG officers, and
career Justice lawyers.
Sadly, the above observation does fuck-all to provide a solution to
this predicament.
LurkerBold|1.13.09 @ 3:34PM|#
Did my impersonator find the source of my 3:27 comment, or was he the author of the comment from back in June?
LurkerBold|1.13.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Obviously the imposter is the one who links to a vegetarian website from Edinburgh.
|1.13.09 @ 3:42PM|#
We wouldn't be in this mess if the political "leadership" in
the Pentagon and White House had listened to the FBI, JAG officers,
and career Justice lawyers.
When career military officers resign rather than play the game
you've asserted is legal, moral and necessary, an intelligent or
humble person would reassess the decision.
Apparently Bush is neither.
|1.13.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Heck, I miss Edward.
Keep pushing me, Urkobolds. You mess with the bull, you wiil get
the horns.
|1.13.09 @ 3:42PM|#
More importantly: the time to construct a new system is when events reveal the need for one. That is not the case here. We have not suddenly discovered that there is some gap in our existing system of justice that only a new, alternative system will fill.
Rather, there are people we want to detain and might not be able to detain under the existing system, in large part because those clever people in the Bush administration decided to torture them.
So, is the Washington Monthly arguing for indefinite
detention, so long as the prisoners aren't tortured? Because that's
what it seems like to me.
We certainly do not have a long-standing institution for
trying prisoners obtained in military operations, rather than as a
result of existing evidence and extradition orders. The POW
standard of prisoner exchanges and/or waiting until the war is over
don't seem to apply in this case either, which leads us back to
indefinite detention. At least if I understand what the
Washington Monthly is arguing for in that paragraph.
|1.13.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Look if that's what we've gotta do, then that's what we've gotta do, and if our choices are "release them," "kangaroo courts," or "indefinite detention," I pick A.
Hopefully, so will Obama.
T|1.13.09 @ 3:43PM|#
I'm sure I'm being completely cynical here, but that's par for
the course.
Does anyone honestly think if the government has hard evidence of
Ali being a terrorist he's going to walk away from Gitmo a free
man? Or are we going to shut down Gitmo and extraordinary rendition
all the evildoers to, I dunno, the Russians? I'm sure we can get
together with any number of countries and have charges under their
legal system ginned up to give us plausible cover for a prisoner
transfer. Once the accused is out of our hands, it's just too damn
bad he hung himself in his cell after falling in the shower.
I also ask if we are going to stop doing all of the things done at
Gitmo, or are we just going to do them someplace so far removed
from the public eye and nominally not under our control that we, as
a nation, can never be held accountable for what happens
there?
Yay! We're shutting down a symbol! No word on shutting down the
actual atrocities, though...
|1.13.09 @ 3:44PM|#
I think you misunderstand, John Thacker.
The justice system that lacks a gap is the civilian court system,
and the AM is arguing for trying them there, in accordance with the
rules of evidence that exist under our system of laws.
Kolohe|1.13.09 @ 3:45PM|#
I miss the days when only sailors and marines even knew we
had a military base on Cuban soil
To be fair, this is more Rob Reiner's fault than Bush's
Not Urkobolds|1.13.09 @ 3:46PM|#
Aw, Joe does not like his quotes coming back to haunt him so he
throws a fit at - Urkobold?
Just how sharp or loud are those internet horns anyway?
|1.13.09 @ 3:48PM|#
No shit, was that me?
Damn straight! This is why it was so important to elect
Obama.
I don't get the "haunting" part, though. Or the connection to the
Ur-troll.
BDB|1.13.09 @ 3:49PM|#
Why would that quote "haunt" him? There's nothing particularly outrageous in it.
Kolohe|1.13.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Yeah I'm surprised he didn't waffle and is doing this so
early.
One advatage he (Obama) has is that Gates has been in favor of
closing down the Gitmo detention center for some time. If anything,
there should already be some prelimary staff work already performed
somewhere in the office of the secretary of defense. It's actually
a little dismaying that the impression the transition team is
giving is that they're starting from scratch.
|1.13.09 @ 3:50PM|#
What? Joe=Edward?
You know what, Naga? Keep your unfunny jokes to your own racist web
site!
(No, I wasn't Edward, just a big fan of the Edward/URKOBOLD
wars.)
Abdul|1.13.09 @ 3:50PM|#
We've got a "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine in
Anglo-American law, and it's a good thing we do, too, but should we
really try people in a civilian court who would easilyi convicted
on the evidence, but the evidence will be thrown out?
The exclusionary rule that you're referring to isn't mandated by
the constituion. It's a judge-created rule that only goes back to
the last century. In the civilian world, it does serve as a check
on law enforcement agencies gathering evidence through illegal
means. It has been criticized, however, because it allows people
who are factually guilty to go free. Meanwhile, a factually
innocent person whose rights were violated doesn't benefit from the
exclusionary rule.
Applying the exclusionary tule to enemy combatants is another ball
of wax. Not only could it be applied to evidence derived in part or
in whole from torture or aggressive questioning tactics, but if the
Washington Monthly gets its way, it would apply to evidence
obtained outside the Fourth Amendment. Since the soldiers who
seized the enemy combatants in the first place were never law
enforcement officers, almost all of the evidence obtained wouldn't
qualify under Fourth Amendment precedent.
Naga Sadow|1.13.09 @ 3:51PM|#
I know, joe. Sadly, I came after the Great Flame Wars and missed all the fun apparently. (sigh)
|1.13.09 @ 3:52PM|#
The next question for Obama: So, what about the prison we're
running at Diego Garcia? What about the secret prisons in Eastern
Europe?
Are you shutting down the entire black hole system, or just the
most prominent site?
BDB|1.13.09 @ 3:52PM|#
"Unsubstantive Kurt | January 13, 2009, 3:51pm | #
I miss Lefiti.
How do you know they aren't one and the same?"
I'd really like to found out if they are, and if not, who is
LurkerBold.
|1.13.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Are you shutting down the entire black hole system, or just the most prominent site?
Joe, you're asking a Blue to prove that there is a dime of
difference. Hanging around the libertarians too much? ;)
Naga Sadow|1.13.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Alright. Here are my guesses.
1. MNG is LurkerBold. That's right! I said it!
2. Lefiti is Edward/CO
3. Juanita is a collection of posters. (You know who you are!)
|1.13.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Nah, LurkerBold has to be a righty, because his MO is to throw
out particularly foolish strawman versions of liberal arguments.
You'd only do that if your motivation was to wage a jihad on the
left.
So that rules out MNG.
Second, he's got something personal against me.
TallDave? Guy Montag?
Pragmatic Hater|1.13.09 @ 4:00PM|#
The solution for what to do with those whose guilt was found in
part through torture is obvious. We release them - from a bomb bay
over the Indian Ocean from about 25000 feet. They will be free to
reflect on their wicked ways and/or pray/scream to Allah all the
way down. If Allah wills it, they will live.
We'd have to find a way to keep the bomber crews from finding out
about it, though. Some of the more sensitive ones might feel bad
about it while some of the more insensitive ones might damage the
bombers trying to hit the terrorist scum on the way down.
BDB|1.13.09 @ 4:00PM|#
SIV does have a fascination with the term "progressive" instead of "liberal" to describe the left.
Naga Sadow|1.13.09 @ 4:05PM|#
The man is a cock lover? Or a cock fighter? Or a cock fighter lover? Something like that right?
Reinmoose|1.13.09 @ 4:05PM|#
Whoever Lurkerbold is I imagine it's someone who's actually
funnier when they're posting as themselves than they are as
Lurkerbold.
I'll third the SIV nom.
|1.13.09 @ 4:06PM|#
Hater,
I imagine there'd be an Establishment Clause problem with relying
on Allah to determine guilt.
Taktix®|1.13.09 @ 4:06PM|#
I've got it!
They shoudl close Gitmo and create Troll-mo. Any insurgent captured
would be forced to sit at a computer and read posts by Lefiti,
LurkerBold and SIV around the clock.
Worldwide terrorism would collapse by lunchtime on Thursday...
|1.13.09 @ 4:07PM|#
"SIV" stands for "Single Issue Voter."
When he first started posting, he insisted that he just cared about
cock
fighting laws, and wrote these strenuous denials that he was a
garden-variety conservative.
So, it's already been established that he pretends to be something
he's not to advance the conservative line.
The Committee on Un-Libertaria|1.13.09 @ 4:10PM|#
SIV, are you now, or have you ever been, "LurkerBold"?
|1.13.09 @ 4:12PM|#
Every single fake troll at Hit & Run is or is subsidized by
thoreau.
Edward provided a large number of Urkobold-focused comments, many
of which are now incorporated on our site in the margin-sitting
"Endorsements for Urkobold". Really, Edward was a phenomenon. I
miss his ire and vocalized wrath.
About Guantanamo, I agree that there is no easy solution to what
should be done with these types of combatants, nor is the situation
helped by the poorly thought out tactics of the current
administration, including really intense interrogation, man, and
the various features that lacked something called due
process.
I am concerned, however, that Obama will play hide the salami,
moving the people we're particularly concerned about to some other
location where we do the same kind of stuff. Supposedly, the
torture/heavy metal interrogation has been mostly discontinued, but
my biggest other concern is still at issue--due process. No one who
(1) was not really a combatant caught in flagrante delicto
and (2) doesn't otherwise appear to be a terrorist should be
sitting in some obscure prison, rotting away. Even POWs are granted
a kind of due process--they are identified as enemy troops and
locked up for the duration of hostilities. We appear to have
skipped that "identification" part for at least some of the
detainees.
|1.13.09 @ 4:14PM|#
I find it intellectually void to close down a facility because
there were, or may have been, people held there improperly. That is
the exact thinking some use when there is a school shooting or
other tragedy. "We should make it a memorial". In the case of
school shootings, we are potentially dealing with emotionally
immature youths that might have trouble dealing with the situation.
Who are we protecting here? Afraid combatants might not like the
stigma? What about the economics of closing a functional facility
and building a new one, not to mention the carbon footprint! Just
give people their Jesus-given rights and don't torture them. Is
Obama afraid his orders won't be followed?
This is pointless symbolism. (not my post, close G-bay)
That said...if they're selling it, I bid one dollar.
The Angry Optimist|1.13.09 @ 4:24PM|#
That said...if they're selling it, I bid one
dollar.
Actual Retail Price...
|1.13.09 @ 4:24PM|#
LurkerBold would have to be someone who was on the thread from which that "haunting" quote of mine was taken, or at least, someone who was around then.
Naga Sadow|1.13.09 @ 4:26PM|#
joe,
Don't laugh . . . but . . . I didn't start doing it till I read
"The Way of the Weasel" by Scott Adams. I have since made it a
trinity of Dickens, Conan, and Dogbert.
Guy Montag|1.13.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Oh yea, brilliant idea messiah! How about we release them
all in Maryland, half in Maryland and the other half
in Florida?
Some of them have excellent construction and demolitions training.
Could help out with the housing boom coming soon for the
construction bailout.
Kolohe|1.13.09 @ 4:28PM|#
bigbigslacker-
I disagree. Your analogy is a bit off. It's one thing when a event
happens at a location that has little to do with the normal
business that is conducted at a location, like a school shooting,
or for that matter, the destruction of the WTC. It is quite another
thing, however, when the ongoing purpose of a location is related
to a sorid episode. It's the reason why there is no correctional
facility at Auschwitz, and why Abu Ghraib was doubly bad, because
it had also been the location of shennigans by the Hussein
regime.
Reverend Sadow|1.13.09 @ 4:29PM|#
I say unto you BDB: Let the trolls out! And Zod in!
*slaps BDB*
PRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAISSSSSSSSSSSSE ZOD!
|1.13.09 @ 4:46PM|#
BDB | January 13, 2009, 4:23pm | #
Amazing. No more LurkerBold.
Now I'm NEVER going to find out why that quote is haunting!
|1.13.09 @ 4:48PM|#
joe,
Don't forget, our comments here are archived. If you look hard
enough, our stupid statements live forever.
For instance,
cj, would a child be impermissably interfering with the parenting rights of a gay couple by telling their son "My mommy loves my daddy?"
Posted by joe at December 8, 2003 10:57 AM
|1.13.09 @ 4:48PM|#
OK Kolohe, I see your point and concede the analogy is off a bit. Can't we just rename it to something that sounds friendly? Maybe put some new plants in the lobby and give er a paint job and some oak trim? I think mauve would be nice.
|1.13.09 @ 4:54PM|#
phalkor | October 9, 2008, 4:56pm | #
Can you ever delete posts? 'cause I don wan mai stupidittee to laz
forevah.
oh, but it does last forever
|1.13.09 @ 4:55PM|#
And what's to prevent the archiver from rewriting your comments? Nothing, that's what!
Guy Montag|1.13.09 @ 5:05PM|#
PL,
And what's to prevent the archiver from rewriting your
comments? Nothing, that's what!
That is true, but there are other archives around the intertubes.
What are the odds that they all are in the same conspiracy? (did I
just cue one of our conspiracy freaks?)
(yes, I am guessing that you are joking sort of)
|1.13.09 @ 5:09PM|#
Pro Lib,
Then I guess those of you who have written stupid statements should
tread lightly.
;-)
|1.13.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Guy,
Of course, but if there were only a few sites archiving your
comments, just one rewrite could spell doom to your political
career.
Of course, in my case, my political career is doomed by my actual
comments, not to mention my Urkobold postings. No wonder Panetta
and/or Katzen haven't offered me the Court of St. James.
joe,
Stupid is as stupid posts ☺
|1.13.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Signing an order to close the Guantanamo prison at some
indefinite date in the future, when the prisoners there have all
been disposed of, err, somehow, strikes me as 100% PR.
Other than signalling an intention not to add any new prisoners to
Gitmo (and when was the last time Bush did that, anyway?) it
strikes me as being something Bush could easily have announced at
any time.
Pretty much like the Bush/Obama meeting of the minds on the Iraqi
withdrawal, now that I think of it.
At this point, I doubt the real problem is a desire to clear out
Gitmo and close the prison, I think the real problem is how to do
so.
Rendition to countries that will violate the prisoner's human
rights (which is to say, any rendition at all, given where these
people were captured) strikes me as a cheap betrayal.
Full civilian trials strike me as a complete impossibility; from
initial detention through today, civilian standards have not been
applied to these prisoners. Applying such standards retroactively
will lead to their wholesale release, err, where, exactly? Downtown
Miami?
Anything short of full civilian trials will lead to years of
litigation, as the Supreme Court reaps what it has sown in
Boumedienne.
What a complete clusterfuck. Bush's fault, sure, but Obama ain't
got no magic wand, either.
|1.13.09 @ 5:18PM|#
Right. Obama's position of closing Guantanamo is just like
Bush's, because we all saw the executive order Bush gave to close
it, and heard him say that he intends to close it.
Um, what?
Pretty much like the Bush/Obama meeting of the minds on the
Iraqi withdrawal, now that I think of it. George Bush adopted
Barack Obama's position on closing Guantanamo? I must have missed
that.
|1.13.09 @ 5:22PM|#
Don't get me wrong; I think it would be awesome if Bush said
"Mumble mumble changing conditions success so I'ma close Gitmo" in
response to political developments that rendered any other position
untenable, as he did with withdrawal from Iraq.
I just haven't seen that happen.
Guy Montag|1.13.09 @ 5:26PM|#
From that K M-W post about cabs in CT, seems that would be a good place to release them.
|1.13.09 @ 5:26PM|#
Juanita is a collection of posters. (You know who you
are!)
But I can discern the genuine article from the lame
imposters.
True, pure love gives me that ability.
Guy Montag|1.13.09 @ 5:35PM|#
Juanita is a collection of posters. (You know who you
are!)
Just glossy paper and no flesh and bone? I am crushed.
|1.13.09 @ 6:22PM|#
Release them in Lowell. Fine with me.
If that happened, there would be a very small chance one of them
might harm my daughter.
If the government can get away with what they did, and keep holding
them, there will be a 100% chance that she will have to live her
life in a Big Brother police state. Toture and lawless detention
are poison for our system of rights.
If the police were allowed to raid any house they felt like,
without a warrant, they'd probably stop a few murders. There is a
cost, a cost in American lives, that comes with the Fourth
Amendment. It's worth it.
We all understand that returning to the Constitution and rule of
law might mean some cost in security, Guy. We just want to live in
free country anyway. Is that so hard for you to understand?
bill|1.13.09 @ 6:39PM|#
Just let them all go. Dump the low level guys back were they were caught. The 4 or 5 ringleaders who might really be dangerous release them from the back of a cargo plane 10,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean. Just say,"They were release in a classified area." Problem solved.
wayne|1.13.09 @ 6:56PM|#
OK, if the decision is made then let's get on with it. Release
them all, or try them, or whatever.
I do have a question though: Several hundred have already been
released, and of those released about 70 have been recaptured on
the battle field. Do we run a catch and release program
forever?
Guy Montag|1.13.09 @ 7:53PM|#
Do we run a catch and release program forever?
It was bad enough under the old administration. It will only be
worse now.
Maybe they can be construction workers in Manhattan?
|1.13.09 @ 8:01PM|#
Maybe they build a large tower from which you con project your cries of "bawk bawk bawk" for the whole country to hear, bedwetter.
Michael Ejercito|1.13.09 @ 8:57PM|#
We've got a "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine in Anglo-American law, and it's a good thing we do, too, but should we really try people in a civilian court who would easilyi convicted on the evidence, but the evidence will be thrown out?
If they were captured in Afghanistan, turn them over to the Afghan
allies.
If they were captured in Iraq, turn them over to the Iraqi
allies.
If they were captured in Israel, turn them over to the Israeli
allies.
Michael Ejercito|1.13.09 @ 8:59PM|#
Rendition to countries that will violate the prisoner's human rights (which is to say, any rendition at all, given where these people were captured) strikes me as a cheap betrayal.
How so?
If you are not supposed to have something, put it back where it was
found.
Guy Montag|1.13.09 @ 11:32PM|#
Maybe they build a large tower from which you con project
your cries of "bawk bawk bawk" for the whole country to hear,
bedwetter.
Was that an adult or the 10 yeearld old boy you lured to your
mommie's basement with Star Wars figurines?
|1.13.09 @ 11:52PM|#
Pretty much like the Bush/Obama meeting of the minds on the
Iraqi withdrawal, now that I think of it. George Bush adopted
Barack Obama's position on closing Guantanamo? I must have missed
that.
Ah, joe. Always with the obtuseness, you card, you. Obama, of
course, has adopted the Bush policy, of withdrawing from Iraq as
and when events dictate. Last I heard, Obama was planning on having
30 - 70,000 troops there after 2011.
Rendition to countries that will violate the prisoner's human
rights (which is to say, any rendition at all, given where these
people were captured) strikes me as a cheap betrayal.
How so?
Why, because the entire objection to Gitmo is that it represents a
violation of the detainee's human rights, just like "extraordinary
rendition" of prisoners to countries who will torture them does.
Solving the Gitmo problem by sending the prisoners to Egypt or Iraq
or Afghanistan is akin to solving the death penalty problem by
releasing death row inmates to a lynch mob.
As for releasing them in Lowell, I applaud (I think) joe's
savoir faire are risking his daughter's well-being to make
a political point. I assure you, though, that Obama knows very well
that if any of these men are released in the US and commit a
violent crime, his administration will be holed below the
waterline. So add that to the list of actions apparently desired by
Obama supporters that
Aint. Gonna. Happen.
|1.14.09 @ 9:23AM|#
Obama, of course, has adopted the Bush policy, of
withdrawing from Iraq as and when events dictate.
Ah, yes, that must be why the Bush administration began the
construction of a series of permanent bases upon the capture of
Iraq; because it was their intention to withdraw all along.
Certainly, they never proposed to maintain a permanent military
presence from which to project power.
As for releasing them in Lowell, I applaud (I think) joe's
savoir faire are risking his daughter's well-being to make a
political point. As a matter of fact, demanding an end to the
Big Brother torture/disappearance state your party has imposed on
this nation is my effort to protect her well-being. I guess with
your contempt for individual freedom and inherent cowdardice, that
just never occurred to you.
Michael Ejercito|1.14.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Solving the Gitmo problem by sending the prisoners to Egypt or Iraq or Afghanistan is akin to solving the death penalty problem by releasing death row inmates to a lynch mob.
Maybe they should have been captured in Canada or Switzerland
instead of Afghanistan or Iraq.
Of course, if they had been captured in Chicago, Illinois, there
would be hardly any difference between sending them to Chicago and
sending them to Baghdad.
zoltan|1.14.09 @ 6:29PM|#
Don't worry Fluffy, Guy Montag saved the day with his "release them at your house" bullshit instead of Gilbert Martin blabbering on with his nonsense. How prescient of you.
wayne|1.14.09 @ 6:49PM|#
How many American soldiers were killed or wounded by the 70-odd
released detainees who were subsequently recaptured in
Iraq/Afghanistan?
I don't know the number, but I would guess it to be at least in the
several dozen range.
Speaking as the father of a soldier currently serving in Baghdad, I
don't want them released. I don't want them tortured, or abused
either; I simply want them detained for the duration of the
conflict.
|1.14.09 @ 8:13PM|#
Ejercito,
I grew up in Chicago and I am shocked, yes shocked that you would
slander Chicago in that manner... Detroit, on the other hand seems
a proper releasing ground.
|1.23.09 @ 9:06AM|#
It would be very interesting to total up the costs of continuing
a base at Guantanamo bay.
Would extracting ourselves cause an unbearable economic hardship on
Cuba that they might soften their view toward us. All the trade
embargoes etc haven't been effective.
Surely there are reasonable alternative locations for a military
base and do away with Guantanamo Cuba.
An economic analysis would be sobering and enlighting for both our
government and Cuba.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245