Obama's Gitmo release

[Anonymous]

PP again: This is what I get posting under the influence of multiple kids and dogs....He's No. 2 in Yemen, not Pakistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that "Wherever they come from" is better than imprisonment, and I don't think regular access to a military prison cafeteria is going to change that. But I'll give you coupons for Whoppers if you drop this thread.

Don't be so sure that "wherever they came from" is better, if they are going to a prison say in Egypt, Yemen, etc. Rendition worked for a reason. Those prisons are hell-holes and they make waterboarding look like bobbing for apples.

As for closing Gitmo, I think the OP is exactly right in terms of highlighting the logistical issues. While there may be may detainees who can be released to their countries of origin, there remains the issue of what to do with the Category 3 detainees--they simply cannot be released. Moreover, they would certainly be brutalized in a US prison system and I don't think solitary confinement would make liberals too happy either. Also, holding them on US soil gives yet another reason to target us. It is more than an issue of classified information being used at trial--classified info (below codeword or state secrets) has been used in trials for years under certain statutory guidelines. The issue of their release really has to do with our safety (and that of the detainees if placed here).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Rendition worked for a reason.

What evidence do you have that rendition worked?

Anonymous wrote:
As for closing Gitmo, I think the OP is exactly right in terms of highlighting the logistical issues. While there may be may detainees who can be released to their countries of origin, there remains the issue of what to do with the Category 3 detainees--they simply cannot be released. Moreover, they would certainly be brutalized in a US prison system and I don't think solitary confinement would make liberals too happy either. Also, holding them on US soil gives yet another reason to target us. It is more than an issue of classified information being used at trial--classified info (below codeword or state secrets) has been used in trials for years under certain statutory guidelines. The issue of their release really has to do with our safety (and that of the detainees if placed here).

So, now Gitmo is a humanitarian effort? I see no reason why the US cannot tell Egypt -- of all countries Egypt -- that it had better prepare safe, secure, and humane prisons for any Egyptians at Gitmo. We have a $2 billion string to pull to make sure that happens. The same is true of Afghanistan and probably most of the home countries of the prisoners. The US could hardly make such demands when it was itself such a profound violator of human rights, but now it can.

It's really funny to suddenly see those who supported the abuses of Gitmo suddenly turning all bleeding heart about the prisoners.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rendition worked for a reason.

What evidence do you have that rendition worked?

Anonymous wrote:
As for closing Gitmo, I think the OP is exactly right in terms of highlighting the logistical issues. While there may be may detainees who can be released to their countries of origin, there remains the issue of what to do with the Category 3 detainees--they simply cannot be released. Moreover, they would certainly be brutalized in a US prison system and I don't think solitary confinement would make liberals too happy either. Also, holding them on US soil gives yet another reason to target us. It is more than an issue of classified information being used at trial--classified info (below codeword or state secrets) has been used in trials for years under certain statutory guidelines. The issue of their release really has to do with our safety (and that of the detainees if placed here).

So, now Gitmo is a humanitarian effort? I see no reason why the US cannot tell Egypt -- of all countries Egypt -- that it had better prepare safe, secure, and humane prisons for any Egyptians at Gitmo. We have a $2 billion string to pull to make sure that happens. The same is true of Afghanistan and probably most of the home countries of the prisoners. The US could hardly make such demands when it was itself such a profound violator of human rights, but now it can.

It's really funny to suddenly see those who supported the abuses of Gitmo suddenly turning all bleeding heart about the prisoners.

No bleeding heart here-- intel background. Have you ever seen firsthand what a suicide bomber's blast does to people's bodies. I have--finding little fingers and arms in a sea of blood changes how you view the terrorist conflict. This is not an ordinary war and I resent your scolding, holier than thou liberal attitude.

As for your point re: evidence that rendition works: I should have been clearer--rendition works, insofar as being able to get information from these homicidal lunatics, because they torture them in many of these places--which actually does give you good information. Half of our operational information that we have about Al Qaeda since 9/11 was obtained through alternative interrogation means.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

No bleeding heart here-- intel background. Have you ever seen firsthand what a suicide bomber's blast does to people's bodies. I have--finding little fingers and arms in a sea of blood changes how you view the terrorist conflict. This is not an ordinary war and I resent your scolding, holier than thou liberal attitude.

Well, I recent your trashing the constitution that I was taught to respect and value. And, for your information, I have seen the aftermath of a terrorist bombing, albeit not one that was a suicide bombing. Yes, terrible things happen. The solution is not to lower ourselves to the level of those that do such things.

Anonymous wrote:
As for your point re: evidence that rendition works: I should have been clearer--rendition works, insofar as being able to get information from these homicidal lunatics, because they torture them in many of these places--which actually does give you good information. Half of our operational information that we have about Al Qaeda since 9/11 was obtained through alternative interrogation means.

How many people were tortured who had no information to disclose? How many innocent people were killed as a result of false information provided during "alternative interrogation sessions"? How much of the same information could have been obtained via less barbaric means?

It's disgraceful that we have people in this country who are proud that we've lowered ourselves to the level of Saddam Hussein's government. I bet Saddam used to get a lot of useful information out of his torture chambers as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pretty sure that "Wherever they come from" is better than imprisonment, and I don't think regular access to a military prison cafeteria is going to change that. But I'll give you coupons for Whoppers if you drop this thread.

Don't be so sure that "wherever they came from" is better, if they are going to a prison say in Egypt, Yemen, etc. Rendition worked for a reason. Those prisons are hell-holes and they make waterboarding look like bobbing for apples.

As for closing Gitmo, I think the OP is exactly right in terms of highlighting the logistical issues. While there may be may detainees who can be released to their countries of origin, there remains the issue of what to do with the Category 3 detainees--they simply cannot be released. Moreover, they would certainly be brutalized in a US prison system and I don't think solitary confinement would make liberals too happy either. Also, holding them on US soil gives yet another reason to target us. It is more than an issue of classified information being used at trial--classified info (below codeword or state secrets) has been used in trials for years under certain statutory guidelines. The issue of their release really has to do with our safety (and that of the detainees if placed here).

OP was not referring to imprisonment in "wherever they come from". He was referring to life in their home countries.

[Anonymous]

As for your point re: evidence that rendition works: I should have been clearer--rendition works, insofar as being able to get information from these homicidal lunatics, because they torture them in many of these places--which actually does give you good information. Half of our operational information that we have about Al Qaeda since 9/11 was obtained through alternative interrogation means.

Oh please. Aside from your alarming "end justifying the means" philosophy, most studies on this topic conclude that information obtained under "alternative interrogation means" (aka torture) is notoriously unreliable.

[Anonymous]

O.k., so what do we do with those unfit for trial at Gitmo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey, McCain was one -- but you all successfully vilified him.

No, I respected him for his stand on torture. It was his other policies, his erratic behavior (flipflopping on various issues to please the right, running off to DC over the bailout bill when he wasn't wanted) and his general poor judgment in picking Palin that turned me off on McCain.

You seem to be uncomfortable with complexity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As for your point re: evidence that rendition works: I should have been clearer--rendition works, insofar as being able to get information from these homicidal lunatics, because they torture them in many of these places--which actually does give you good information. Half of our operational information that we have about Al Qaeda since 9/11 was obtained through alternative interrogation means.

How do you know that these people didn't lie just to stop the torture? Which would mean that half of our operational information about Al Qaeda is suspect.
Torture doesn't work if you what you want is the truth. But it does work if all you want is a confession and you don't care whether it is true or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As for your point re: evidence that rendition works: I should have been clearer--rendition works, insofar as being able to get information from these homicidal lunatics, because they torture them in many of these places--which actually does give you good information. Half of our operational information that we have about Al Qaeda since 9/11 was obtained through alternative interrogation means.

How do you know that these people didn't lie just to stop the torture? Which would mean that half of our operational information about Al Qaeda is suspect.
Torture doesn't work if you what you want is the truth. But it does work if all you want is a confession and you don't care whether it is true or not.

So true, just ask the many people in prison who have "confessed" after only a few hours in a police interrogation room, which is mild compared to what goes on in Git Mo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do you know that these people didn't lie just to stop the torture? Which would mean that half of our operational information about Al Qaeda is suspect.
Torture doesn't work if you what you want is the truth. But it does work if all you want is a confession and you don't care whether it is true or not.

Just curious what first-hand knowledge you have of the subject. Or are you parroting what the left-wing media espouses?

If you know nothing about interrogation, as your post demonstrates, please spare us your platitudes about what information it can and cannot provide. Basic interrogation, as well as torture, can merely provide "lies." However, both can also bring forward facts that can be corroborated/intelligence that can be verified from evidence. I am not advocating torture by any means, despite PPs rush to condemnation. Just merely pointing out the realities. But since most of the posters on this board are closed-minded liberals, convinced of their own rightness, it is a waste of time. This forum is hardly a "political discussion," since any viewpoints other than those of the far left are shouted down as heretical.

If you thinking closing Gitmo and giving all the detainees lawyers is going to make the Jihadists not want to kill us and our families, you are certainly delusional. And, I would wager that Obama and his advisors are going to come up with a plan that allows for "enhanced interrogation" of some sort, because, whether Obama is extremely smart and pragmatic and I believe will do the right thing to protect American lives.

[Anonymous]

Just curious what first-hand knowledge you have of the subject. Or are you parroting what the left-wing media espouses?

I am not the PP that you were quoting, but anybody who dismisses a point using the "left-wing media" argument autmotically loses street cred, in my view, on the basis of over-generalizing. There is a very diverse media scene out there with sources that fall all over the political spectrum.

Also, I'm not sure one has to have first-hand knowledge of the subject in order to have a well-informed view.

If you know nothing about interrogation, as your post demonstrates, please spare us your platitudes about what information it can and cannot provide. Basic interrogation, as well as torture, can merely provide "lies." However, both can also bring forward facts that can be corroborated/intelligence that can be verified from evidence.

Please spare us also of your certainty that you corner the market on the truth. In fact there are many studies that conclude that torture more often produces unreliable information than actionable facts. I don't think one has to be an interrogation expert to be aware of that.

I am not advocating torture by any means, despite PPs rush to condemnation.

That exactly what are you advocating? What point are you making? It sure sounds to me like you are saying that torture has its place.

Just merely pointing out the realities. But since most of the posters on this board are closed-minded liberals, convinced of their own rightness, it is a waste of time. This forum is hardly a "political discussion," since any viewpoints other than those of the far left are shouted down as heretical.

It is more than a little alarming that you write off people who object to torture as "close-minded liberals". I consider opposition to torture of other human beings to be a bare minimum in terms of ethical behavior. Also, in terms of this discussion, what you seem to be saying is, in fact, quite literally heretical - not because your point of view differs from those on the "far left" (you should brush up on your world politics, by the way), but because anything but condemnation of torture is contrary to most religious values in the true sense.

If you thinking closing Gitmo and giving all the detainees lawyers is going to make the Jihadists not want to kill us and our families, you are certainly delusional.

Well keeping them locked up indefinitely and without charge under shocking conditions that just about every other developed country on earth objects to certainly didn't help in terms of trying to minimize the numbers of those who want to kill us.

And, I would wager that Obama and his advisors are going to come up with a plan that allows for "enhanced interrogation" of some sort, because, whether Obama is extremely smart and pragmatic and I believe will do the right thing to protect American lives.

I disagree that Obama will allow it, and I disagree that it is the "right thing to protect American lives". I think Guantanamo did more for Al-Qaeda recruiting than bin Laden himself could have done!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Just curious what first-hand knowledge you have of the subject. Or are you parroting what the left-wing media espouses?

I am not the PP that you were quoting, but anybody who dismisses a point using the "left-wing media" argument autmotically loses street cred, in my view, on the basis of over-generalizing. There is a very diverse media scene out there with sources that fall all over the political spectrum.

Also, I'm not sure one has to have first-hand knowledge of the subject in order to have a well-informed view.

If you know nothing about interrogation, as your post demonstrates, please spare us your platitudes about what information it can and cannot provide. Basic interrogation, as well as torture, can merely provide "lies." However, both can also bring forward facts that can be corroborated/intelligence that can be verified from evidence.

Please spare us also of your certainty that you corner the market on the truth. In fact there are many studies that conclude that torture more often produces unreliable information than actionable facts. I don't think one has to be an interrogation expert to be aware of that.

I am not advocating torture by any means, despite PPs rush to condemnation.

That exactly what are you advocating? What point are you making? It sure sounds to me like you are saying that torture has its place.

Just merely pointing out the realities. But since most of the posters on this board are closed-minded liberals, convinced of their own rightness, it is a waste of time. This forum is hardly a "political discussion," since any viewpoints other than those of the far left are shouted down as heretical.

It is more than a little alarming that you write off people who object to torture as "close-minded liberals". I consider opposition to torture of other human beings to be a bare minimum in terms of ethical behavior. Also, in terms of this discussion, what you seem to be saying is, in fact, quite literally heretical - not because your point of view differs from those on the "far left" (you should brush up on your world politics, by the way), but because anything but condemnation of torture is contrary to most religious values in the true sense.

If you thinking closing Gitmo and giving all the detainees lawyers is going to make the Jihadists not want to kill us and our families, you are certainly delusional.

Well keeping them locked up indefinitely and without charge under shocking conditions that just about every other developed country on earth objects to certainly didn't help in terms of trying to minimize the numbers of those who want to kill us.

And, I would wager that Obama and his advisors are going to come up with a plan that allows for "enhanced interrogation" of some sort, because, whether Obama is extremely smart and pragmatic and I believe will do the right thing to protect American lives.

I disagree that Obama will allow it, and I disagree that it is the "right thing to protect American lives". I think Guantanamo did more for Al-Qaeda recruiting than bin Laden himself could have done!

Your response proves my point.

[Anonymous]

Your response proves my point.

I still don't know what your point is, and your response doesn't, um, clarify it much.