Obama Closing Guantanamo Bay Indefinitely

[Juan.Camaney]

What are everyone's opinions on President Obama killing Gitmo? What about him banning waterboarding etc?

[93crawler]

I find it very impressive the amount of things he got done in his first official day as President. I agree with Obama on both of these issues. Maybe the rest of the world will start to look to the United States again for moral authority and ethical leadership, as opposed to moral ambiguity, and unethical leadership.

[michaeljohn]

what happened to all thoes terrorists that were supposed to go before tribunals, and subsequently be executed? Shiek Khalid Mohmammed (I think) for one..

[CD]

Guantanamo should never have been operating as they were. So shutting it down is a no-brainer imo. Water boarding is another technique that I think does more harm then good. Most high level interrogators will acknowledge that torture is not the most effective way of getting information. Not only that, but torture allows the entire country to lower itself morally in the world... not a good thing.

[Krasch]

I'm not sorry to see it close EXCEPT for the reason michaeljohn left hanging out there...

What happens to all the prisoners there, all of whom now have even more reason to hate the US and were already suspected in terrorist activities?

Simply let go? To do what?

Closing Gitmo may well turn out to be a great move strategically and a terrible one tactically at the same time. But hopefully not for all of us.

[shiiboi]

I think it's merely a symbolic act. Interrogations and torture will go on in a more secretive way. For the past couple of years, the CIA and the military have been sending suspected terrorists to other countries (i.e. Egypt) where there are no laws against torture. CIA personnel sit in on the interrogations as 'observers.'

[Juan.Camaney]

From what I have read, the terrorist in captivity at Gitmo will be sent to top security federal prisons. A close friend of mine works at one and he says that the security at those prisons is unbelievable. Nothing like you see on Silence of the Lambs with Hannibal...they get a ridiculously small room, like a 6x6, no windows. They are transported in cages and no less than 15 guards have to be with them. They don't get any interaction with anyone...it's pretty bad. However, we are now talking about letting them sue the government for their release? These fucking animals don't deserve rights!

I for one think that G-Bay is one of those things we should keep around. It's a stigma of sorts, but one that shows the rest of the world we ain't fucking around. Sure, many other countries abolished the death penalty and don't resort to too much violence or acts that resemble torture, but the people we are dealing with have no qualms about beheading people that were in their country just to hold cameras up and shoot life there.

I would welcome all terrorists early death by their own hands and around no one innocent. Either that or release them into the general population of the prisons and let some of those good ole boys go to town on them and really give them a cock meat sammich.

In conclusion....a swing and a miss, President Obama. We're going to look weak.

[shiiboi]

From what I have read, the terrorist in captivity at Gitmo will be sent to top security federal prisons.
Is that true?

I thought the reason they were kept at Gitmo was because you can't hold someone indefinitely in a US prison without a court trial. The Gitmo detaines were being held as prisoners of war under military rules.

[Juan.Camaney]

Is that true?

I thought the reason they were kept at Gitmo was because you can't hold someone indefinitely in a US prison without a court trial. The Gitmo detaines were being held as prisoners of war under military rules.
According to the few articles I've read, yeah, that's the rumor. Not official yet, they are still trying to figure it out. You can always give them a bunch of consecutive life sentences and have them die in prison :sad2:

[CD]

According to the few articles I've read, yeah, that's the rumor. Not official yet, they are still trying to figure it out. You can always give them a bunch of consecutive life sentences and have them die in prison :sad2:
And having them rot in prison and possibly be "man-handled" during their years there is worse then the US losing it's moral authority in the world?

[supersatch]

Is that true?

I thought the reason they were kept at Gitmo was because you can't hold someone indefinitely in a US prison without a court trial. The Gitmo detaines were being held as prisoners of war under military rules.

No. Any US base on foreign soil such as Gitmo is property of the US government and therefor US soil. Such exists our right to fly colors over the instilation. So the no court trial does not work.

Whats more, and don't quote me, but I believe that they are being held as POW's pending war crime charges. So their release is for trade during or diplomatically pending the end of the war.

I think the whole idea is a good one but the timing is terrible. The United States has gone so far as to ask other countries if they will hold the prisioners for us. Our goverment seems to have a big problem of acting before they think. Pelosi's Iraq ultimatium, the Gitmo thing, The shutting down of Camps Fallouja and Ramadi. We seem to react to the public's demands too soon and just dig ourselves a deeper hole.

We need a plan before we take action.

Should it be closed? public opinion says yes.
Should it be closed down ASAP? same answer.
But should we close it down immediately and get stuck with a bunch of dangerous prisoners with no place to put them? You be the judge.

"Common sense was an uncommon virtue."

[Indigenous]

I'd like to point out that these "animals" do, actually, deserve rights. Rights that have granted to them by such bothersome documents as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Geneva Convention. Rights that for the most part, they've been denied pretty much across the board for the past eight years.

I agree with Shiiboi in that this is mostly a symbolic act. Well, aside from the fact that this prison was illegal to begin with.

Hopefully, it will be a symbolic act which will show the world that this is no longer George W. Bush's America. That we are ready and willing to fight this war on terrorism the RIGHT way and have moved beyond the old cowboy "we ain't gotta follow no dang international laws, 'cuz we're AMERICA gosh darn it!" mentality that has turned a sizable chunk of the world against us.

[Juan.Camaney]

And having them rot in prison and possibly be "man-handled" during their years there is worse then the US losing it's moral authority in the world?
Morals? In USA? Look at our politicians, man. We have abortion here, we have politicians selling seats, presidents getting BJs, citizens are obese, rapists in our churches, famous people getting away with murder. I don't really understand your question. I mean torture versus getting shanked in the ass by Bubba in Alcatraz daily? I call it a draw.

I'd like to point out that these "animals" do, actually, deserve rights. Rights that have granted to them by such bothersome documents as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Geneva Convention. Rights that for the most part, they've been denied pretty much across the board for the past eight years.

I agree with Shiiboi in that this is mostly a symbolic act. Well, aside from the fact that this prison was illegal to begin with.

Hopefully, it will be a symbolic act which will show the world that this is no longer George W. Bush's America. That we are ready and willing to fight this war on terrorism the RIGHT way and have moved beyond the old cowboy "we ain't gotta follow no dang international laws, 'cuz we're AMERICA gosh darn it!" mentality that has turned a sizable chunk of the world against us.
They are granted rights by law, but to me, they are as bad as pedophiles...they don't "DESERVE" rights. Just a personal opinion.

As far as it being GWB's America, I guess. I know of war crimes being commited in other wars prior to GWB, and any of the veterans or people who serve here can explain what a double tap is if you don't already know. I guess we here on WR agree that it is purely symbolic though.

I'd love to live in a world where we are all moraly well and getting along, but its just not humans' nature.

[Juan.Camaney]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_al_qaida

well, is that a sign of things to come?

[Indigenous]

Given the level of treatment at Gitmo, I wouldn't be surprised if EVERY released prisoner signed up with Al Qaida.

I know if I had been illegally detained, tortured and denied access to legal council for six years, I'd be pretty darn happy to sign up with with any group hell bent on taking down the country responsible for what I went through.

Not that I'm supporting him in any way, but it makes you wonder if we've been creating as many terrorists as we take down.

[fmb]

I hate to see G Bay closed, to a very small extent. Currently, there is no replacement for it. Yes, people didn't like it; however, the terror asses feared the place. They didn't want to go there.

I am concerned the place was closed without a clear path forward for what will happen to the bastards in there. I don't think these people can be properly punished in our criminal justice system because of how they were treated and how some of the information and evidence was taken.

Where will they wind up? My money says these assholes will wind up here in SC in the Charleston, SC Navy brig. It's federal (and military) property.

http://pix.nofrag.com/b/9/d/e5e5c675fffa583c4ccc35d47e87b.jpg (http://pix.nofrag.com/b/9/d/e5e5c675fffa583c4ccc35d47e87b.html)

[Krasch]

I'd like to point out that these "animals" do, actually, deserve rights. Rights that have granted to them by such bothersome documents as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Geneva Convention. Rights that for the most part, they've been denied pretty much across the board for the past eight years.

I agree with Shiiboi in that this is mostly a symbolic act. Well, aside from the fact that this prison was illegal to begin with.

Hopefully, it will be a symbolic act which will show the world that this is no longer George W. Bush's America. That we are ready and willing to fight this war on terrorism the RIGHT way and have moved beyond the old cowboy "we ain't gotta follow no dang international laws, 'cuz we're AMERICA gosh darn it!" mentality that has turned a sizable chunk of the world against us.
Those methods may have turned a sizable chunk of the world against the US, but is the alternative any better?

Option 1: Follow international laws and conventions with your enemy despite the fact that they neither respect nor follow those rules themselves and think nothing of killing thousands of innocent people.

Option 2: Ignore said international laws and conventions where deemed necessary and give the same measure of justice that the terrorists out there would give us.

Option 1 sure will look better to the rest of the world at large, except for the fact that it hamstrings the US with regards to the people that truly need the atitude adjustment. Option 2 on the other hand will tell the terrorists the U.S. is in no mood to be f**ked with at the cost of straining relationships with countries like France and Germany who are STILL friends with the U.S. in any case even if not as close as in years previous. At least you're not going to see France or Germany go to war with the U.S. over Gitmo in either option.

So the real question in the end may well be: Is losing some standing with other countries in the world necessarily bad when they're not ever going to really oppose you in anything other than words if it potentially means that your true enemy may actually reconsider attacking you.

It seems to me the answer is not so nearly black and white as some would make it.

[CD]

Those methods may have turned a sizable chunk of the world against the US, but is the alternative any better?

Option 1: Follow international laws and conventions with your enemy despite the fact that they neither respect nor follow those rules themselves and think nothing of killing thousands of innocent people.

Option 2: Ignore said international laws and conventions where deemed necessary and give the same measure of justice that the terrorists out there would give us.

Option 1 sure will look better to the rest of the world at large, except for the fact that it hamstrings the US with regards to the people that truly need the atitude adjustment. Option 2 on the other hand will tell the terrorists the U.S. is in no mood to be f**ked with at the cost of straining relationships with countries like France and Germany who are STILL friends with the U.S. in any case even if not as close as in years previous. At least you're not going to see France or Germany go to war with the U.S. over Gitmo in either option.

So the real question in the end may well be: Is losing some standing with other countries in the world necessarily bad when they're not ever going to really oppose you in anything other than words if it potentially means that your true enemy may actually reconsider attacking you.

It seems to me the answer is not so nearly black and white as some would make it.
I like how your 2 options fail to take into account what I said earlier. Most interrogation experts will admit that torture is not the best option. It hardens the wills of terrorists, and also breaks the psyche of someone who may really not know anything the interrogator wants to know. And seriously, if you were detained, put in isolation for years, and then tortured for information, by that point you'd say anything to get that treatment to stop... even if you have to make it up.

So please stop saying it's not black and white, when you are ignoring the grey I just said.

So says John McCain (who knows a thing or two about the subject):
First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop.

Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops, who might be captured by the enemy, if not in this war then in the next.

Want me to continue with other names and ranks?

[fmb]

CD, I gave Krasch positive rep for his post. I'm going to have to give you some positive rep for yours. How does that speak for "gray"? Nothing is black and white.

I know you lean toward the more liberal side of things, but it's nice to see you quite McCain. If anyone in our government understands the means and consequences of torture, he'd be at the top of the list. Thanks for the balance.

[CD]

CD, I gave Krasch positive rep for his post. I'm going to have to give you some positive rep for yours. How does that speak for "gray"? Nothing is black and white.

I know you lean toward the more liberal side of things, but it's nice to see you quite McCain. If anyone in our government understands the means and consequences of torture, he'd be at the top of the list. Thanks for the balance.
Thanks. I was going to start naming CIA and FBI bigwigs, but I figured John McCain would probably work best for my example.

A lot of you may think I lean liberal, and to a degree I do, but I'll be the first to admit that the right path isn't to the left OR right... it's somewhere in the middle. Both Obama and McCain had good points, but I just didn't think the closing of Guantanamo was going to be looked at as in anyway a negative. Kind of like what you said earlier:
I am concerned the place was closed without a clear path forward for what will happen to the bastards in there. I don't think these people can be properly punished in our criminal justice system because of how they were treated and how some of the information and evidence was taken.
Nobody questions the fact that the people there were mistreated... the problem you said is what we do with them after the fact. Simple truth is that if that never happened in the first place, we wouldn't be in the pickle we are now in. Other countries may be more inclined to hold those prisoners waiting for trial, and it would also hopefully encourage other middle eastern countries to become more democratic.

On a side note, here are a few of my beliefs so that I can stop being labeled as a lefter...

1) the US taxpayers money should be handled fiscally conservatively
2) the US citizens should not be discriminated against (namely gays)
3) no bailouts for companies that fuck up... it promotes fucking up among CEO's
4) if we are the world leader, let's act like it!
5) I don't have the answer for the unions/no unions labor laws. However, I know that if left unchecked, the employees suffer, while if unions stay then the employers suffer. The answer isn't one or the other... it's somehow in between and I haven't figured that part out yet... Maybe Kulots can help me on that since we've got pretty much every other thing figured out?
6) nobody is above the law. If it's good enough to die for in this countries infancy, it's good enough to follow. That includes terrorists, congressmen, and even the President himself.

[Krasch]

I like how your 2 options fail to take into account what I said earlier. Most interrogation experts will admit that torture is not the best option. It hardens the wills of terrorists, and also breaks the psyche of someone who may really not know anything the interrogator wants to know. And seriously, if you were detained, put in isolation for years, and then tortured for information, by that point you'd say anything to get that treatment to stop... even if you have to make it up.

So please stop saying it's not black and white, when you are ignoring the grey I just said.

So says John McCain (who knows a thing or two about the subject):
First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop.

Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops, who might be captured by the enemy, if not in this war then in the next.

Want me to continue with other names and ranks?
While I freely admit torture will harden the will of INCARCERATED terrorists, I would suggest there is at least the possibility of it reducing the will of those more rational ones out there in the wild.

After all if you're a crook, who are you going to rob? A granny you know is helpless. or a granny you know will bust a cap in yer ass given half a chance? I'd take granny #1 myself as would most people. Even if for only tactical reasons they're a softer, easier target.

As for mistreatment of prisoners endangering the troops, that would assume the terrorists would be all nice to them and such if prisoners were not mistreated by the U.S. And THAT is quite probably a non-sequiteur. If they are already perfectly willing to kill thousands of non-com civiliajns in attacks, what reason do we have to believe they'd be any kinder to armed troops?

Sure, it's possible.

Somehow I doubt it.

Which is a large part of why there's no easy solution here.

[CD]

While I freely admit torture will harden the will of INCARCERATED terrorists, I would suggest there is at least the possibility of it reducing the will of those more rational ones out there in the wild.
You mean the rational ones that suicide bomb Army base camps or supermarkets in civilian zones?

After all if you're a crook, who are you going to rob? A granny you know is helpless. or a granny you know will bust a cap in yer ass given half a chance? I'd take granny #1 myself as would most people. Even if for only tactical reasons they're a softer, easier target.
Bad example on so many levels. Nobody in this thread debates the sheer craziness of these terrorists, and yet, to go against my argument, you are turning a terrorist into simple robber. Bad call Krasch.

As for mistreatment of prisoners endangering the troops, that would assume the terrorists would be all nice to them and such if prisoners were not mistreated by the U.S. And THAT is quite probably a non-sequiteur. If they are already perfectly willing to kill thousands of non-com civilians in attacks, what reason do we have to believe they'd be any kinder to armed troops?
Argue John McCain on that. But since I happen to agree with him, I'll bite. How about this... when a person brutally kills a 2 year old child, is someone allowed by law to then kill the person responsible? No? Ok, so since killing someone is against the law, 2 wrongs don't make a right. I guess to you, in extreme times, we should bend or break the law, but at what time do those bends or breaks go back to the original way? You can't answer that honestly, because in history, no civilization/ruler has ever relinquished those expanded powers.

[kulotsalot]

So I guess you guys all believe that IF you ever end up in Gitmo you are FOR SURE 100% GUILTY?

I'm just thinking that if someone innocent ends up in there and is subjected to all these torture tactics, then you're basically just giving the innocent person's family etc. more motivation to be hateful towards the US due to what you are doing to that innocent person, correct?

[Krasch]

So I guess you guys all believe that IF you ever end up in Gitmo you are FOR SURE 100% GUILTY?

I'm just thinking that if someone innocent ends up in there and is subjected to all these torture tactics, then you're basically just giving the innocent person's family etc. more motivation to be hateful towards the US due to what you are doing to that innocent person, correct?
Oh no, I totally agree with you here.

I'm not advocating either solution as some kind of panacea. There are risks and problems with keeping Gitmo just as there are with getting rid of it.

I honestly don't know what the best option is, if there is such a thing as "best" in this situation. And I really don't envy Obama, Bush or anyone else who would have to tangle with this issue.

[CD]

I'm not advocating either solution as some kind of panacea. There are risks and problems with keeping Gitmo just as there are with getting rid of it.

I honestly don't know what the best option is, if there is such a thing as "best" in this situation. And I really don't envy Obama, Bush or anyone else who would have to tangle with this issue.
Call me slow, but it sounded like in your previous posts that your option would be to keep it open, because losing face in the world is the better option.

Funny... I went back and read your posts, and I keep getting the distinct impression that you'd keep it open because the end justifies the means.

[Krasch]

Call me slow, but it sounded like in your previous posts that your option would be to keep it open, because losing face in the world is the better option.

Funny... I went back and read your posts, and I keep getting the distinct impression that you'd keep it open because the end justifies the means.
Then perhaps you missed my very first post on the subject...

"I'm not sorry to see it close EXCEPT for the reason michaeljohn left hanging out there...

What happens to all the prisoners there, all of whom now have even more reason to hate the US and were already suspected in terrorist activities?

Simply let go? To do what?

Closing Gitmo may well turn out to be a great move strategically and a terrible one tactically at the same time. But hopefully not for all of us."

To be honest I can see pluses and minuses to both options. And I sure as hell don't know what the answer is. On the one hand I believe in the rule of law and the justice system, one the other I see how that system fails to protect us on a daily basis by all-too short sentences, early parole, and lenient treatment compared to most countries. And that's with regular criminals, let alone terrorists.

Like I said, I do not in any way envy the people who have to make decisions like this.

[Juan.Camaney]

So I guess you guys all believe that IF you ever end up in Gitmo you are FOR SURE 100% GUILTY?

I'm just thinking that if someone innocent ends up in there and is subjected to all these torture tactics, then you're basically just giving the innocent person's family etc. more motivation to be hateful towards the US due to what you are doing to that innocent person, correct?
Err on the side of caution, if you ask me. Personally, if you end up in Guantanamo, there is a pretty good reason for it, and that usually is that the government has had you on their sights for a while and finally caught up to your ass.

[93crawler]

Err on the side of caution, if you ask me. Personally, if you end up in Guantanamo, there is a pretty good reason for it, and that usually is that the government has had you on their sights for a while and finally caught up to your ass.
Nope, wrong. Watch the movie, "Taxi to the Darkside." In the movie, they detail the abuses that occurred at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram. They also chronicle the wrongful detainment of several prisoners at all three facilities. The movie is extensively researched, and thoroughly documented. It's also backed up by actual witness accounts, expert CIA, and military experts.

There were a number of people who were wrongfully accused of just being in the wrong place, at that wrong time. Take the titles inspiration for example, an innocent teenage taxi driver, who was wrongfully imprisoned by a couple of Afghanni warlords looking to obtain money by alerting US military authorities about potential terrorists. They interview a number of detainees at Guantanamo who were wrongfully imprisoned.

Closing Guantanamo will send the message to the world that we don't abandon our values when we are challenged. Question for those of you who favor keeping it open. If we abandon our values when we are faced with daunting challenges, are they really values at that point? Are values only relevant when they serve our purpose?

As far as "what we should do with them?" I think the maximum security military prisons in the country would be the best bet. They could be tried in very restricted courts, but given a fair trial. Regardless of what these supposed terrorists may have done, they deserve at least the right to a fair trial.

Face it, Guantanamo only serves to enrage the potential terrorist even further when they see what the "Evil US" does. Also, like I've already stated, released detainees will hate the US even further, after what they have been subjected to. This is already evident, in a number of the former detainees joining Al Qaeda, one of them even recently appeared on an Al Qaeda video.

Krasch, are you really a Canadian? Honestly, if you are actually a Canadian, then you can't possibly like living in such a liberal country. Maybe you should just move to the US? That way, you could vote on everything that you continually comment on.

[kulotsalot]

Krasch, are you really a Canadian? Honestly, if you are actually a Canadian, then you can't possibly like living in such a liberal country. Maybe you should just move to the US? That way, you could vote on everything that you continually comment on.

Dude, can these types of remarks. YOU KNOW this is frowned upon, so why do you do it?! I don't understand you guys. We keep reminding, you keep doing anyway, and then you wonder why threads end up getting derailed and eventually closed. :rolleyes:

Yeah, there are conservative-minded Canadians just as there are liberal-minded ones, just like there are people on both sides of the coin in any country you can think of. He is entitled to his opinion as am I. So what's your point? (Don't bother answering. This is completely rhetorical.)

[Juan.Camaney]

Nope, wrong. Watch the movie, "Taxi to the Darkside." In the movie, they detail the abuses that occurred at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram. They also chronicle the wrongful detainment of several prisoners at all three facilities. The movie is extensively researched, and thoroughly documented. It's also backed up by actual witness accounts, expert CIA, and military experts.
Just like the 9-11 videos were, eh?

[Car Enthusiast]

i don't see what is wrong with detainee's suing for there release, if we don't have evidence to hold them then they should be released right?

[Krasch]

Dude, can these types of remarks. YOU KNOW this is frowned upon, so why do you do it?! I don't understand you guys. We keep reminding, you keep doing anyway, and then you wonder why threads end up getting derailed and eventually closed. :rolleyes:

Yeah, there are conservative-minded Canadians just as there are liberal-minded ones, just like there are people on both sides of the coin in any country you can think of. He is entitled to his opinion as am I. So what's your point? (Don't bother answering. This is completely rhetorical.)
Thank you sir...

For the uninformed, our federal government at present is actually pretty much the equivalent to the U.S.'s Republican Party, and I've voted for them since the early 90's. The leftist parties will likely attempt soon to bring down the minority government, but there is a LARGE amount of public resistance to the idea, even in such relatively liberal cities as Toronto where I happen to live...

(Our mayor on the other hand is totally another issue, him I can't wait to see leave)

On the subject of Gitmo, I'm not sure potential terrorists will think any better of us even if Gitmo closes. Seems like the inverse of preaching to the choir to me. That being said, while I'm not sure we're better off closing it, and MIGHT in fact be worse off, I'd rather see it closed just for humanitarian reasons.

Of course at the same time, I also favour dealing with those actually caught engaging in terrorist activities by the introduction of several 7.62mm projectiles entering their skulls at high velocity.

[Juan.Camaney]

kulots is female, guy

[Krasch]

kulots is female, guy
Oops, pardon my error...

Colour me embarrassed...

[joerockhead]

I will agree that Water boarding should be stopped. Everyone knows we tried Germans for doing that technique to US Soldiers.

As for GITMO -

I would really like to see proof that it created more hatred in the world then most of the extremists already have for the USA. Show me factual numbers. You are going off of the Media, and the Media is as much a liar as the US Government.

As for the number of innocent people in GITMO, yes, there probably are. And that sucks for them. But it is only a few and not anywhere near the number of people the MEDIA claim. However, they are still there and they do have hatred now. That is understandable.
The Majority of Detainees are very evil bad men. Many of these where the leaders of the attacking forces and had items on them that provided the reasons as to why they where sent to GITMO and not some other minor location, or simply let go. (Yes, many of the fighters that are captured are let go, as they are only fighting to keep from being killed by the radicals leaders.

Bringing these lowly bastards to US Soil will require them to be tried. Fair? Doubtful. And I feel for the lawyer that gets assigned to defend them.
I know that there is talk of bringing some to Florence, Colorado, and sticking them in the MAX.

Also, for those that do not know, there is already proof that prisoners released from GITMO, and give to Saudi Arabia, have left the programs they promised they would participate in, and have joined Al Quida. And there where people that where already members and released as a good faith.

We should send them all back to Afghanistan, all at once and now. Drop them on the Governments door step. From 30,000 feet out the back of the Air Force transports.

As for as Horrible treatment. -
They get three meals a day that meet their religious standards, given times to Pray throughout the day, showers, clean toilets, and area to play or do physical activity.

How many of you want to know what any American Prisoner gets??

[Krasch]

I will agree that Water boarding should be stopped. Everyone knows we tried Germans for doing that technique to US Soldiers.

As for GITMO -

I would really like to see proof that it created more hatred in the world then most of the extremists already have for the USA. Show me factual numbers. You are going off of the Media, and the Media is as much a liar as the US Government.

As for the number of innocent people in GITMO, yes, there probably are. And that sucks for them. But it is only a few and not anywhere near the number of people the MEDIA claim. However, they are still there and they do have hatred now. That is understandable.
The Majority of Detainees are very evil bad men. Many of these where the leaders of the attacking forces and had items on them that provided the reasons as to why they where sent to GITMO and not some other minor location, or simply let go. (Yes, many of the fighters that are captured are let go, as they are only fighting to keep from being killed by the radicals leaders.

Bringing these lowly bastards to US Soil will require them to be tried. Fair? Doubtful. And I feel for the lawyer that gets assigned to defend them.
I know that there is talk of bringing some to Florence, Colorado, and sticking them in the MAX.

Also, for those that do not know, there is already proof that prisoners released from GITMO, and give to Saudi Arabia, have left the programs they promised they would participate in, and have joined Al Quida. And there where people that where already members and released as a good faith.

We should send them all back to Afghanistan, all at once and now. Drop them on the Governments door step. From 30,000 feet out the back of the Air Force transports.

As for as Horrible treatment. -
They get three meals a day that meet their religious standards, given times to Pray throughout the day, showers, clean toilets, and area to play or do physical activity.

How many of you want to know what any American Prisoner gets??
OK, I'll bite... What do they get by comparison?

And for the record, I'd like to see some numbers regarding proof that it created more hatred in the world then most of the extremists already have for the USA as well. I'm open to the idea that it did, but I'm curious to see how much it did, if it di at all.

Kinda a Mythbusters curiosity along the lines of "can you actually polish a turd?" (And amazingly yes you can, to a high gloss, without polishes or waxes...

[fmb]

Where will they wind up? My money says these assholes will wind up here in SC in the Charleston, SC Navy brig. It's federal (and military) property.
Today, I found this in my local paper.January 27, 2009

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) -- South Carolina Republican lawmakers are
asking President Obama to reverse his decision to close the
Guantanamo Bay military prison.

Members of the state Senate Republican Caucus also said in a
resolution introduced Tuesday they don't want any detainees
currently at Guantanamo sent to the brig at the Charleston Naval
Base.

The brig has been mentioned as a possible location for detainees
once the Guantanamo facility is closed.

Newberry Senator Ronnie Cromer says it's safer to hold suspected
enemy combatants outside the United States.

In his first week in office, Obama ordered the Guantanamo Bay
prison to be closed within a year.

Ali al-Marri is currently being held at the Charleston brig. The
Qatar native is the only accused enemy combatant currently held on
U.S. soil.

[joerockhead]

OK, I'll bite... What do they get by comparison?........


If they are not immediately Executed?
They are tortured - Whipping or Beatings, they are forced to live like animals and are give less then edible food.

There have not been many reports, because those that had survived the last few years, the Media never wanted to say anything, as they did not want the world to believe the Islamic Extremest would ever do something worse the the US.

[Krasch]

If they are not immediately Executed?
They are tortured - Whipping or Beatings, they are forced to live like animals and are give less then edible food.

There have not been many reports, because those that had survived the last few years, the Media never wanted to say anything, as they did not want the world to believe the Islamic Extremest would ever do something worse the the US.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of American Prisoners in American Prisons, why THEY get by comparison...

As for American Prisoners of Islamic Terrorists, yeah that's much what I expected. After all, did they (or do they still) not have cutting one's hand off as a punishment for theft?

[supersatch]

There's gotta be someone on webrats that went to prison. I'd like to hear that comparison too. Speak up!

[ddoubleez]

what happened to all thoes terrorists that were supposed to go before tribunals, and subsequently be executed? Shiek Khalid Mohmammed (I think) for one..

They are processing them....

What about these guys:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/albania801/index.html

[joerockhead]

I was referring to POW's, not American's in American Prisons.

[ravenshrike]

What are everyone's opinions on President Obama killing Gitmo? What about him banning waterboarding etc?
Well, given that he's killing Gitmo but keeping renditions in place one would assume that this means everyone that would be sent to Gitmo will instead just be renditioned or stuck on a freight ship in international waters where the constitution has no effect. So really, it's a net loss for human rights.

[ronnym]

Everyone is Pennsylvania must be kicking themselves for voting John Murtha back in...he has put out the invitation for the prisoners to come to his district.

Funny thing about Gitmo, there never has been any torture practiced there. It is just something that terrorists and liberals say enough times that eventually people will take it as fact. The terrorists are the ones with no problem practicing torture.