Can anyone make a strong case for Gitmo?

Utah · #1 06-01-2005, 12:59 PM

I supported Gitmo at the start of the Afghan war and it made sense to me during a war. However, I am pretty appalled that it has turned into a permanent station. I guess I was pretty naive as to the Bush team's intentions.

Additionally, I am shocked at how many prisoners have died in U.S. custody. I support torture is certain situations but the senseless death of prisoners and the rampant abuse of prisoners is intolerable. A few deaths can be attributed to rouge soldiers. However, the level of deaths and abuse have risen to a point that it points to the highest levels of the Bush Administration for not putting in place proper controls or for supporting the abusing.

Friedman wrote this week that Gitmo should be closed. While I found his arguments weak, I found the defenses of Gitmo even weaker.

Can anyone make a good case for gitmo or can anyone point to a good article is support of Gitmo?

benfranklin · #2 06-01-2005, 02:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I supported Gitmo at the start of the Afghan war and it made sense to me during a war. However, I am pretty appalled that it has turned into a permanent station. I guess I was pretty naive as to the Bush team's intentions.

[/ QUOTE ]

As in any administration, and any bureaucracy, the intentions are soon lost in the execution.

While I agree in principle with the Gitmo tactic, it's present usefulness has to be close to zero. Most of the guys they have locked up there were low level to begin with, and whatever information they have is unlikely to be true anymore. Throw them over the fence into Cuba put the troops to work doing something useful.

RR12 · #3 06-01-2005, 02:24 PM

Do you feel safe releasing the detainees? I'm really not sure what the answer to do is, but the press would turn around and hammer the administration if they released one of the guys and they turned out to be involved in a future terror incident.

vulturesrow · #4 06-01-2005, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really not sure what the answer to do is, but the press would turn around and hammer the administration if they released one of the guys and they turned out to be involved in a future terror incident.

[/ QUOTE ]

which has already happened.

whiskeytown · #5 06-01-2005, 02:41 PM

being wrongly imprisoned for 3 yrs. wouldn't make someone mad at us, would it? -

we're the assholes creating terrorists - in Iraq and everywhere....jesus -

RB

vulturesrow · #6 06-01-2005, 02:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
being wrongly imprisoned for 3 yrs. wouldn't make someone mad at us, would it? -

we're the assholes creating terrorists - in Iraq and everywhere....jesus -

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhh, the old "we are creating terrorists" canard, one of my favorites. Can you provide any statistical or empirical basis for that statement or anything that brings that assertion above the level of theory?

Utah · #7 06-01-2005, 02:59 PM

I dont think it is a gitmo vs. release them equation. Why cant we prosecute them? Why cant they have access to lawyers? etc.

I am VERY uncomfortable with our government imprisoning people indefintely without any trial. That is a very bad precedent and I believe they are also doing that to american citizens - which is an awful violation of a constitutional rights.

jaxmike · #8 06-01-2005, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
being wrongly imprisoned for 3 yrs. wouldn't make someone mad at us, would it? -

we're the assholes creating terrorists - in Iraq and everywhere....jesus -

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the people that attacked us on 9/11 and the first WTC bombing were really pissed about the Abu Gharib (sp) "scandal", the "abuses" at Gitmo, and our "illegal" war against Iraq.

MtSmalls · #9 06-01-2005, 04:17 PM

This is the administration wanting to have it both ways. Gitmo (and Bagram and Abu Ghraib and all the others we don't know about) isn't filled with POW's. If they were POW's they would be protected by the Geneva Convention, have access to the International Red Cross and/or the UN. By the same token, they are not legal/criminal detainees, because then they would have been given/read their rights, have access to lawyers, including the charges against them, and have the right to a 'speedy' trial, which even these days should be less than a year.

So if they are not POW's and they are not criminal detainees, what are they??

(The answer to the OP's question is NO, there is no rationale for Gitmo)

jaxmike · #10 06-01-2005, 04:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is the administration wanting to have it both ways. Gitmo (and Bagram and Abu Ghraib and all the others we don't know about) isn't filled with POW's. If they were POW's they would be protected by the Geneva Convention, have access to the International Red Cross and/or the UN. By the same token, they are not legal/criminal detainees, because then they would have been given/read their rights, have access to lawyers, including the charges against them, and have the right to a 'speedy' trial, which even these days should be less than a year.

So if they are not POW's and they are not criminal detainees, what are they??

(The answer to the OP's question is NO, there is no rationale for Gitmo)

[/ QUOTE ]

Enemy combatants.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5312

[ QUOTE ]
An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is your case people.