I need an answer from an informed liberal?

[HogTrash]

What is the reason the left believe's Gitmo should be closed?

I was stationed there for 6 months in the MC and their accommodations are actually better than what I lived in other than I wasn't locked up.

I have absolutely no idea why the terrorists are being moved from what appears to be a very safe and secure place.

[gabosaurus]

What is the reason the left believe's Gitmo should be closed?

I was stationed there for 6 months in the MC and their accommodations are actually better than what I lived in other than I wasn't locked up.

I have absolutely no idea why the terrorists are being moved from what appears to be a very safe and secure place.

Obviously you are joking. We have seen the photos. We have read the details. Don't try to BS us.

[HogTrash]

Obviously you are joking. We have seen the photos. We have read the details. Don't try to BS us.Seriously!....I have no idea what you are talking about.

Could you please elaborate?

[Kathianne]

What is the reason the left believe's Gitmo should be closed?

I was stationed there for 6 months in the MC and their accommodations are actually better than what I lived in other than I wasn't locked up.

I have absolutely no idea why the terrorists are being moved from what appears to be a very safe and secure place.

Well I'm not 'liberal' but I do follow the news once in awhile. The latest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6481071/Guantnamo-suspects-want-to-stay-say-officials.html


Guantánamo suspects want to stay, say officials

As President Barack Obama's deadline to close Guantánamo looms, some occupants of the notorious detention centre would rather prolong their stay than be sent to maximum security prisons on the US mainland, according to camp officials.

By Alex Spillius in Guantánamo Bay
Published: 8:46PM GMT 01 Nov 2009


Despite its reputation, the regime at the Pentagon facility on Cuba's southern coast offers privileges that would not be enjoyed at the federal "supermax" prison at Florence, Colorado, the likely alternative for the most dangerous al-Qaeda suspects.

Sensitive to criticism that the detention centre was not meeting international standards, the Pentagon has gradually improved living conditions at Guantánamo.

Adm Thomas Copeman, the commander, now confidently describes it as a "model detention facility" in terms of environment, though he refused to be drawn on the policy and legality of detentions that have lasted for nearly eight years, in most cases without trial.

Peter King, a Republican congressman who visited earlier this year and wants the prison kept open, said that "if there's any scandal at Guantánamo, it is that the detainees are treated too well".

The 221 remaining inmates receive between four and 20 hours outdoor recreation in the Caribbean sun and anything from weekly to almost unlimited access to DVDs and receive three newspapers (USA Today, plus one Egyptian and one Saudi Arabian title) twice a week. Every bed has an arrow pointing towards Mecca and every cell a prayer rug.

Adm Copeman said "generally speaking the rules are about the same" for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and the 15 other "high value detainees", who are held at Camp 7, which is out of bounds to the media.

The detainees' diet is exclusively Middle Eastern and halal, in observance of regional and religious sensitivities. Dates, olive oil and honey are provided daily and pita bread is baked on the premises. They drink the same bottled water as the prison's staff and have the same access as other prisoners to 16,000 books and 1,600 magazines held at the library.

An escorted tour of Guantánamo by the Daily Telegraph revealed that Camp 7's requested reading included Gardens of the World by Mick Hales, Fine Art Flower Photography by Tony Sweet and a copy of Birds and Blooms magazine, material in keeping with nature-bound leisure pursuits approved by conservative Islam. Two volumes of the Tales of the Arabian Nights were also in the pile. Tomes on Islamic theory are in plentiful supply and demand, said library staff.

At the low security Camp 4, detainees could be seen sitting in the yard chatting and hanging up their laundry. A new gravel football field was recently completed.

At Florence, Colorado, prisoners would also spend 22 ½ hours a day in a 9ft by 9ft cell with the only natural light coming from a skylight outside.

Exercise would be limited to an hour and a half indoors five days a week and they would have minimal contact with others, including the 33 other international terrorists held there. An official study found that most inmates suffer psychological trauma from the severe isolation.

Since 2005 an Arab American cultural adviser, who for security reasons is identified only by the name of Zak, has been employed at Guantánamo to liaise with detainees.

He said that some detainees would rather stay put than go on trial in the US, where they would probably receive a life sentence or could wait years for a death sentence to be carried out.

"They know there will not be the same privileges as here," he said. "Given the choice of being sentenced forever in Guantánamo or moved to supermax, it is 'no, can I stay in Gitmo?'. Here they can be outside, they can smell the sea."

Camp guards and senior officers said similar feedback had been received from detainees fearing a tougher life in US jails or back home. The claims could not be independently verified as the Pentagon does not allow journalists to interview detainees, while lawyers for several prisoners did not return requests for comment.

....

In 2006:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2521953&page=1


A Growing Threat at Guantanamo? Detainees Fatten Up
Due to their high calorie diet detainees held in Guantanamo Bay are significantly gaining weight.

MICHAEL MELIA
Oct. 3, 2006 —

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - Fueled by a high-calorie diet, detainees at Guantanamo Bay are becoming fat.

Most of the prisoners arrived at the military prison in southeast Cuba slightly underweight but have since gained an average of 20 pounds (9 kilograms), and most are now "normal to mildly overweight or mildly obese," Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, spokesman for the detention facilities, said Monday.

One detainee's weight has almost doubled to 410 pounds (186 kilograms), Durand said.

U.S. officials assess whether detainees are overweight by calculating their body-mass index, a measurement of weight in relation to height.

Human rights groups attribute the weight gain to lack of mobility in the detainees' small cells. They also cited accounts of released detainees who said they were at times allowed to exercise fewer than three times a week.

The detainees' meals total a whopping 4,200 calories per day. U.S. government dietary guidelines for weight maintenance recommend 2,000 to 3,000 calories per day.

Inmates at U.S. federal prisons receive about 2,900 calories a day, said Michael Truman, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, who added that weight gain is studied only where it poses a health risk, though it does not appear widespread.

"Most of them keep themselves in pretty good shape," he said.

Durand said detainees are served a wide variety of food and expected to choose what appeals to them.

"The detainees are advised that they are offered more food than necessary to provide choice and variety, and that consuming all the food they are offered will result in weight gain," he said....

In 2003:

http://www.slate.com/id/2083612/


The Guantanamo Thirteen
Packing on the pounds at America's toughest prison.
By Manny Howard

Posted Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 2:52 PM ET

Is America the only country in the world that could run a prison camp where prisoners gain weight? Between April 2002 and March 2003, the Joint Task Force returned to Afghanistan 19 of the approximately 664 men (from 42 countries) who have been held in the detention camps at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. Upon leaving, it has been reported, each man received two parting gifts: a brand new copy of the Koran as well as a new pair of jeans. Not the act of generosity that it might first appear, the jeans, at least, turned out to be a necessity. During their stay (14-months on average), the detainees (nearly all of them) had gained an average of 13 pounds...

[Trigg]

Other than they're being held without a trial, I don't see a problem with the accommodations.

Unlike gabby, I haven't seen any photos that make the place look bad. It looks spacious and clean to me in the pictures.

[Sitarro]

Looks pretty special to me........ better than the beaches in Cali for sure and no doubt a lot safer.:laugh2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izme63doBQI

[Silver]

Seriously!....I have no idea what you are talking about.

Could you please elaborate?

Obviously, she has no freekin' clue what shes talking about....

I was there for a little over 12 months...Leeward Point.....great duty, limited liberty, and of course the missile crisis.....

too bad this island paradise is wasted on castro and his assholes....

[HogTrash]

Other than they're being held without a trial, I don't see a problem with the accommodations.

Unlike gabby, I haven't seen any photos that make the place look bad. It looks spacious and clean to me in the pictures.POW's don't usually have trials unless they are charged with war crimes.

POW's are normally held untill the war is over and then released back to their respective countries.

If they are to be charged with war crimes the trials usually take place after the war has ended.

Seeing how this is kind of a unique situation I can understand the confusion on how best to handle it.

What I can't figure out is why liberals object to holding them at Gitmo...The acommadations are better than adequate.

What's the problem with Gitmo.....Can no one explain this to me???

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. I say we close Gitmo, and bring all them bastards to a grey jail cell, maybe even a basement cell, limit their time in *the yard*, and start feeding them jail house rot gut, everyone else gets.:coffee:
2. They got it too good where they are.
3. And draw an arrow, up a wall pointing at a drawing of a butt.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[PostmodernProphet]

I need an answer from an informed liberal?

where on earth are you going to find one of THOSE!

[glockmail]

I think we ought to transport then to San fran sicko, and let the queers deal with them. :lol:

[Jeff]

I think we ought to transport then to San fran sicko, and let the queers deal with them. :lol:

No the homosexuals would derive too much pleasure. Let them sweat this out awhile :laugh2:

[HogTrash]

I'm starting to believe liberals bitch about Gitmo just to be bitching about something since none seem to know why they want to close Gitmo.

Our dearly beloved president even went so far as to include a Gitmo closure in his campaign promises even though nobody seems to know why.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Perhaps he read the books aimed at corporate America

"If it Ain't Broke, Break It"

followed by

"Now Break All the Rules"

not realizing these books were aimed at running a corporation instead of running a country.

[emmett]

OK.....While I am not a Liberal I will provide a one sentence, easy to understand answer to the man's question.....since he can;t seem to get a straight one from a liberal (no participation).

ANSWER:

To cause more political bickery, rhetorical shit garbage and grief so as to direct attention away from their ploy to railroad through their Health Care Plan.

[hjmick]

:lmao: "Informed liberal."

[Gaffer]

:lmao: "Informed liberal."

My sentiments exactly.

[MtnBiker]

The premise of the question negates a logical answer.

[revelarts]

What is the reason the left believe's Gitmo should be closed?

I was stationed there for 6 months in the MC and their accommodations are actually better than what I lived in other than I wasn't locked up.

I have absolutely no idea why the terrorists are being moved from what appears to be a very safe and secure place.

I'll take a shot at it. I'm not a liberal or left but I want it closed as well. I'll give you a few reasons.

It's not because of shabby accommodations.
Not sure what you mean by "safe and secure".

But several people have died in Gitmo and it was (is?) the site of torture/enhanced interrogation. Not so sure who it's safe for. Just recently it's been revealed that 2 of the supposed suicides.. uh.. were not. Some Soldiers at gitmo report[--harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368--] that they saw the detainees go into camp NO and come out dead. Also that the camp C.O. told everyone that they would "hear a a story about suicide in the news and to keep there mouth shut about what they know to the contrary". the Physical evidence and lack thereof also points to possible torture/"enhanced interrogation".
So... should that place be closed because several soldiers, officers, red cross and others have testified that torture/"enhanced interrogation" was being used there and others reported that the techniques that where used there where exported to Abu Ghraib? Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt that it has stopped in Gitmo long ago. Gitmo is still an international symbol of human rights abuses no matter how tidy and clubish it may have become lately.

that's probably #1

#2 has to be what Trigg mentioned.
"Being held without trial."
this is America... say it anit soo..:eek:
people being held without trial.
but the constitution says, Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; ...; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ....

Not to mention Amendment 6, Speedy trail, access to witnesses, "and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" and all that.

the same Constitution that says we have the right to bear arms, and freedom of and not "from" religion.

Now the founders believed these rights where inalienable human rights that came from God. Not just rights for "Americans". I understand the line some try to draw here but I think it's false or at best very weak.

As far as the detainees being P.O.W.s, well neither Bush nor Obama have every declared them P.O.Ws. POWs are subject to the rules of the Geneva convention and our own higher military rules. the previous administration never wanted them considered POWs because of the moral and legal restrictions it imposed. they didn't want them considered criminals to go to federal courts because the administration didn't want the federal courts to have oversight either.
That's why they are at Gitmo. It's why Bush then, and now Obama is trying to find some misty middle ground, some legal cover that allows them be despots without looking like despots. Or some prefer call it "to protect the American people".

A better question might be why was Gitmo opened in the 1st place?

Anyway they are not POW's they are "enemy combatants" or "non state belligerents" is another term i think I've heard. The way many seem to regard them i think 'supervillians" would be a good term.

But "enemy combatants" really don't have a good set of rule to cover them yet.

The other bit in the news about them being picked up on the "field of battle" is just false. At this point only 1 -Omar Katar(sp)- was actually captured in a fire fight. All of the the other remaining detainees where delivered to US forces via ransoms or picked up off the street and pulled from homes etc.. Not caught in the act of anything. 95% of all the detainees where not originally seized by the military.

So the detainees are and always have been just suspected terrorist. And without a trial how do you prove it? without being picked up of the st caught in the act how do we know? All they are at this point are SUSPECTS by any fair stretch. Bush has released over 500 on his watch after the administration, military courts and federal courts looked at the evidence against them. Obama's crew has released 46 so far after looking at the evidence. Judges both conservative and liberal who have had to look at the cases 1st hand can't believe that many of people where held AT ALL.

Now just on a factual basis about the remaining detainees. there are about 200 left. of those there's about 100 that have been cleared by a recent task force as O.K. to be release. that mean ..um ...they are not terrorist.
So what's left is about 40 guys that the administration/DOD feels it can charge. I say OK fine charge them already.
Then there's the group that's the problem. the group that the administration/DOD/US intelligence feels they can't convict .. i mean charge.
But THEY STILL WANT TO HOLD PREEMPTIVELY FOR FUTURE CRIMES. Is it crazy to say that that idea is unamerican and cowardly? We release huge amounts of criminals daily from prison. We leave 100's of women with little recourse from stalkers and old boyfriends/husbands except by putting restraining orders on guys intent on killing those women. Why? Because we only imprison for crimes committed, not intended crimes or future crimes.

Ok i'm bout done, so to put it simply
Gitmo should be closed because:
-it's an international symbol of Americans torture.
-it's the only place the U.S can openly hold people indefinitely without charges.
-it's the only place the Administration could contrive to send suspects outside of the reach of federal courts and Geneva conventions and U.S. military codes.
-its should have never been opened.
-it has created an environment where soldiers were compelled to participate in activities a against the law, their consciences and to cover up others misdeeds.
-it perpetuates notions that there is a valid 3rd legal system outside of the U.S. Constitution's limits.

peace ya'll

[Gaffer]

If they brought the prisoners here they could still be tortured. You think anyone is going to get access to these prisoners?\ any more than they get access now?

And secondly, These are enemy combatants, not US citizens. The Constitution DOES NOT apply to them. They are foreign fighters and terrorists. They were captured in wartime operations. They didn't rob a liquor store. Many of them are torturers themselves. An article from a liberal media does not mean anyone was killed.

If your not a liberal you sure as hell talk like one.

[Kathianne]

Obviously you are joking. We have seen the photos. We have read the details. Don't try to BS us.

Funny, those 'detainees' must have the same IQ you ascribe to those who disagree with you:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Guantanamo-Prisoners-We-want-to-stay-in-Guantanamo-80911687.html


Guantanamo Prisoners: We want to stay in Guantanamo
By: MARK HEMINGWAY
Commentary Staff Writer
01/07/10 11:43 AM EST

Buried in a blog item by Newsweek's ace reporter Michael Isikoff is a bombshell. Appararently lawyers for Guantanamo detainees want to keep their clients in Guantanamo, rather than transfer them to the Obama administration's proposed new prison in Illinois:


But the final irony is that many of the detainees may not even want to be transferred to Thomson and could conceivably even raise their own legal roadblocks to allow them to stay at Gitmo.

Falkoff notes that many of his clients, while they clearly want to go home, are at least being held under Geneva Convention conditions in Guantánamo. At Thomson, he notes, the plans call for them to be thrown into the equivalent of a "supermax" security prison under near-lockdown conditions.

"As far as our clients are concerned, it's probably preferable for them to remain at Guantánamo," he says.

The strident left-wing critiques of the Guantanamo facility have all centered around the fact that detainees there are horribly mistreated and conditions unbearable. But when push comes to shove, it would seem concerns about Guantanamo are overblown, and the prisoners there know that being held under the Geneva conventions outside the U.S. is much preferable to a maximum security prison in the U.S.

For more, Michael Goldfarb has more thoughts on this and the rest of Obama's Guantanamo plans at The Weekly Standard and Jennifer Rubin also has some valuable insight over at Commentary.

[revelarts]

If they brought the prisoners here they could still be tortured. You think anyone is going to get access to these prisoners?\ any more than they get access now?

And secondly, These are enemy combatants, not US citizens. The Constitution DOES NOT apply to them. They are foreign fighters and terrorists. They were captured in wartime operations. They didn't rob a liquor store. Many of them are torturers themselves. An article from a liberal media does not mean anyone was killed.

If your not a liberal you sure as hell talk like one.

the question was about Gitmo, I don't want bad prisons anywhere though.
---
Your not saying that Torture is good are you? I'm not clear on what your saying about that.
---
there are SUSPECTED foreign fighters and terrorist? not "caught on the battlefield" just in a foreign country.
---
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And Gaffer we just can't deny facts just because we don't like the messenger. Either the fact are true or they are not. Liberal or Conservative media they all lie from time to time. But mostly they try to get real dirt on the other side and cover there own side crap however this story originated form soldiers at Gitmo who decided it was time to speak up.

[revelarts]

And I'm not a liberal. that's funny, Unless the Constitution is liberal now. Over on another board I'm a strange conservative fundamentalist christian whose anti-war and sometimes anti big corporations.

it's hard to pin me down.:dance:

just to give you an outline i'm:
100 PRO LIFE
Anti-Euthanasia
Anti-death penalty -if the system was close to fair i'd be for it but sadly it's not-
Pro 2nd Amendment -concealed carry -yes auto um yes
Pro individual and parental rights and privacy above gov't intrusion
Anti-preemptive war, pro defensive war
Anti-big federal Gov't
anti-Corporate welfare
anti- multi national Corporation privilege and abuses
pro unions -mostly
anti gay marriage
pro English as national language
pro states and local rights over federal outside of the constitutional bounds
anti U.N. as anything other than a place to to talk.
Anti nafta, gat and a bunch of other treaties.
i read comic books... and like chocolate and i'm almost a vegetarian and my feet stink.

look I won't bore ya but mainly I'm
Pro Bible, (love, peace and righteousness to all peoples etc) Pro Constitution and 10 amendments.
How that all falls out in peoples conservative v liberal tribalism i dunno. i'm not looking to join a tribe though dude.

[revelarts]

..... Falkoff notes that many of his clients, while they clearly want to go home, are at least being held under Geneva Convention conditions in Guantánamo. At Thomson, he notes, the plans call for them to be thrown into the equivalent of a "supermax" security prison under near-lockdown conditions.

"As far as our clients are concerned, it's probably preferable for them to remain at Guantánamo," he says.

The strident left-wing critiques of the Guantanamo facility have all centered around the fact that detainees there are horribly mistreated and conditions unbearable.....

I think "...while they clearly want to go home..." are the most important words here. And as far a conditions NOW are concerned, i'm not sure what "Strident left-wingers" have said but I'm very happy to hear that conditions are better than they were. Denial on any front about the problems or apparent improvements doesn't help the discussion.

[DragonStryk72]

What is the reason the left believe's Gitmo should be closed?

I was stationed there for 6 months in the MC and their accommodations are actually better than what I lived in other than I wasn't locked up.

I have absolutely no idea why the terrorists are being moved from what appears to be a very safe and secure place.

They have no problem with the Structure, which is all that you have mentioned in your OP here. The problem is the torture... oh, wait, "stress positions" (aka the total pussy's way of saying torture), the lack of habeus corpus, the bullshit attempt to reclassify as "enemy combatants" to get around the Geneva Conventions, take your pick. And it isn't just the left, either.

The intel we get from these practices is oft wrong, because apparently, people being tortured will say whatever it takes to make the hurting stop, even if they know it is an out and out lie.

Worse is the lack of moral and ethical character exhibited. We are better than the terrorists, so why are we abandoning our beliefs to go after them? They number a little under the population of Hawaii, and I told you that Hawaii was getting ready to invade us, you wouldn't take me seriously. Moreover, you shouldn't, because the whole idea that they could take us is beyond laughable, we would crush them easily.

Another line of thought goes that the presence of Gitmo works as a recruiting poster for terrorists, because we are showing them the demon they kept calling us. We are better than this, so much better, and I'm sorry that you believe we are not.

[SassyLady]

What is the reason the left believe's Gitmo should be closed?

I was stationed there for 6 months in the MC and their accommodations are actually better than what I lived in other than I wasn't locked up.

I have absolutely no idea why the terrorists are being moved from what appears to be a very safe and secure place.

Well, HT, I'm not a leftie, but if would save taxpayer money to close it down, I would be for that. Put the enemy combatants in the prison population and see how they fare.

[Kathianne]

Well, HT, I'm not a leftie, but if would save taxpayer money to close it down, I would be for that. Put the enemy combatants in the prison population and see how they fare.

It will not save money:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/obama_budget_to_include_237_mi.html


Obama budget includes $237 million to buy Illinois prison for Guantanamo detainees. UPDATED
By Lynn Sweet on February 1, 2010 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

President Obama on Monday will propose a $3.8-trillion fiscal 2011 federal budget that includes $237 million for the purchase and upgrading of a prison in Illinois to house detainees now at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.

Obama sends his spending blueprint to Congress, with the money to buy the nearly vacant Thomson Correctional Center in northwest Illinois, 150 miles west of Chicago, in the Department of Justice funding request. The State of Illinois and the federal government are currently negotiating over the purchase price of Thomson.


During a briefing with reporters on Sunday afternoon previewing the budget--the contents were embargoed until 6 a.m. eastern time on Monday-- White House Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said the acquisition of Thomson by the federal government would be "warranted" even in the absence of Guantanamo detainees because more space was needed to house federal maximum security prisoners.

On the call, the briefers used two numbers to discuss the Thomson purchase and security upgrading needed--$250 million and $270 milllion. Asked to clarify, the Chicago Sun-Times was told the Justice Department fiscal 2011 request will include "$237 million to purchase, modify, and operate Thomson for a full year....

[SassyLady]

It will not save money:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/obama_budget_to_include_237_mi.html

Of course not.........that would be too much to hope for.

[Kathianne]

Of course not.........that would be too much to hope for.

Good news is, so far the legislature does not look interested in providing the funds. Good for US, good for IL. Hell for that matter, good for the detainees.

[Gaffer]

the question was about Gitmo, I don't want bad prisons anywhere though.
---
Your not saying that Torture is good are you? I'm not clear on what your saying about that.
---
there are SUSPECTED foreign fighters and terrorist? not "caught on the battlefield" just in a foreign country.
---
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And Gaffer we just can't deny facts just because we don't like the messenger. Either the fact are true or they are not. Liberal or Conservative media they all lie from time to time. But mostly they try to get real dirt on the other side and cover there own side crap however this story originated form soldiers at Gitmo who decided it was time to speak up.

The answer was about Gitmo. They get moved to a another prison and whatever is being done will continue at the other prison. It has nothing to do with the facility.

Torture done right can been a good thing. But depends on what you consider to be torture. Loud music? Cutting off fingers? Cold or hot conditions? electric shock? There's a big difference between pain and discomfort. There's also a big difference between wanting information about an organization and needing to get info immediately to save lives.


The foriegn fighters and terrorist are caught where ever they might be at the time. They are known and identified, not some schmo off the street. They are honest to goodness real live killers that want you dead any way the can do it.

If the messenger is a known lair you must question the facts. The story originated with the liberal media who wanted something to hang on the conservatives. You know, that crap, you talked about. Unlike a broken clock I'm right more than twice a day.

[crin63]

Obviously I'm not a liberal but I'm of the opinion that Liberals want to close Gitmo so we have to bring the terrorists here so they can bestow Constitutional rights on them and eventually set them free. They probably want to make them university professors at an Ivy league school.

Look at what Obama and his talking head Gibbs are doing with KSM. If they are not trying to insure a mistrial then they are even dumber than I thought and that's really not possible.

[revelarts]

I don't think we need to build any new facilities.
We've got plenty of Jails and prisons in the U.S. for convicted criminal terrorist.

We have at least 195 CONVICTED Muslim terrorist in prisons around the country right now. Gitmo is unnecessary in that regard, unless the gov't wants to skirt the constitution, torture and hold people without trial out of sight in a completely controlled environment.

And sure people can be abused in any jail or prison. Sadly it happen fairly regularly all the time. But torture for info is not usually why it's done in regular prisons.

As far as what torture is, well we have laws against it. Water boarding is torture. Anything we do from the military's SERE training is torture. Things taken from the communist Chinese is probably torture. "...pain inflicted just short of organ failure or death..." is probably torture.

Former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego Malcolm Nance, the Former army interrogator and Sere School Instructor Mike Ritz, Former Navy Seal Jesse Ventura who endured sere training and many others all say that water-boarding and the other abuses in the training are torture. And that it you can not get RELIABLE intell. Ventura says that it ought to be prosecuted as well.
Major Matthew Alexander, author of "How to Break a Terrorist" describes how he built trust with a prisoner who eventually led Americans to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Says, Close Gitmo it is creating more terrorist and that torture is counter productive.
Another current Intelligence officer testified before congress behind a screen to hide his identity that ALL of his best intel came without torture. And that torture was unproductive for that purpose. the intel officer was introduced as the man that had interrogated several high value terrorist and had gotten real info and had the Highest accommodations. He said in one instance that after the terrorist left his interrogation and was turned over to "enhanced interrogators" nothing else actionable came from them.
Torture is useful to get people to say what you want and sign what you want but the "24" TV show ticking bomb scenario isn't even real. it's TV. Muslims sitting in gitmo for years.. then being moved to the states and still being tortured?.. that's one long bomb count down dude.

------

Military for Guantanamo Closure
Gen. Petraeus: "Well, actually what I would ask is, 'Does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion?' When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those."

“As someone who has worn a military uniform and taken an oath to defend this country, I take nothing more seriously than making sure our nation is safe,” said Retired General Robert Gard. “I can tell you that keeping Guantanamo open does not make our nation any more safe, in fact everyday it is open it makes our country less safe. It is time for Congress to stop playing politics and close Guantanamo.”

On ABC's THIS WEEK, Admiral Mullen reiterated President Obama's call that Guantanamo Bay should be closed.
"The concern I've had about Guantanamo in these wars is it has been a symbol, and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us. So I think that centers -- you know, that's the heart of the concern for Guantanamo's continued existence, in which I spoke to a few years ago, the need to close it,"

Why should we be keep open a place that is used to create and inflame more terrorist on top of all the other internal constitutional, legal and moral issues it creates for us?

[Kathianne]

I just don't see how if the premise is correct, that moving them would reduce the 'inspiring new jihadis?' It's not the place they're held, it's the holding. Seems to me the logic is that if we hold them we create new jihadis. If we don't, they will continue to attack.

Am I missing something? :smoke:

[revelarts]

Well yeah there's some truth in what you say Kathianne, Location is not the only issue. but Gitmo is a poster child of U.S. torture. why give the jihadist an easy PR device. to win hearts and minds.
But yeah, As long as detainees are held anywhere indefinitely and without trails, terrorist can continue to show us as hypocrites and liars. As long as they are tortured, they can continue to show us as evil hypocrites and sadistic murders.

If we close Gitmo AND give the detainees trials AND put them in regular mundane prisons after the evidence proves them guilty of something. We show the world that we are who we say. Beacon of Liberty, truth, justice and the American way and all that. At that point the jihadist will have to pull lies out of the dark pits of their burkas to get recruits.
So your right we'd have to close Gitmo, all the CIA secret prisons, make sure all of the foreign military base's prison camps are either POW camps or well run humane prisons. But that's who we are. We says we are a humane or "Judeo Christian" nation. A nation of Laws. That we don't torture or put people in jail without trails etc.. Dictators do that crap. The communist do that. The fascist do that, the terrorist do that. We are better than that. We don't need that to be a free or a "safe" country.

We say we are morally better then them we need to live up to it.

[Kathianne]

Well yeah there's some truth in what you say Kathianne, Location is not the only issue. but Gitmo is a poster child of U.S. torture. why give the jihadist an easy PR device. to win hearts and minds.
But yeah, As long as detainees are held anywhere indefinitely and without trails, terrorist can continue to show us as hypocrites and liars. As long as they are tortured, they can continue to show us as evil hypocrites and sadistic murders.

If we close Gitmo AND give the detainees trials AND put them in regular mundane prisons after the evidence proves them guilty of something. We show the world that we are who we say. Beacon of Liberty, truth, justice and the American way and all that. At that point the jihadist will have to pull lies out of the dark pits of their burkas to get recruits.
So your right we'd have to close Gitmo, all the CIA secret prisons, make sure all of the foreign military base's prison camps are either POW camps or well run humane prisons. But that's who we are. We says we are a humane or "Judeo Christian" nation. A nation of Laws. That we don't torture or put people in jail without trails etc.. Dictators do that crap. The communist do that. The fascist do that, the terrorist do that. We are better than that. We don't need that to be a free or a "safe" country.

We say we are morally better then them we need to live up to it.

I'd like to see some links on 'continued torture' or any documented torture at Gitmo. The one claim, retracted long after by NBC, was the Koran flushing. That's torture?

[revelarts]

Gaffer implied that torture should continue even if they left gitmo. I assume that torture has generally stopped there even though a few reports from a few detainee's lawyers say that after Obama was inaugurated that guards wanted to get a few licks in before it closed. Some complaints about dislocated shoulders and beatings.

Here's a former detainee who loss sight in one eye from having a guard press his fingers into them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHxwG5L7JPU,

Most of Gitmo it seems had some kind of systemic humiliation and abuse policy etc. But many where subject to full blown torture as the victim sighted above. The Red Crosses report goes into some detail and list suffocation by water, beating by use of a collar, beating and kicking, confinement in a box, sleep deprivation to name a few. search for the ICRC High value detainees report.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html)
"...The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured. ..."

[Kathianne]

Gaffer implied that torture should continue even if they left gitmo. I assume that torture has generally stopped there even though a few reports from a few detainee's lawyers say that after Obama was inaugurated that guards wanted to get a few licks in before it closed. Some complaints about dislocated shoulders and beatings.

Here's a former detainee who loss sight in one eye from having a guard press his fingers into them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHxwG5L7JPU,

Most of Gitmo it seems had some kind of systemic humiliation and abuse policy etc. But many where subject to full blown torture as the victim sighted above. The Red Crosses report goes into some detail and list suffocation by water, beating by use of a collar, beating and kicking, confinement in a box, sleep deprivation to name a few. search for the ICRC High value detainees report.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html)
"...The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured. ..."

I'm all for a debate, however in this case we have the words of terrorists and 'tight fingers' as equating torture? Oh my, my kids would have said the same when we were in church when little and they were disruptive. That's not torture. Hasn't been torture confirmed by guards, though an argument might be made about the CIA and waterboarding, though I disagree with that, others don't.

[revelarts]

I don't think one of your kids loss his eye sight in church because you were pushing you fingers into them.
The guy in the video was released by BUSH because he WAS NOT a terrorist.

Bush released over 500 people, because they were innocent or his own people were honest enough to decided they couldn't prosecute because the detainee's treatment, "met the legal definition of torture". These are people in the Bush Administration. Appointees and DOD officers.

I'm sure there are people that may have exaggerated or outright lied on both sides but I clearly stated that there seemed to have been a range of mistreatment, some that many think of as very mild but from there it moved all the way up the line to, in some cases, loss of bodily functions and death. I don't want to overstate the case but I can't in good conscious understate it either to make us look good.

[Gaffer]

Gitmo and holding terrorist in prison does not create a jihadist. The koran is what creates them. They are hardcore fundamentalist muslims. They claim torture and mistreatment as a means of continuing their fight against the US. And they get support from liberal attorneys and left wing nuts who have the same goal of tearing down this country. They play the victim card at every opportunity. This is standard practice even in our state prisons. Prisoners try everything they can to push their guards into doing something physical to them in order to have law suits. This is a common practice in every jail and prison. It's all about over loading and disrupting the system. And you Revelarts are buying into it just like they want. Do you realize that in the terror camps they are trained how to behave if captured.

They are NOT citizens. They do not get Constitutional protection. That's the other reason they are held outside the country. They also don't get protection from the GC. As they are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign country. This country needs to make laws pertaining to these individuals, not policy in how to handle them.

[Abbey Marie]

Gitmo and holding terrorist in prison does not create a jihadist. The koran is what creates them. They are hardcore fundamentalist muslims. They claim torture and mistreatment as a means of continuing their fight against the US. And they get support from liberal attorneys and left wing nuts who have the same goal of tearing down this country. They play the victim card at every opportunity. This is standard practice even in our state prisons. Prisoners try everything they can to push their guards into doing something physical to them in order to have law suits. This is a common practice in every jail and prison. It's all about over loading and disrupting the system. And you Revelarts are buying into it just like they want. Do you realize that in the terror camps they are trained how to behave if captured.

They are NOT citizens. They do not get Constitutional protection. That's the other reason they are held outside the country. They also don't get protection from the GC. As they are not uniformed soldiers of a sovereign country. This country needs to make laws pertaining to these individuals, not policy in how to handle them.

Geez, Gaffer, give a girl a chance. You said what I was going to say, and much more. :thumb:

I will just add that as long as the United States stands between Israel and annihilation by the Muslim world, jihadi will continue to seek our destruction. This is long standing and deep seated hatred. Gitmo has little or nothing to do with it. Using the media to focus attention on Gitmo is just one tool in their arsenal. It's like a deadly version of saying to someone, "Look over there!" to distract you while they pick your pocket.
I believe it is naive to think otherwise.

[jimnyc]

I still say they go with an argument I heard a long time back. The nutjobs want to claim bad treatment at Gitmo, think they deserve Constitutional rights and protection under the Geneva Convention.

Shoot them where they stand on the battlefield and the problem is solved.

[Kathianne]

I don't think one of your kids loss his eye sight in church because you were pushing you fingers into them.
The guy in the video was released by BUSH because he WAS NOT a terrorist.

Bush released over 500 people, because they were innocent or his own people were honest enough to decided they couldn't prosecute because the detainee's treatment, "met the legal definition of torture". These are people in the Bush Administration. Appointees and DOD officers.

I'm sure there are people that may have exaggerated or outright lied on both sides but I clearly stated that there seemed to have been a range of mistreatment, some that many think of as very mild but from there it moved all the way up the line to, in some cases, loss of bodily functions and death. I don't want to overstate the case but I can't in good conscious understate it either to make us look good.

Again, with credible links please.

[revelarts]

So Graffer JimNYC ,Gen. Petraeus, General Robert Gard, Admiral Mullen, former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy School (SERE) Malcolm Nance, Former army interrogator and Sere School Instructor Mike Ritz, interrogator Major Matthew Alexander and other folks in the military don't know about jihadist tricks either they are al niave as well ? c'mon ya'll.

Yes, some of the guys in Gitmo are terrorist, hell bent on killing people yes, OK. HOWEVER most of the people that where in Gitmo were not.

Some "terrorist" where released because we mucked up the cases by torture or other mistakes legal and otherwise.
Most of the over 500 released so far had little to nothing to do terrorism. I think lest than 10 have been said to have gone back to plotting against the U.S. in some way. (small caveat there -we know who and where they are and what they are doing apparently )

There were, I think, almost almost 800 people in Gitmo at one time Bush and Cheney said that they were "the worse of the worse" take our word for it. They were lying. that's just the facts man. If not why did they let 500 go? And of the 190+ left they feel comfortable charging about 40. It's fine to paint a picture of only evil tricky jihadist at Gitmo but take a closer look i think you'll see that it's more going on there than liberal vs conservative or mad dog killers vs American virtue.

[jimnyc]

Again, with credible links please.

Agreed, a YouTube video to me is not credible unless backed up by a credible news agency.

Probably 75 out of 100 prisoners in EVERY prison in the world claim they are mistreated. God forbid they pay the price for their crimes, the very price they knew could happen when they chose to break laws.

The only legitimate black eye of "torture" or "mistreatment" I can believe in is that of Abu Ghraib, and mainly because the context of the pictures made our soldiers look foolish and as if they were toying with the prisoners instead of using such methods to extract information.

But sitting in the cold? Music playing? Sleep deprivation? Please, spare me! Put them in the cell that John Gotti held and keep them in the cell like he was for 23 1/2 hours per day and watch how quickly they'll want to return to Gitmo!

[jimnyc]

There were, I think, almost almost 800 people in Gitmo at one time Bush and Cheney said that they were "the worse of the worse" take our word for it. They were lying. that's just the facts man.

Can you articulate just how they lied, what they actually knew which proves they lied? Or are you just another one who likes to proclaim "lies" to enhance your argument. You do realize that being mistaken is not lying, correct?

[revelarts]

Kathianne,
What exactly are looking for links for? I'll get them for ya. And what do you consider credible. Judges, Guards, Judge advocate general, Red Cross, Generals, interrogators, Doctors? they may be quoted in papers or news channels you don't like though. But like i mentioned before. both the left and right media tend to promote their team and try to find the dirt on the perceived "enemy". I say pick the meat and leave the bones. anyway what do want to see?

[Kathianne]

So Graffer JimNYC ,Gen. Petraeus, General Robert Gard, Admiral Mullen, former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy School (SERE) Malcolm Nance, Former army interrogator and Sere School Instructor Mike Ritz, interrogator Major Matthew Alexander and other folks in the military don't know about jihadist tricks either they are al niave as well ? c'mon ya'll.

Yes, some of the guys in Gitmo are terrorist, hell bent on killing people yes, OK. HOWEVER most of the people that where in Gitmo were not.

Some "terrorist" where released because we mucked up the cases by torture or other mistakes legal and otherwise.
Most of the over 500 released so far had little to nothing to do terrorism. I think lest than 10 have been said to have gone back to plotting against the U.S. in some way. (small caveat there -we know who and where they are and what they are doing apparently )

There were, I think, almost almost 800 people in Gitmo at one time Bush and Cheney said that they were "the worse of the worse" take our word for it. They were lying. that's just the facts man. If not why did they let 500 go? And of the 190+ left they feel comfortable charging about 40. It's fine to paint a picture of only evil tricky jihadist at Gitmo but take a closer look i think you'll see that it's more going on there than liberal vs conservative or mad dog killers vs American virtue.

Regarding the bolded, really?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/gitmo.recidivism/index.html


Pentagon: Ex-Gitmo detainees turning to terrorism on rise

Names of almost 30 ex-detainees believed to have gone on to fight released
updated 6:19 p.m. EDT, Tue May 26, 2009

From Mike Mount
CNN Pentagon Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Mohammed Ismail was released from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in early 2004 and sent back to Afghanistan to be set free.


A guard talks with a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, earlier this year.

Within four months, the U.S. military said, he was recaptured in Afghanistan attacking U.S. troops there, with paperwork on him that said he was a Taliban in good standing.

He is just one of 74 former Guantanamo Bay detainees who the military says were active in, or were suspected of being active in, fighting against the United States or committing terrorist acts after being released.

Another is Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, who was released from Guantanamo in December 2007 and set free in Afghanistan. Rasoul has become a powerful Taliban military commander in southern Afghanistan, the military said, and the United States suspects he is responsible for several attacks on U.S. forces there.

A senior U.S. military official said he believes Rasoul is using his former Guantanamo experience to build on his "rock star status" among the Taliban.

Abd al Hadi Abdallah Ibrahim al Shaikh of Saudi Arabia, who was released in 2007, was arrested in 2008 by Saudi authorities on suspicion of supporting terrorism inside that country, the military said.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon released information that showed 14 percent of former detainees have turned to, or are suspected of having turned to, terrorism activity since being released from Guantanamo. The data represent the most recent statistics of former detainees tracked by military and other U.S. government intelligence agencies....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/1_in_5_gitmo_released_gitmo_de.html

Links at site:



January 07, 2010
1 in 5 released Gitmo detainees return to terrorism
Ethel C. Fenig
The NY Times posts an unsettling Reuters story on another ostensibly

classified Pentagon assessment shows one in five detainees released from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay has joined or is suspected of joining militant groups like al Qaeda, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

(snip)
A previous Pentagon assessment last April showed that 14 percent of former detainees had joined or were suspected of joining militant groups, up from 11 percent in December 2008.

Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the new Pentagon assessment showed the percentage had grown to 20 percent.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell declined to comment on the latest figures, saying they remained classified, but told reporters, "The trend hasn't reversed itself."

"This is an inexact science," Morrell said about whether enough screening was done of detainees in the past. "You know, we are making subjective calls based upon judgement, intelligence. And so there is no foolproof answer in this realm. That's what makes this so difficult."

But he added, "There needs to be a better accounting of detainees."
"A better accounting of detainees." Yes. Perhaps their new motto should be when in doubt, don't let them out.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6975971.ece


January 5, 2010
Freed Guantánamo inmates are heading for Yemen to join al-Qaeda fight

Said Ali al-Shihri, Ibrahim Suleiman al Rubaish (ID not confirmed); Abdullah Saleh Ali al Ajmi; and Abdullah Mahsud
Tom Coghlan
At least a dozen former Guantánamo Bay inmates have rejoined al-Qaeda to fight in Yemen, The Times has learnt, amid growing concern over the ability of the country’s Government to accept almost 100 more former inmates from the detention centre.

The Obama Administration promised to close the Guantánamo facility by January 22, a deadline that it will be unable to meet. The 91 Yemeni prisoners in Guantánamo make up the largest national contingent among the 198 being held.

Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month. After the Christmas Day bomb plot in Detroit, US officials are increasingly concerned that the country is becoming a hot-bed of terrorism. Eleven of the former inmates known to have rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen were born in Saudi Arabia. The organisation merged its Saudi and Yemeni offshoots last year...

And these are not your 'loser' terrorists, these are folks that know how 'to get the job done.'

[BoogyMan]

I'm starting to believe liberals bitch about Gitmo just to be bitching about something since none seem to know why they want to close Gitmo.

Our dearly beloved president even went so far as to include a Gitmo closure in his campaign promises even though nobody seems to know why.

From what I have seen it is simply an expression of liberal self loathing. They hate America as it is and cannot see ANYTHING good coming out of ANYTHING we do until the transformation of the country into a bastion of liberal happyness (socialist/communist conversion) is completed.

[revelarts]

Great info Kathianne, I stand corrected on the numbers, (if you can believe the gov't ;) )
i'll get back to the other comments when i get some time till then,

Former Gitmo Guard goes to England to apologize to 2 of "the worse of the worse".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8452937.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8451797.stm
http://www.breitbart.tv/former-guantanamo-guard-meets-former-detainees-to-apologize/

Gitmo interrogation coerced confessions in exchange for later freedom, in Court (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/they-tortured-a-man-they-knew-to-be-innocent-ctd-2.html)the Court’s quotation of something an interrogator said to detainee al-Rabiah during his interrogation. The interrogator told al-Rabiah:
"
“There is nothing against you. But there is no innocent person here. So, you should confess to something so you can be charged and sentenced and serve your sentence and then go back to your family and country, because you will not leave this place innocent.”"
Court Memorandum and Order, p. 41
Court transcript here http://www.pillsburylaw.com/siteFiles/News/1259B22146574C540A8871C2C3131CA2.pdf

Biz as usual? Not to Seasoned Attorneys at the Justice dept.
"As a trial attorney with the Department of Justice, I am familiar with the al-Rabiah case ... I write for myself and myself alone.

I had a long conversation regarding the al-Rabiah case with colleagues when the decision came down. Our expertise and experiences are varied, but we all work on matters ranging from criminal matters to civil habeas cases. We are litigators, and we know what makes a case, and when a case is weak.

The conclusion drawn by each of my colleagues – some of whom are liberal Democrats, some of whom are conservative, law-and-order Republicans – is, to a person, that the detention and interrogation programs the United States implemented in the months and years following 9/11 is not only a complete abrogation and violation of international law and, in many cases, federal law – it is also fundamentally immoral. We also agree that the al-Rabiah case is by far the most egregious yet to come to light. To repeat: yet to come to light. I can only guess that there are other, far worse cases.


Directly from the court record
Judge Kollar-Kotelly remarks "Not only did al-Rabiah's interrogators repeatedly conclude that these same confessions were not believable -- which al-Rabiah's counsel attributes to abuse and coercion, some of which is supported by the record -- but it is also undisputed that al-Rabiah confessed to information that his interrogators obtained from either alleged eyewitnesses who are not credible and as to whom the Government has now largely withdrawn any reliance, or from sources that never even existed ... If there exists a basis for al-Rabiah's indefinite detention, it most certainly has not been presented to this Court."

Ex-Bush official confirms innocents at Gitmo
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/ Lawrence B. Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote, "....The second dimension that is largely unreported is that several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.

But to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror and these leaders already had black marks enough: the dead in a field in Pennsylvania, in the ashes of the Pentagon, and in the ruins of the World Trade Towers. They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released. I am very sorry to say that I believe there were uniformed military who aided and abetted these falsehoods, even at the highest levels of our armed forces....
...In addition, it has never come to my attention in any persuasive way--from classified information or otherwise--that any intelligence of significance was gained from any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay other than from the handful of undisputed ring leaders and their companions, clearly no more than a dozen or two of the detainees, and even their alleged contribution of hard, actionable intelligence is intensely disputed in the relevant communities such as intelligence and law enforcement....

This is perhaps the most astounding truth of all, carefully masked by men such as Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney in their loud rhetoric--continuing even now in the case of Cheney--about future attacks thwarted, resurgent terrorists, the indisputable need for torture and harsh interrogation and for secret prisons and places such as GITMO...."

[Kathianne]

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperilled in every single battle."
Sun Tzu
The Art of War

[jimnyc]

Kathianne,
What exactly are looking for links for? I'll get them for ya. And what do you consider credible. Judges, Guards, Judge advocate general, Red Cross, Generals, interrogators, Doctors?


Great info Kathianne, I stand corrected on the numbers, (if you can believe the gov't ;) )
i'll get back to the other comments when i get some time till then,

Former Gitmo Guard goes to England to apologize to 2 of "the worse of the worse".

I'll repeat myself...

Lets avoid the claims of torture and rights afforded to enemy combatants altogether. When we confront any of them on the battlefield, shoot and kill them on the spot. God forbid we actually leave them alive and hold them until hostilities come to an end or they are tried by a military tribunal or US court.

Personally I prefer them dead and avoid having to defend our soldiers from bothering the poor little innocent victims.

[Gaffer]

Geez, Gaffer, give a girl a chance. You said what I was going to say, and much more. :thumb:

I will just add that as long as the United States stands between Israel and annihilation by the Muslim world, jihadi will continue to seek our destruction. This is long standing and deep seated hatred. Gitmo has little or nothing to do with it. Using the media to focus attention on Gitmo is just one tool in their arsenal. It's like a deadly version of saying to someone, "Look over there!" to distract you while they pick your pocket.
I believe it is naive to think otherwise.

Very true Abbey. But even if Israel was wiped out the US would continue to be a target because the country is not muslim. World conquest is the ultimate goal of islam.

[Abbey Marie]

Very true Abbey. But even if Israel was wiped out the US would continue to be a target because the country is not muslim. World conquest is the ultimate goal of islam.

Can't disagree. Our support of Israel just puts us near the top of the list.

[Little-Acorn]

Lets avoid the claims of torture and rights afforded to enemy combatants altogether.

Sorry, I must disagree. While the other points you make in that post are valid and an excellent idea, this one is beyond the pale.

I believe we should follow the requirements of the Accords of the Geneva Conventions with regard to these terrorists.

Among the many things the GC lays out regarding treatment of prisoners of war (keep in mind that these terrorists have explicitly declared war against us), are the following ideas:

1.) Combatants in a war must wear uniforms identifying them as members of the group making war. This is for the purpose of distinguishing them from noncombatant civilians, and reducing the risks to those civilians of being inadvertently fired on by the warmaking parties.

2.) Combatants in a war, who make war upon their enemies without wearing such identifying uniforms, especially those caught behind enemy lines and/or found mingling with noncombatant civilians, are to be treated as spies. They are to be given field courts-martial and, if found guilty of being spies, are to be summarily executed.

These rules are written with people such as our modern terrorists, in mind. They wear no uniform, and frequently deliberately mingle with relatively innocent civilians, precisely for the purpose of causing injuries and deaths among those civilians if the U.S. forces try to fire on the terrorists.

I believe that we must follow the Geneva Conventions carefully in ALL cases when it comes to any war we are engaged in, including the present war by terrorists against us.

When we capture ANY terrorist not wearing a uniform, he is to be given a field court-martial and executed on the spot. This is fully in accordance with the Geneva Accords.

Why has this not been done?

There is still plenty of time to remedy this omission, in every case. Then we can close the prison in Gitmo, since no more prisoners will ever get that far. And we will guarantee for all the world to see, that no terrorist prisoner will ever be in a position where he can be tortured... even though none have been tortured to date, leftist wails notwithstanding.

They want the Geneva Accords followed? Fine by me.

[revelarts]

I'll repeat myself...

Lets avoid the claims of torture and rights afforded to enemy combatants altogether. When we confront any of them on the battlefield, shoot and kill them on the spot. God forbid we actually leave them alive and hold them until hostilities come to an end or they are tried by a military tribunal or US court.

Personally I prefer them dead and avoid having to defend our soldiers from bothering the poor little innocent victims.




Sorry, I must disagree. While the other points you make in that post are valid and an excellent idea, this one is beyond the pale.

I believe we should follow the requirements of the Accords of the Geneva Conventions with regard to these terrorists.

Among the many things the GC lays out regarding treatment of prisoners of war (keep in mind that these terrorists have explicitly declared war against us), are the following ideas:

1.) Combatants in a war must wear uniforms identifying them as members of the group making war. This is for the purpose of distinguishing them from noncombatant civilians, and reducing the risks to those civilians of being inadvertently fired on by the warmaking parties.

2.) Combatants in a war, who make war upon their enemies without wearing such identifying uniforms, especially those caught behind enemy lines and/or found mingling with noncombatant civilians, are to be treated as spies. They are to be given field courts-martial and, if found guilty of being spies, are to be summarily executed.

These rules are written with people such as our modern terrorists, in mind. They wear no uniform, and frequently deliberately mingle with relatively innocent civilians, precisely for the purpose of causing injuries and deaths among those civilians if the U.S. forces try to fire on the terrorists.

I believe that we must follow the Geneva Conventions carefully in ALL cases when it comes to any war we are engaged in, including the present war by terrorists against us.

When we capture ANY terrorist not wearing a uniform, he is to be given a field court-martial and executed on the spot. This is fully in accordance with the Geneva Accords.

Why has this not been done?

There is still plenty of time to remedy this omission, in every case. Then we can close the prison in Gitmo, since no more prisoners will ever get that far. And we will guarantee for all the world to see, that no terrorist prisoner will ever be in a position where he can be tortured... even though none have been tortured to date, leftist wails notwithstanding.

They want the Geneva Accords followed? Fine by me.

I don't have a problem with killing "terrorist" on the battlefield.

But lets take a closer look, lets say some Joesama Blowsama has been shotting at you or civilians or has got a bomb attached to him and is walking into a school, church, synagogue, mosque whatever, then yes, bang- he's dead. If a Joesama is jumping through hoops practicing with firearms in some terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, or Iraq where we have a war going, - bang- he's dead OR a POW. If Joesama is sitting in a house working on a bomb and talking to an accomplice while drinking some tea. Should we bust in and blow their heads off or capture them and try to get them to rat on others? I think the 2nd makes more sense. But i understand the other view as well. ok, so If Joesama is just sitting in his house reading or listening to terrorist material given to him by a friend from his mosque and gets a ride to his job every day by this same guy, who really is a terrorist, do we shoot him too? Do we pick him up question him and quickly release? ok here's one . If we offer a $5000 bounty to anyone who can bring us a terrorist do we just take the bounty hunters word for if that this guy is terrorist and blow his brains out? If the corrupt Afghan army brings us a couple of Joesamas they say are terrorist do we take their word and blow there brains out?

I don't consider every Muslim a potential terrorist, maybe I'm wrong on that. BUt I've got a feeling that a lot of Muslims are like a lot of Christians and only believe their holy book to a certain point. And would never really take it to the literally on more than few passages. And like Christians there are conservatives, liberals, cults and more. Liberals don't take very much of the scriptures to seriously at all and think parts are as ridiculous as any atheist would. I do think a lot of Muslims would like the whole world to be Muslim. But a lot of Muslims left middle eastern countries to get away from Shariah laws and want no part of it. However they still want to hold on to their faith, as they define it.
Just like i think it's wrong to assume that everyone that flies a confederate flag is Klan member or even mildly prejudice I think it's wrong to assume that every Muslim/Koran reader is an eminent terrorist threat because of the Koran. Eventhough the confederate flag waver might be a evil klan member and a devot Muslim might very well be a murderous terrorist. I just want to be sure before we go blowing people away and locking them up.

I think in the case of the Muslims, in general, that "spiritual warfare" is more appropriate for the majority of Muslims. Praying, preacher, teaching conversion. There are about 1.57 billion Muslims in the world (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/07/muslim.world.population/index.html), i think about 300 million Americans (that's including the Muslim in the US -about 2 million or so). I say if all Muslims REALLY wanted us dead there'd be a lot more blood flow all over the world. The radical jihadist terrorist Muslims are a minority and must be dealt with as a minority. And they are not all powerful. Gitmo, Dark prisons and unjust detentions just make us look bad to the passive people who are their friends, neighbors, relatives and heck even their enemies, and give more people an excuse to radicalize IMO and in the opinion of some generals, admirals, integrators and many other military personnel.

BTW the passive Muslims are to passive for my taste but, that's the world we got.

don't know how i got round to all that but there ya go jim.

[revelarts]

Military heads against Gitmo and torture
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yfgjMQfyLhU"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yfgjMQfyLhU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>


Interrogation, real world results, testimony before congress,

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-B8d8x6uJo"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i-B8d8x6uJo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

[revelarts]

Written Statement of FBI interrogator Ali Soufan to the Senate judiciary committee May 2009

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906


Mr. Chairman, Committee members, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I know that each one of you cares deeply about our nation's security. It was always a comfort to me during the most dangerous of situations that I faced, from going undercover as an al Qaeda operative, to unraveling terrorist cells, to tracking down the killers of the 17 U.S. sailors murdered in the USS Cole bombing, that those of us on the frontline had your support and the backing of the American people. So I thank you.

The issue that I am here to discuss today – interrogation methods used to question terrorists – is not, and should not be, a partisan matter. We all share a commitment to using the best interrogation method possible that serves our national security interests and fits squarely within the framework of our nation's principles.

From my experience – and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence– I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the "enhanced interrogation techniques," a position shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation.

These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. (This is aside from the important additional considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause.)
My interest in speaking about this issue is not to advocate the prosecution of anyone. People were given misinformation, half-truths, and false claims of successes; and reluctant intelligence officers were given instructions and assurances from higher authorities. Examining a past we cannot change is only worthwhile when it helps guide us towards claiming a better future that is yet within our reach.

And my focus is on the future. I wish to do my part to ensure that we never again use these harmful, slow, ineffective, and unreliable techniques instead of the tried, tested, and successful ones – the ones that are also in sync with our values and moral character. Only by doing this will we defeat the terrorists as effectively and quickly as possible....
.....
...I personally interrogated many terrorists we have in our custody and elsewhere, and gained confessions, identified terror operatives, their funding, details of potential plots, and information on how al Qaeda operates, along with other actionable intelligence. Because of these successes, I was the government's main witness in both of the trials we have had so far in Guantanamo Bay – the trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver and bodyguard for Osama Bin Laden, and Ali Hamza Al Bahlul, Bin Laden's propagandist. In addition I am currently helping the prosecution prepare for upcoming trials of other detainees held in Guantanamo Bay....

[Silver]

You ask for help from ''an informed liberal' and get a response from gabby....

thats quite funny....:lol: