I know everyone's tired of Guantanamo bay...
 

Why close gitmo?

http://www.cageprisoners.com/prisoners.php?id=2057

If this guy was american, we'd have closed that place years ago. But who cares, he's just an arab. The whole article goes on and on... it's like a horror show.

He was an Algerian, living in Tanzania, under an assumed name with a fraudulent Tunisian passport and employed by Al Haramain charity which was shut down for diverting money to terrorist groups.

He was arrested by Tanzanian police who turned him over to "Malawians in plain clothes who were accompanied by two middle-aged Caucasian men".

He was moved to a "dark prison" and interrogated by two people who spoke English.

Then he was moved to another prison one of the guards said was outside Kabul.

He was flown to Tunisia, apparently because of his fraudulent passport, and they handed him over to the Algerians.

I don't see any mention of him going to Guantanamo.

I didn't mean to imply that he specifically was imprisoned at guantanamo bay, but in an american run prison similar to it. I take it you're in favor of keeping it [gtmo] open?

How could you possibly get that, from what he posted? Your thread title was confusing, and he corrected an obvious error, without further comment. Is mind-reading going to be a habit with you?

As opposed to killing every suspect in the field.... yes.

There are other options beyond killing every suspect in the field. Like for instance provding evidence and trying them a suspects....not torturing them and allowing them access to legal representation so their guilt or innocence can be fairly assessed.

Is you being an asshole at every turn a habit with you? I made a mistake in wording by not looking over my post, he corrected it and I asked him if my reading his tone was correct, rather than just assuming it was. This being the internet, it's hard to read people's tones correctly.

Anywho, bruce don't you think we could have given this guy fair justice? That's why I'm against these kinds of systems, because too many people innocent of their crimes were put in them. We don't think they deserve any kind of due process, that they're guilty before innocent. And horror stories like these, which are likely not the norm, just serve to inflame anti-american sentiments.

It's just another symptom of this new concept of war. The bush administration is probably the first I've ever heard saying that this war will be 'faught in the shadows.' Pretty much the entire republican candidacy came out in favor of torture. What ever happened to 'holding ourselves to a higher standard?' Of course these abuses and things usually happen anyway, but there's been an attempt to control them. Now they seem the norm. Kinda smells to me.

There was certainly enough circumstantial evidence to suspect him, but keep in mind we've no proof of this guys story being accurate and factual. In fact, if it is true, I didn't see any proof is was indeed a total, or even partial, US operation. I don't doubt it could be, I just don't know for sure.

I was under the impression these offshore detention facilities are not a new phenomenon. Not Gitmo, but others in remote covert locations, with the cooperation of foreign governments.

Given Bush's propensity for ignoring American's rights, in the name of the War On Terror, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for him to permit, or even order, this sort of activity.

It would be interesting to know if this sort of activity is gleaning any useful information. I suppose that won't be known for 50 years or so.

Once again George is being accused of something that I don't think he's doing. And when proof is demanded of instances these "denials of rights" or examples of persons who have been raped of their rights as American citizens, there is sudden and very complete silence.

No one's ever given foreign POWs any nation's legal rights. It's not a matter of law, merely one of keeping the enemies caged until hostilities are over or the end of their natural lives whichever comes first.

Bruce has not suffered an abridgement of his freedom of association, speech, or conscience; he can still buy any firearm the state of Pennsylvania allows (though the city of Philadelphia may shaft him); troops have not been quartered in his residence; no one has insisted on going through his sock drawer or any other drawers on a whim; he has not been obliged to incriminate himself in any criminal proceeding; he's not been tried in secret nor unduly slowly, nor have any verdicts reached against him in trial been illegally reviewed -- indeed he hasn't had punishment of any description from the law usual or otherwise, nor have his Constitutional rights been construed to be the limit of his human rights. Et cetera.

What the Administration is doing is nothing other than trying to aggregate the powers to fight a war, for the purpose of winning that war. I want us to win it, but there are some posters around here I couldn't say that of. I am quite certain that one doesn't. No it isn't you, Bruce.

We need to give them ALL international, Geneva, POW rights at ALL times, from the moment we take them into custody.
We need to treat them exactly the way we want them to treat our soldiers, at ALL times.

You can win a war, but if you do it 'at all costs' you might end up worse than when you started it. And to be perfectly frank, I don't think there's a war against some amorphous enemy called 'terrorism' any more than you could declare a war against any other concept. All it's really done is scared the people of this country into giving themselves and their convictions up.

No, they're not afforded rights of the capturing country... is that right? No. Especially, which rk points out, if we want them to treat our soldiers with any dignity.

You can say that I 'don't want us to win the war,' but there's no war going on, except some twisted advance of militarism in our society.

You ARE your tactics.

The strategy, and the tactics too, are: shrink the Thomas P.M. Barnettian Gap portion of the globe.

Queg, your point being, I suspect, that Congress has not passed a declaration of a state of war. The Constitution does not and never did require that be done. Consequently, we've been in about 150 shooting wars of one size or another. War was Congressionally declared for five. And nobody's ever been jailed for it, nor is anyone likely to. It is considered by wise persons (the rabidly anti-Republican must be excluded from this number) that the flexibility that results is necessary to handle the nasty little surprises that from time to time come up in foreign parts -- particularly in that abovementioned Gap. Shots fired and servicepeople down equals a war, particularly when we're going over there to do something about it -- no disparaging quotemarks or other this-is-not-a-war havering or illogic-chopping need apply. Not all the this-is-not-a-war types want us winning it, and bad cess and overflowing cesspools to that lot of half witty peckerslaps. In other words, they are liars and their parents were married -- to other people. Remember, too, just who it was that started it -- and tried to start it for eighteen years at that, from Marine Barracks Beirut in 1983 et seq. A declaration of war might have simplified the legal situation, but it would have restricted civilian civil liberties -- and not the maybes and allegations clouding the lower troposphere around DC, NYC, and the Bay Area -- and the whole idea of a Congressional declaration seemed disproportionate to the conflict as anticipated. It still seems disproportionate.

The crushing of undemocracies is what our nation does, and to my mind, is; partly by example, partly by bomb and bayonet. We've been at just that for over a hundred years straight now. I take a due measure of pride in having participated in the endeavor.

And "treating with dignity" by the other side has simply not happened.

And we want to be just like them.

I say that's piffle, and I don't pick those nits. Our foes are creepy enough to tempt me to genocide. That's a measure of how bad they suck.

And considering that the inmates at Guantanamo aren't losing their Korans and are eating better than the guards are, last I heard -- perhaps the MP's are now eating three hots from the chow hall instead of MRE's -- concerns that we're "just like them" are unbelievably misplaced.

Just win the fucking war, man. Then these worries all go away.

Ummmm.....usually winning the war just brings up new worries.

WWII - We ally with the USSR and defeat the Nazis and the Cold War starts.

Cold War - We give weapons to an group that will resist Soviet influence and we get the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

War On Terror - We kill civilians and we, in turn, create more terrorists.

Of course, Bush has been fighting tooth and nail for the right to wiretap without a warrant, and declare people "illegal enemy combatants" and thereby revoke the right to a trial, and your apologia is that Bruce wasn't so declared, and doesn't know of any taps? Or maybe your apologia is that Bush was frustrated in his attempts by the courts? I'm not so sanguine that the courts actually prevented infringements by emphasizing their illegality, but even if they did, it's bad enough that Bush was fighting to get those powers. If he failed, that's a strength of the system, not an excuse for his activities.

You misunderstood, this 'war on terror' is based on the concept that our civilization is under threat of extinction, so we must kill "them" before they kill us.

I’m sure this is getting redundant, “they’re controlling us with fear!” But think to yourself, when was the last time you were ACTUALLY threatened by a terrorist with a bomb? US Soldiers need not apply, I’m talking about the American citizen, that person we’re all fighting so hard to defend. When was the last time? Take a look at a real war, if your enemy doesn’t get anywhere near a successful attack in 6 years, NOT ONE… how much of a threat is that enemy? Do you think you could let your family out of their bunkers?

They can't cause any fundamental change in our way of life. In fact, the only change to our lifestyle has been inflicted not by colossal (or even minor) attacks on the American citizens, but by our own government and our complacency and fear. This is not the border of Israel where people simply cross, and kill 10 people in a cafe. Yes, they COULD, but they don't. We're not involved in any major threat to our existence, and what threat there is would be better solved with some tactics that didn't resemble a 14 year old playing Civilization.

Most would admit that simply insulting everyone who disagrees with us, attacking anyone who might pose some threat, and clamping down on the rights of our own countrymen for a fake sense of security are tactics that produce a net loss of tremendous size. We lose rights and this amorphous ‘enemy’ gains new fighters to stew.

This 'war on terror' is only in the twisted imagination of those we've given charge and to whom we've blindly said 'save us.' But more and more I believe that it's not a mistake on the part of our leaders, but it's something more cold and calculated. If they’ve read any Machiavelli, I find it more likely they're playing with us.

According to Smithsonian Magazine, we are winning the war on terror in one spot. The Islands of Basilian and Jolo, in The Philippines, used to be the favorite R&R/training base for the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.

Now the American Military is building infrastructure and creating an economy that has the rebels deserting the jungle, to share the wealth. It will be interesting to see if lasts.

I am all for closing Gitmo. And regardless of their final disposition, sending all of them home. Pack them on various planes and send them back to their home countries, their governments can do with them whatever they like. Get them out of our hair. Take the hardest core guys and put them in a high security prison on the US mainland. Give them some degree of due process before hand, but lock them up forever. Then close Gitmo.

I thought their home countries didn't want them back?

What does that matter? Iraq doesn't want us either.

How do you place someone in another country if that country won;t let them in?

Hell, that's easy.

HAHAHAH! That's almost bumper sticker funny.

Don't give them a choice, just drop them off. No big deal. They can let them go, cut their heads off, or send them packing. Once we give them back they are no longer our problem. People can't have it both ways. Close Gitmo, fine, let's do it.

Pierce: yep, Sevareid's Law at work -- and it's nowhere stronger than in politics. That's why I specified those worries. Sufficient unto the day, and all that.

HM: and the Administration could have had all that easily -- IF Congress had declared a state of war existed. Nobody in government or out of it really thought a Congressional declaration of war was the right size or kind of government response. So what you're seeing is a wartime Administration stuck with trying it the hard way if it is to do it any way at all.

Queequeg, read up on conspiracist thinking and conspiracist thinkers -- if that study doesn't turn you off the path you're taking, you may be headed for a hopeless condition.

Basically, conspiracist thinkers are frustrated romantics, looking for an explanation of events that is full of high drama. Unfortunately, Occam's Razor cuts conspiracy theory to shreds, for conspiracy theories invariably accrete layers of complexity. They also generally attribute to malice what can be more simply explained by stupidity. People who've been in government employ tend eventually to notice that government agencies really don't have time for plots, given their real responsibilities. This is true even of intelligence agencies, those favorites of conspiracy-theorizers.

Thomas P.M. Barnett contends that this kind of attack on ourselves and on Europe comes out of a resistance to globalization, by persons seeing only a loss -- though these are outnumbered heavily by those who can see the gain. He notes without attempting to analyze or explain that some of the more intense objection to globalization is to be found only within the societies well globalized already -- what he calls the Core nations, the economic core and mainstay for the globe. He is optimistic that successful integration into globalization is more or less inevitable in the long run, but how much conflict and trouble we'd want to tolerate during that long run is rather a sharp question. He reckons globalization integration is powerfully driven by economic, free-trade considerations, and that thus it has a pull like gravity. It's in the Core nation's interest, though, that this integration proceed swiftly, though it must be also recognized that the substantial social changes societies undergo in the process are not going to be hurried beyond a certain point.

Meanwhile, during that long run, our international troubles are likeliest to come from those unglobalized, unintegrated nations he calls the Gap -- for their separation from, and zero effect upon, the global economy and cultural connectivity.

And meanwhile again, I'm in a lot less hurry to quit fighting than the senior leadership of the Democratic Party.

Irrelevant. They wiretapped without warrants so they wouldn't have to have a reason for the tap, and created an extralegal designation for prisoners so they wouldn't have to have a reason for holding them. This is fact. And you try to defend it by saying they didn't do it to Bruce?

I don't see how anyone of sense could call it "irrelevant." It's central to the Administration's entire conduct of this war against a shadowy, intercommunicative enemy.

If the enemy communicates to coordinate, that is where they are vulnerable. We can't stymie nor defeat them unless we find ways to know their plans and their thinking, hmmm?

I'd further point out that neither Happy Monkey nor anyone else, anyone else at all, has come up with a way to prosecute this war that is any different or any better -- better meaning that we, the democracies, are likely to win. Our foes were the ones to start the ruckus, out of sheer religious bigotry.

You don't approve of religious bigotry, do you, Happy Monkey? Are you quite certain you don't? All of the good liberals should be shooting at these bastard hyenas' sons on those grounds.

Hyena's sons? That's a strange one. I kind of like, it but it doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

The problem, UG, is that most of us 'good liberals' don't buy into the 'war on terror' at all because frankly, I'm not the least bit scared of another major terrorist attack on US soil. How long can the terror alert stay at 'elevated' or 'lellow'? Also, because only one of the wars we're currently fighting, and only in the beginning, was against terrorists that actually had the US's downfall as their goal.

Now all we've got is a bunch of guys thousands of miles from our borders, with no discernible leader, who we're keeping from obtaining power, but in the lands that are thousands of miles from our borders. I don't see our national security particularly wrapped up in that, can you honestly say you do?

So many get very accusative about 'conspiracy theories' and their 'crackpot ideas...' of the US in a quest for money. Can you tell me with a straight face that a faceless, multinational, largely unconnected enemy is coordinating numerous large scale attacks on US soil, and has the means to carry said attacks out? Doesn't this sound a little Illuminati to you? Does to me.

The most common lashing I receive is 'You've got your head in the sand, you don't understand the real danger.' It's been official for quite a while now: we've lost more people in wars 'taking the fight to the enemy' then we have in all the foreign terrorist attacks on US soil in recent history combined. I guess 'combined' isn't the right word, because there's only been one.

The damages I see are pretty clear: not some enemy who can "strike anywhere, anytime," but the several people I've met who've either died or been severely injured in Iraq or Afghanistan. They signed up to 'defend freedom' and protect their country. They're not fighting for our country any more than us invading, say, poland would be defending our country.

Also, I don't approve of religious indoctrination camps for evangelicals. Can I shoot them? How about white supremacists? let's shoot them on those grounds?

I know that breaking the law is central to the Administration's strategy, but that is irrelevant when trying to justify it.Then get a goddamn warrant.Better international policework. It is not possible to fight "terrorism" with military force.

Let's see. Torture only made more enemies. Extraordinary rendition only made enemies even of America's friends. Lying that we are winning "Mission Accomplished" only made "Mission Accomplished" worse. "We are where we are" only got more Americans killed and created a country of 25% refugees. IOW this war has been prosecuted doing what Urbane Guerrilla recommended. As a result, even bin Laden roams free. Urbane Guerrilla does not even call for bin Laden's capture. Everything has happened according to UG's plans.

A shadowy enemy? Of course. When using fictional descriptions of an enemy, it can only exist in shadows and cannot be defeated.

Succinctly put tw.

The same was true of the Second World War by early 1943, as far as number of casualties goes in taking the fight to the enemy, Queg. Thinking in this quota-fashion is yet another road to defeatism. That is a road I will not walk, and I urge a similar course for you: the war's opponents are just so shockingly fatuous that I find their arguments ridiculous in the extreme. How do our casualties invalidate our cause? I'm not armchairing this -- I had nine years in military service myself, and my wife is retired career military. I think I have some idea what it means to be on the sharp end. (It's risky.)

I'm not so sure I'd call them faceless, and "they" are certainly motivated towards assailing us on several bogus grounds -- like doing the right thing by Israel. At the moment, they are having considerable trouble coming up with the means to attack us on our own soil, but there was a day when they did have the means, did they not? Has there been any magic to demotivate these foes? Hell no; it's all hard work.

As I've remarked elsewhere, the strategy for defending us is that of reducing the Gap. Two of the Gap nations are Afghanistan (very likely to remain a Gap nation for a very long time owing to just about zero national consciousness, more simply put as a lack of unity and scant motivation towards it) and Iraq (some of the same problem, and perhaps some radical solution will be the only tenable one -- though I'd personally like to see a confederation evolve to keep Iraq's three major ethnicities from being Finlandized by their neighboring states).

Bringing Gap nations out of the Gap and into the world's global economic Core calls for several things to happen: democratization of the sociopolitical order, education not determined by gender, and trade, cultural, and communicative connectivity with the rest of the planet. The Gap nations get called that because there's a gap between their cultures and economies and the global economy.

I've said before you couldn't be constructive if somebody gave you a hammer and two hacks of 2x4s, tw. You're running true to form.

Oh, you can tell how many more enemies we've got because we lean on some bad guys -- as either hard numbers or a percentage increase? You must be privy to some remarkably secret information not available to mere mortals then. Let's do the sensible thing and dismiss this contention as unprovable.

Bin Laden is nice to get -- but do you really think the bad guys will quit if we get him? I don't really. For that would be fictional.

And of course, tw, no strategist, isn't coming up with improved strategy, owing to his want of constructiveness.

Queg, you're fairly new here, but if you're up for some research, you'd find that no one here has ever succeeded in baiting me, and you can add this try to the list of failures. To succeed in baiting me would first require reducing my age by two thirds, and then my IQ by a third. Sound at all likely?

lol

:lol: Yeah, you're pretty much the most awesome poster on teh intarwebs. Are you serious when you say things like this? You sound like a cartoon super villain.

Holy shit, queermeister! (sorry but thats more or less how I read your name. Coming from me, thats more praise than ridicule)
You've done it!

Youve put into words exactly what UG calls up in my mind. I havent been able to but this into words before, but you've done it, man!

that's funny

And my opposition mostly sounds like wimpy, weedy fascist sympathizers, or else so completely welded to idees-fixe as to come off unhinged. Is it any wonder I put 'em down? Is there anything else they could deserve?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Urbane Guerilla is American Dad!

Just sounds like something you do for fun to me. :p

oh no don't say DAD!


American dads are watching football and drinking beer ? Is that was UG does in his off time?

nah...
The super human comic book villain fits better.

I'm certainly not going to deny that I enjoy it. The ultimate end is still human betterment, however dimmed that hope might be.

:)

Urbane Guerrilla says we should not go after the only enemy - bin Laden. Why are Urbane Guerrilla's enemies so shadowy? Because they don't exist. Only insurgents, rising up to take back their country from an invader, are evil? Yes according to Urbane Guerrilla who has all but called for protecting bin Laden from justice.

UG, you were never officer material. You cannot see the bigger picture. They tell you who the bad guy is. You automatically believe without even asking if that bad guy exists. Shadowy enemy. It must exist. Ghosts are hard to kill with bullets.

Casper is evil. Moriarity is evil. Our enemies are hiding everywhere. Only UG can see these enemies?

No. The cartoon character 'American Dad'.

Now tw is telling us bin Laden is "the only enemy." Who believes that? You, tw?

No, tw, we see your anti-American madness continues in its full floridity, busily making plea for the forces of undemocracy. Poor, stupid, communists' dupe, you profound lover of all that is non-democratic. That tells me you've no experience of a totalitarian society, none at all. Consequently, your pronouncements are all in error, each and every word. That is why I scold you: you can't get it right. You can be relied upon to disgrace yourself in the eyes of mankind's lovers, democracy's saviors, and American patriots; you have done so once again, and once again I scold you for doing what you seem unable to change in yourself. That and you never manage an idee-fixe that is factual. Tsk tsk tsk. What is to be done with a man who'd so rather be wrong than become right?

There are other enemies of America. One is Urban Guerrilla. Ignorance and myopia is one of America's greatest threats.

UG, when does your manuscript for the Pentagon Papers get published?

Perhaps when you revise your own life's philosophy to become both sane and a patriot? :p

Once again, to isolate the teachable from the unteachable: undemocracy isn't good enough for humans anywhere, and humans should not tolerate undemocracy, nor undemocrats.

It is interesting that an American enemy like tw would call me one. Illustrative, too, of his psychological projections. This sort of thing springs too often and too easily from your lips and soul, tw.

It's all you do.

So again you ignored the question. What do you fear? When does your manuscript for the Pentagon Papers get published?

You've asked twice; apparently you're not reading that I've answered once, and ignored not at all. I certainly wouldn't fear you; you have nothing. Btw, O Ignoramissimus, I answer your question with another. I can do that. That's also about as much answer as you're going to get: as much, that is, as you deserve.

If you're not busily burning the commie at the stake twice a night are you certain you are not being remiss? Discuss.

I'll start: I flog the collectivist-totalitarian propagandizer here, and you're moved to object to the punishment? Where's your sense of justice?

There's an even better character: I'm Owl. As in A.A. Milne. I'm cast in that role in a community theater production and we open Friday the 28th. It's true Wol is a birdbrain with an education, but you still have to be bright to play a birdbrain well.

Milne esteemed brainpower: why else would Eeyore, himself no intellectual giant, go off on a rant about animals without brains, just gray fluff that got blown into their heads by accident?

Yes you can do that when you fear to answer the question. When does your manuscript for the Pentagon Papers get published?

I do not fear. And I've told you the answer, pathetic one. Now accept the answer and quit proving yourself stupider.

And do you really want me to bring up the matter of your non-response to the question I've posed you about five different times in several threads: Do you want America to win?

I suppose that's about the sixth time. It's a question that hangs you on the horns of a dilemma, doesn't it? If you answer according to your inclinations, every American on this board will turn on you. If you answer according to what you think I want to hear, you're dissembling. This is why you inspire contempt. If you didn't get yourself into this sort of thing, you'd be better regarded.

NO, I want Iraq to win.

Can I bring you your check, UG? Because you just got served.