Obama's Gitmo release

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.


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.



I'm not the PP, but I do know that there are 17 tactics and methods approved by the Geneva convetion which don't involve torture. I also know that information obtained has prevented other attacks and led to arrests of big name leaders. They just didn't find these guys in the Mid East by dumb luck.
Anonymous
I'm not the PP, but I do know that there are 17 tactics and methods approved by the Geneva convetion which don't involve torture. I also know that information obtained has prevented other attacks and led to arrests of big name leaders. They just didn't find these guys in the Mid East by dumb luck.


Let me guess...you were just listening to the Diane Rehm show on this topic. The former Bush and Rumsfeld speech writer just said this same thing almost verbatim on WAMU about 20 minutes ago.

As the other panelists on the program pointed out, there is no evidence whatsoever that the use of "alternative interrogation methods" was the defining factor in obtaining the information they did. As the Diane Rehm panelists also pointed out, there is a lot of evidence that the CIA's interference in other interrogators' attempts to build a rapport with the detainees actually set back the interrogation process.
Anonymous
I'm not the PP, but I do know that there are 17 tactics and methods approved by the Geneva convetion which don't involve torture.


Ps. If your position is that it is okay to use these 17 alternative interrogation tactics and methods, but not torture, then what is your beef with Obama's actions? His position is that US interrogators are not permitted to use methods beyond those contained in the US Army Field Manual, which is compliant with the Geneva Conventions.
Anonymous
Nope, wasn't listening to the Rehm show, but nice to know they are acknowledging the methods used. Also, I never said I had a beef with Obama's actions. This notion was expected by many. I noted that I wasn't the PP (the one with intel background). But that aside, yes, Army does a lot of interrogation training via their field manaual. The Army has the most Arabic translators working with the interrogators from the different military branches. But Navy is running the show down there. So, to address your query re torture, the person from whom my info comes from is against torture not just for moral reasons, but also as a tactical method. It's been provening through history that torture mostly brings about false statements. I do know that they like Rice Krispy treats...
Anonymous
Your response proves my point.

That's hilarious!
Your logic just slays me!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:in the US Army Field Manual, which is compliant with the Geneva Conventions.


Why is it in there when it is not practiced?
Maybe the Europeans were right. US follows the Geneva convention, but at its convenience will occationally apply the international fishing rules instead.
And whent the prisoners are wearing orange, they do look like crabs and lobsters.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:O.k., so what do we do with those unfit for trial at Gitmo?


This seems to be the question du jour, no? Our allies don't want these people. There is no community on the continental US that has offered to take and hold these guys. The Dems in Congress will not authorize $$ for closing Gitmo absent the specifics on relocation, etc. The shoe is on the other foot now and the Democrats are responsible for holding them or letting them go - and suddenly letting them go has a whole lot less appeal.
Anonymous
interesting article on just this point:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/20/guantanamo/
Anonymous
I just love how the GOP wingers have created this big stink about Obama bringing the detainees to the United States. As though they will all be released once they get here to do as they please.

I don't give a damn if the worst terrorists alive are kept here in Virginia where I live, because I'm smart enough to know that our American high security prisons are secure. Those guys aren't going anywhere.

Heck, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert DeSaivo, Ted Bundy and Terry Nichols are all "living" in the United States at the moment and I'm not worried about them causing much mischief.

Unfortunately the American public listens to Faux News and the Winger talking heads spout on about "Obama wants to bring terrorists to the US" and get all excited without bothering to think it through. After the abject failure their policies have produced it's no wonder the GOP is going back to it's only successful strategy: Fear and Smear.
Anonymous
Agree with your sentiment, but you do know that Bundy was executed years ago, and that Dahmer met his end in the prison showers, as well.
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Anonymous wrote:Agree with your sentiment, but you do know that Bundy was executed years ago, and that Dahmer met his end in the prison showers, as well.


I was just going to say the same thing. Given the state of our prisons, those guys would need to be more concerned about their safety then we would of ours.

I used to think that the Republicans manufactured fear as a means of passing their policies. Now I realize that they really are scared of everything.

Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Agree with your sentiment, but you do know that Bundy was executed years ago, and that Dahmer met his end in the prison showers, as well.


I was just going to say the same thing. Given the state of our prisons, those guys would need to be more concerned about their safety then we would of ours.

I used to think that the Republicans manufactured fear as a means of passing their policies. Now I realize that they really are scared of everything.



Right now prisoners are still being captured on battlefield. Instead of being sent to the clean, organized conditions of Guantanamo that was designed to safely contain such combatants, they are being 'held' in Afghanistan in much less desirable conditions because the President has 'closed' Gitmo. As long as we fight this war, we are going to capture enemies who don't designate themselves by uniform or country, and with whom we have no one to treaty. Guantanamo was designed for this circumstance, for their benefit and ours. Would you like all the prisoners now being held in Afghanistan and Iraq to come straight to District Circuit Court? What's the plan?
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Anonymous wrote:
Right now prisoners are still being captured on battlefield. Instead of being sent to the clean, organized conditions of Guantanamo that was designed to safely contain such combatants, they are being 'held' in Afghanistan in much less desirable conditions because the President has 'closed' Gitmo. As long as we fight this war, we are going to capture enemies who don't designate themselves by uniform or country, and with whom we have no one to treaty. Guantanamo was designed for this circumstance, for their benefit and ours. Would you like all the prisoners now being held in Afghanistan and Iraq to come straight to District Circuit Court? What's the plan?


Well, you miss one important point concerning why Gitmo was created: to keep those held there outside of the US legal jurisdiction. The reason for that is obvious -- things that weren't legal were going to be done. The fact that Gitmo represents an effort to evade the rule of law -- created by a country that claims to pride itself on following the rule of law -- is exactly why it has become such a stain on the reputation of our country.

To your point, I think those captured on the battlefield should be treated as prisoners of war. Whether the camps are in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the US is of little concern to me as long as they meet the international requirements for the treatment of POWs. If we happen to snag someone who was involved in 9/11 or another international terrorist incident, a SuperMax prison seems like a good place to imprison them to me (assuming they can be tried and convicted).

Mind you, tens of thousands of people have been detained in Afghanistan and Iraq. Gitmo was never designed or expected to hold prisoners in those numbers. So, your contention that Gitmo was some sort of luxury prison for those being held in Bagram and Abu Ghraib is really a red herring.



Anonymous
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Agree with your sentiment, but you do know that Bundy was executed years ago, and that Dahmer met his end in the prison showers, as well.


I was just going to say the same thing. Given the state of our prisons, those guys would need to be more concerned about their safety then we would of ours.

I used to think that the Republicans manufactured fear as a means of passing their policies. Now I realize that they really are scared of everything.



Is that why polls show that Republicans are happier than Democrats?

Republicans are scared of one thing and that's liberalism. It's a mental disorder and it's incurable. Of course, your beloved liberal policies will ultimately put us all to death- whether it be via terrorism, or we'll be so miserable living under Obamaism that we'll all kill ourselves.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Agree with your sentiment, but you do know that Bundy was executed years ago, and that Dahmer met his end in the prison showers, as well.


I was just going to say the same thing. Given the state of our prisons, those guys would need to be more concerned about their safety then we would of ours.

I used to think that the Republicans manufactured fear as a means of passing their policies. Now I realize that they really are scared of everything.



Is that why polls show that Republicans are happier than Democrats?

Republicans are scared of one thing and that's liberalism. It's a mental disorder and it's incurable. Of course, your beloved liberal policies will ultimately put us all to death- whether it be via terrorism, or we'll be so miserable living under Obamaism that we'll all kill ourselves.



Ha! Republicans are scared of just about everything. It's biologically based, so I don't blame you. Scientists actually study this stuff. Here is one example: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/19/science/sci-politics19





Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: