Obama Closes Gitmo

yyz28 · January 27, 2009

That was amazing. Just plain amazing.

Thank you... I often amaze even myself with my brilliance with regularity...

In paragraph one you started to make a point about liberals "whipping out the constitution", then quickly took a hard right turn to go off on other subjects that nobody is even discussing. It took you all of two sentences to reach for the quasi-straw man. Impressive.

Paragraph one is a commentary on my opinion of the selective use of the Constitution. Every point was right on and (based on the fact you didn't bother to argue them, only pretend like I was topic hijacking) difficult to debate. If expecting folks who cling to the Constitution for their arguments respect THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT and not use it when it is convinient and when it isn't claim its "living and breathing" is a hard turn right, then I'm guilty as charged.

In paragraph two you say that the Constitution doesn't even apply (though I then have to question the need for the diatribe in paragraph one if the Constitution isn't even in play). You throw the icing on that little cake by saying that these people "aren't Americans" and "weren't captured on American soil" as if these statements were 1)True (where do you think suspected terrorists that are captured in America go?) or 2)Relevant to the point that the dirty libs are making. Let me spell it out for you. America was founded upon, and clings to as the basis of its superiority, ideals that are of a higher moral value. When we throw around crazy terms like "due process" and "we don't torture" there is no asterisk next to them with the addendum "unless you're muslim and/or brown". If we abandon them in our dealings with our enemies then we are sending the message to the rest of the world that we stand by our core values...unless we can find an excuse not to. So, no, their citizenship or lack thereof is not the point.

Well, Emmit... those statements are 1. True, and 2. Relevant. Let's start with #1.

The people we're holding in Gitmo were captured in combat, outside the borders of the US and are not US Citizens. We're not rounding up random brown people living in this country or people who disagree with President Bush and holding them against their will at Gitmo, no matter how much you wish it were so in order to have a legitimate gripe, and...

...moving on to #2...

...THE PROTECTIONS IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DO NOT APPLY TO ENEMIES CAPTURED IN COMBAT, nor does it apply to non-US Citizens living outside the borders of the US. Does a French citizen have a right to due process in our court system for a crime committed in Paris? No. Did Nazi soldiers held in Europe by the allies have a right to due process in our court system? No. I rest my case.

Terrorists captured in America have historically been held in federal jails and run through the justice system. That has worked Oh-So-Well for us thus far, don't you think?

I don't give a crap if you're Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Scientologist, Atheist, Agnostic, or if you still buy into the old Greek God system - The REAL strawman in this thread is your suggestion this is a racist thing, when it clearly isn't. Due process has never been promised to POW's, nor is it required in the Constitution. We hold POW's until the conflict is over so they won't return to the battlefield. This is how we have conducted war in this country since the founding. What is happening here is nothing new.

In paragraph three you bring up the brilliant maxim "no uniform=no geneva convention". Wow. Eddie Izzard would love to meet you as he could this gem to his "no flag, no country" routine.

It IS brilliant, and I thank you for noticing... I don't know who Eddie Izzard is, so I guess I won't argue that point. To qualify for the Geneva convention, you must be an organized soldier. I didn't write the tready. These aren't rules George W. Bush made up along the way. It's just the plain and simple fact. I see absolutly no problem with holding POW's off our soil and subjecting them to Military justice as we always have.

UNTflyer · January 27, 2009

Obama is not going to close GTMO... he will find some reason to keep it open, or he if he does close GTMO he'll move them to a prison ship.

Moving terrorists (including confessed 9/11 conspirator and GTMO prisoner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) from GTMO to the U.S. and granting trials in our court system will not be tolerated by the American people. Obama's going to realize that the decisions are much tougher when sitting in the Big Chair. Hell, on his 2nd full day of office he did exactly what he criticized Bush of doing, killing innocent civilians in the so-called "War on Terror".

And for those keeping count:

GTMO prisoners released: 561

GTMO prisoners remaining: 145 (13 Afghans, 5 Egyptians, 7 French, 22 Saudis, 6 Jordanians, 12 Kuwaitis, 16 Morroccans, 42 Pakistanis, and handfuls of various other nationalities)

Number of Iraqis: 0

Number of Americans: 0

DeepGreen · January 29, 2009

OH, please! Don't put Americans our "tactics" and Gitmo in the same category as the Republican Guard. They freakin' "behead" people for no reason. Khmer Rouge? Remember the "killing fields"?

You should be ashamed.

:angry:

DeepGreen · January 29, 2009

It IS brilliant, and I thank you for noticing... I don't know who Eddie Izzard is, so I guess I won't argue that point. To qualify for the Geneva convention, you must be an organized soldier. I didn't write the tready. These aren't rules George W. Bush made up along the way. It's just the plain and simple fact. I see absolutly no problem with holding POW's off our soil and subjecting them to Military justice as we always have.

Nice job! What a lot of our lib friends forget is the number of "Japanese Americans" that were rounded up after Pearl Harbor and detained for many years. Where was the outcry.

SilverEagle · January 29, 2009

I don't know who Eddie Izzard is, so I guess I won't argue that point. To qualify for the Geneva convention, you must be an organized soldier. I didn't write the tready. These aren't rules George W. Bush made up along the way. It's just the plain and simple fact. I see absolutly no problem with holding POW's off our soil and subjecting them to Military justice as we always have.

He's a brilliant British cross-dressing comedian/actor. Now, don't you feel special? :rolleyes:

GreenMachine · January 29, 2009

waterboarding and beheading, exactly the same except one can live after being waterboarded, don't believe the same can be said for beheading.

GreenMachine · January 30, 2009

you've finally made me see the light. We should set these poor, mistreated, terro uh I mean stinkers up in the Anatole, serve them steak and shrimp everyday and teach them the correct way to behave. We are one f'ed up nation to be mistreating these terro , little scoundrels. They probably didn't get enough hugs from mommie, thats the ticket.

meangreendork · January 30, 2009

Waterboarding is torture, and it is potentially fatal. But beyond that, if for no other reason, it's torture because it causes serious emotional trauma. And because it does that, it's not really the best way to obtain information from detainees. Seriously - torture is one of the most unreliable ways of obtaining confessions, and for damn sure, it's unreliable as a means by which to obtain intelligence. The best ways to obtain intelligence has always, always been through appealing to, and working through the hearts and minds of those in detention. You know, carrot as opposed to stick.

As for GITMO, if it gets closed, it'll be replaced. We do need a place to detain people who are captured under suspicion of terrorism or collusion with terrorists. But what needs to be learned from the way GITMO was run, and the way the whole system was run, is that it needs better oversight and the policies around the detention and apprehension of individuals needs better transparency and generally, a better PR view.

oldguystudent · January 30, 2009

Nice job! What a lot of our lib friends forget is the number of "Japanese Americans" that were rounded up after Pearl Harbor and detained for many years. Where was the outcry.

Doesn't that just kinda' show that just because something was accepted at one time doesn't make it right?

meangreendork · January 30, 2009

Doesn't that just kinda' show that just because something was accepted at one time doesn't make it right?

I don't know how the US government got a way with that crap. It's a good thing the government is smarter than to just round up people by the bushel like that nowadays.

Censored by Laurie · January 30, 2009

I confirm all of this.

I say we put them moooslims in an uncomfortable chair and play Howard the Duck on repeat for 24 hours a day.

UNTflyer · January 30, 2009

Torture, hmmm... Well, let's see these guys have cut off people's heads on camera for their families and the world to see. They send misguided souls to blow themselves up on buses, trains, and airplanes (apparently because they are too cowardly to martyr themselves). And, they have declared war on America, hell-bent on doing the most inhuman, repulsive acts to force a change in our policy, reminding us at the same time we will one day yield to their twisted version of Islam.

I don't buy into the argument that our waterboarding of suspected terrorists harms our relations with the world. Terrorist organizations already hate us, and they fear no reciprocity... young terrorist agents are just cannon fodder to them. Other nations may feign outrage and indignation to our methods, but in the end know they are neccesary. The world fawned over China during the Olympics, and our waterboarding of a few select prisoners pales in comparison to China's record on human rights.

We train our own agents by waterboarding them, which tells me that while it is a form of torture its effects are not severe enough to get up in arms about it. So, am I going to get outraged if we pour water on their heads for 2 minutes (apparently a record time of endurance by one Khalid Sheik Mohammed)? No, I'm not. Am I going twist myself into knots over the ethical, moral questions of our nation's use of waterboarding? No. It's war, guys. The moment two sides go to war, ethics pretty much goes out the window anyways. Our principles and ethics apply to our citizens, and our peaceful relations with other nations. When you decide you want to destroy us, or harm us, or terrorize us... you've opened yourself up to a world of pain. And really, what good are ethics and principles if the Beltway is turned into a radioation belt?

Just my humble opinion.

keith · January 30, 2009

<snip>.... The best ways to obtain intelligence has always, always been through appealing to, and working through the hearts and minds of those in detention. You know, carrot as opposed to stick.
<snip>

OMG, you cannot be serious. You think they just need a hug or something? You do realize that they want to kill you just because of who you are and what you represent?

Keith

Coffee and TV · January 30, 2009

Nice job! What a lot of our lib friends forget is the number of "Japanese Americans" that were rounded up after Pearl Harbor and detained for many years. Where was the outcry.

Hold on and let me get in my magic time machine and travel back to 40 years before I was born.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Coffee and TV