I know there are a lot of folks on here who probably feel we should shut down the prison in Guantanemo Bay with all of the publicity recently over what some would describe as torture and a gulag style atmosphere. I even saw senator Dick Durbin yesterday compare us, US soldiers, to nazis (unvbelievable). My question is if we close the prison what do we do with the prisoners? Release them? There were 558 detainees given hearings at Guantanamo, 520 were “properly classified” as enemy combatants. Of the remaining 38, he said, 23 have been released so far. Those who say close it have to understand these prisoners are of the same kind that killed over 3000 innocent Americans and would gladly do it themselves if given the chance. I would love to hear some ideas on just what you would do with them.
“Hearings”, my ass.
we could either threat them as 1) POW’s but since we’re fighting an illegal, undeclared war I wonder who the greater criminal is. Or we could 2) try them as criminals and give them real representation and rights, or send them to their home countries for trial.
What? You say they probably wouldn’t be tried at home? Where are they from? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Some allies we’ve chosen for this “war”, eh?
So the government says that 520 were “properly classified”. The gov’t lied about the war, why wouldn’t they lie about this?
My question is if we close the prison what do we do with the prisoners? Release them?
Yes. Right there in Cuba. All they have to do is make it across the mine field and they are “free”.
What is the DoD regulation state for treatment of an “enemy combatant”? I don’t ask in a sarcastic way, I would honestly like to know as I am not aware of that. Given what the reg states, I think that would drive what we do with them.
One the one hand, let’s assume we keep them in custody. We can either send them elsewhere (I have no clue where), or keep them at Gitmo. If we send them elsewhere we have to break up our interrogation and translation experts, we have to build all new facilities, etc. If we keep them at Gitmo then any news item relating to the enemy combatants will include footnotes about perceived or real abuses. From a logistical perspective only, I say we keep them there. From a “winning the minds and hearts of Muslims world-wide” I think we have to move them along.
On the other hand we can release them. We can either just ship them back to their countries of origin, dump them all in one place, or we can put them in prisons in their countries of origin (not really sure what charges/means we have to do this). I think the last of those options is the best if we are going to release them. Of course we can’t publicly state what the combatants have told us information wise, but maybe we can state what any possible charges or reasons for keeping them is? I think that is one of the biggest concerns is, why have we kept them for 2-3 years? The US (and it’s people) need to decide if we are comfortable enough with saying “Because we say so” and having the rest of the world get po’d. Do we care about the opinions of those who are inclined to think we are behaving improperly? Are we willing to go it alone in the future on cases like this? Are we actually trying to get the Muslim world to hate us less? I don’t know the answers to those questions, but I think they are all something the DoD and President Bush need to bear in mind.
Can you also send me a link to Durbin’s statement? I’ve heard on the radio he said this and I’d really like to read his whole statement and understand it better.
It’s a very interesting question/topic you pose, worthy of some serious thoughts and questions. I hope you get the responses the topic deserves.
Why should they be allowed a trial? They are enemy combatants not criminals or POW’s and are not US citizens. They have no rights nor should they have any. Lets focus for a moment on what we have done right so far in handling them as opposed to what went wrong. Their living conditions are far superior to any they would experince back in the caves they came from. They get three meals a day, a shower when needed, medical treatment, a quoran etc. So they are cold or hot or forced to listen to non stop rap music or God forbid Barry Manilow for hours. Maybe even chained to the floor with hands and feet bound. Big fat so what. I am in no way condoning abuse but give me a break. Comparing Gitmo to a gulag or Pol Pot or the Nazis? Please. Millions were murdered by all both the nazis and Pol Pot plus who knows how many vanished in the old soviet gulags. There is no comparison and for someone to try and make the connection is just wrong.
I can’t believe you just said that. “They have no rights, nor should they have any”. Why do you hate America and what it stands for?
I stand by what I said. No rights for them. Hate America? Excuse me but I wear the uniform of the US Army and love my country. What rights should they have exactly?
Here is the Durbin link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061502627.html
I asked the question because I am very curious as to what those opposed to Gitmo would have us do. I do not see any possible way we can either release them or turn them back to their home country. Thats just not smart. Allowing 550 known terrorists to walk away does not pass the common sense test. As for moving them to other facilities you make an excellent point in regards to resources and cost. Again why reinvent the wheel when we already have a facility? I do not really believe we are inflaming the Muslim world with our treatment of the terrorists. I mean what was inflaming them when they bombed the USS Cole, or the first attempted Trade Towers, or the embassies in Africa or any countless attacks. I don’t buy it that some stories about our treatment of them is making them want to kill us. Their desire to kill and inflict injury on Americans goes way beyond some story. It is a deep rooted cultural hatred for us. What happens is this: There are thousands of Muslim extremists literally dying to slaughter Americans, and only three proven ways to stop them: (1) Kill them (the recommended method), (2) capture them and keep them locked up, or (3) convince them that their cause is lost. Guantanamo is useless for No. 1, but really pulls ahead on No. 2 and No. 3 (i.e., a “purpose”).
As for a DOD policy on enemy combatants I do not have it chapter and verse but the attached article my help explain or clarify it for you.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2005/03/sec-050329-dod01.htm
You’ve got a funny way of showing it, but considering our history and the people who just got elected into office it’s not unique, sadly.
better yet, you should probably tell me why they shouldn’t? Even the real nazis we’re accorded rights as prisoners (overall), but somehow these brown people deserve to be treated worse than nazis. Is it because they’re brown? because they don’t share the same “god” we do?
Hmmm. adequate medical care by red cross/crescent? Communication with family? For starters those would be nice, but we’re having trouble doing that in Iraq, let alone Guantanamo. Hell, we’ve got our own little “Nacht und Nebel” policy going on right now.
We had a chance, after 9/11 to act up to our ideals. Instead, we’re behaving like a scared bully and an incompetent imperialist.
Why don’t we just execute them all? Wouldn’t that be the simplest solution?
You seem to have great confidence in our abilities to differentiate between bad guys and good guys, and all gradations between. While your confidence is admirable, I would argue that it’s a bit misplaced.
Because these guys are being held incommunicado and without representation, nobody knows anything about them, what they’ve allegedly done, and what they may know. We have to take the word of our government, which has already shown in this conflict that it has difficulty making those differentiations, especially when you’re leaving it to 20 yr old prison guards from Dubuque. It seems like an oblivion not all that different from the Chinese prison system, or others we routinely deride.
My point is that you assume the infallibility of our system, and that whoever gets picked up must be by definition a bad guy. The whole point of a system is to try and figure out whether that is true or not. Would you be so dismissive if that were the system within in this country as well? That anybody arrested and held indefinitely by the police must be by definition a bad guy, and therefore not deserving of habeas corpus and his day in court? Or would you just say, well, that would never be me, so why should I care?
Your argument that they have no rights and we can do whatever we want with them is precisely why people who formerly looked up to us, especially compared to their own repressive governments, now dislike or hate us. We went from being a country of bedrock principle to a country of hysteria and blind confidence in the wisdom of our leaders, despite a complete lack of transparency. Are you really that confident in the US government? I mean, it’s ironic that people love to bash the government’s incompetence, but then are happy to cede Gitmo to their perceived skill.
If we don’t stand for the principles of freedom, transparency, and due process, then what exactly do we stand for? Whatever makes us rich?
better yet, you should probably tell me why they shouldn’t? Even the real nazis we’re accorded rights as prisoners (overall), but somehow these brown people deserve to be treated worse than nazis. Is it because they’re brown? because they don’t share the same “god” we do?
They are afforded basic “human” rights. Food, shelter clothing and a right to practice their religion. What am I missing or do you think they should have a big screen TV, internet access, and conjugal visits? Nice way to refer to a whole ethnicity of people by calling them “those brown people.”
Hmmm. adequate medical care by red cross/crescent? Communication with family? For starters those would be nice, but we’re having trouble doing that in Iraq, let alone Guantanamo. Hell, we’ve got our own little “Nacht und Nebel” policy going on right now.
Sorry but the International Red Cross is not going to provide any better medical care than our doctors. Communication with family? Not. I know American soldiers who go weeks without communicating with their families. Again why should the terrorists? Not sure what you mean by “we’re having trouble doing that in Iraq.” Trouble doing what exactly?
We had a chance, after 9/11 to act up to our ideals. Instead, we’re behaving like a scared bully and an incompetent imperialist.
No we are behaving like someone trying to prevent another terrorist attack that kills innocent American lives.
**Why don’t we just execute them all? Wouldn’t that be the simplest solution? **
Simplest yes but right no.
You seem to have great confidence in our abilities to differentiate between bad guys and good guys, and all gradations between. While your confidence is admirable, I would argue that it’s a bit misplaced.
I stand by our ability to differentiate between bad guys and good guys. All of the detainees in Gitmo were picked up on the battlefield fighting against US servicemen. Please see my link in another thread referencing how we know who is who. Some of those picked up have been released.
Because these guys are being held incommunicado and without representation, nobody knows anything about them, what they’ve allegedly done, and what they may know. We have to take the word of our government, which has already shown in this conflict that it has difficulty making those differentiations, especially when you’re leaving it to 20 yr old prison guards from Dubuque. It seems like an oblivion not all that different from the Chinese prison system, or others we routinely deride.
What do you need to know about what they have done. Doesn’t firing a wepon at a US soldier and trying to kill him count. And yes we do have to take the word of our government. There are some things, due to National security, the general public just can not and will not kknow. It doesn’t mean the government is lying. Comparing us to the Chinese is again insulting. US citizens rights are not violated by our government the way Chinese citizens are by their government.
My point is that you assume the infallibility of our system, and that whoever gets picked up must be by definition a bad guy. The whole point of a system is to try and figure out whether that is true or not. Would you be so dismissive if that were the system within in this country as well? That anybody arrested and held indefinitely by the police must be by definition a bad guy, and therefore not deserving of habeas corpus and his day in court? Or would you just say, well, that would never be me, so why should I care?
Our system is not infallable but I have the full confidence that what is found to be wrong will be corrected. You can’t compare our legal system in this US with what is going on in Gitmo. Of course any US citizen should be afforded their constitutional rights. These are not US citizens and not afforded the same rights as you and me.
Your argument that they have no rights and we can do whatever we want with them is precisely why people who formerly looked up to us, especially compared to their own repressive governments, now dislike or hate us. We went from being a country of bedrock principle to a country of hysteria and blind confidence in the wisdom of our leaders, despite a complete lack of transparency. Are you really that confident in the US government? I mean, it’s ironic that people love to bash the government’s incompetence, but then are happy to cede Gitmo to their perceived skill.
Tell me exactly who formerly looked up to us now dislike or hate us? The radical part of Islam has a deep hatred for weterners in general and Americans particular. To argue what has happened makes them hate us now is not valid. Nothing we can do will EVER change how they feel about us.
So your basis for denying them rights is that they took up arms against US forces. Doesn’t that entitle them to Geneva Accord protections as POWs? Or are you really going to sit there and parse language to suggest that they are “enemy combatants” whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Let’s face it - that phrase was simply invented to mean POWs without rights.
So, if American forces invade a country, with or without reason, if one has the temerity to form forces and fight back, that makes them eligible for the Gitmo gulag? If this is a war, and the Administration seems happy to call it that indefinitely, aren’t those combatants guaranteed the basic right to understand what position they are in? And given that this is looking very much like a war without end, how do you expect their fates to be resolved?
I’m having difficulty understanding how you differentiate between guys in Gitmo, Bagram, and Abu Ghraib, versus the 20th hijacker they caught in this country, who the best of my understanding, is receiving all of the due process accorded to inhabitants of this country. Or do you oppose this as well? Do you really want to make a distinction between prisoners of the same war we keep on domestic soil versus ad hoc foreign soil? It seems to be an arbitrary distinction at best. I mean, we can play legalistic games here if you want, but aren’t we supposed to be arguing about the principles at stake here?
As for people who hate us, I wasn’t necessarily talking about radical Islamists. I was more talking about the man on the street in Western Europe, who has historically, if begrudgingly, admired us. I don’t think you have to do more than take a vacation to Europe to see that we are not nearly held in the same regard, for what that is worth. And I do think it is worth a lot - it has a huge impact in our ability to influence others in world, especially through our use of moral suasion. On the other hand, you may not believe in moral suasion, and that perhaps foreign policy is best executed through the point of a gun, but that is another discussion altogether.
POW status applies to uniformed soldiers and not those people who dress as civilians in order to sneak in closer to attack.
"The Hague and Geneva Conventions lay out four criteria defining prisoners of war. This is a direct quote. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. that of carrying arms openly. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
The conventions further stipulate: That guerrillas and resistance movements are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they fit the four criteria above. That if a populace spontaneously rises up in defense of its territory without having time to organize formally, they are still entitled to treatment as prisoners of war provided they meet criteria c. and d. That persons whose status is in doubt enjoy the protection of prisoner of war status until their status is determined by a “competent tribunal.” They are not prisoners of war, but are to be given the same treatment until their status is determined. "
Another piece of the definition:
"Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents, are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment (Par. 80). "
So in actuallity we could just execute them and be done with it and still comply with the rules of warfare. I think we actually did this to some Germans who fought out of uniform.
I’m not saying we should do this or that we shouldn’t give them the rights of a POW, just trying to show that there is a basis in the Geneva conventions for this behavior.
and now this educational break is over feel free to go back to your regularly scheduled opinionated argument.
The definitions I was looking for, thanks.
I have to wonder why the US, and DoD in particular, haven’t done a better job of making it clear what rights the Gitmo detainees are entitled to, and then made it clear we are exceeding them. If they are attempting to do this, clearly they aren’t doing so very effectively.
so basically they can be POWs if they wear a uniform.
Basically, yes.
No, I don’t think they’re “brown people” but it seems that you’re willing to treat them as something less than human. So I wonder who, exactly has an ethnic problem.
Oh, that little trouble in Iraq of rounding up people without cause and locking them up. Then sodomizing them and/or killing them.
I call bullshit on that we’re doing things to protect american lives from terrorists. We’re doing no such thing. What we are doing is subjugating a (soon-to-be-ex) nation and at the same time taking care of other country’s “undesireables” so they can be free to subjugate their own population, as long as we get oil and bases. And I hate to tell you, but until Iraq the “terrorists” biggest targets were our so-called “allies”.
The people that got us into this mess exploited the murder of 3000 rugular schmucks like us to chase their dreams of Empire. And you bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Meanwhile, over in the Korean peninsula…
If our government really cared about protecting us from terrorists, they would be keeping track of all our various homegrown right-wing psychos, who HAVE managed to murder americans. But no, only PETA is a threat to our freedom.
I’m sorry that I can’t intelligently discuss the proper care of POW’s, it’s a subject I know next to nothing about. But Your willingness to suspend our ideals because of some “brown people who worship another god and dream only of killing us” is frightening. What can they do? Kill us? We’re doing far worse to ourselves already. And you’re willing to shred something you swore an oath to protect (and the legal heritage it sprang from).
We’ve done so pooly at this ‘“war” on terrorism’ that I am really, really afraid that the next big terrorist disaster that occurs will mean the end of our republic. Yeah, we’re really winning this “war” doing what we’re doing.
" "Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents, are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment (Par. 80). "
So in actuallity we could just execute them and be done with it and still comply with the rules of warfare. I think we actually did this to some Germans who fought out of uniform. "
The 4 criteria you listed pretty much covers the prisoners in Guantanemo: most (based on what the media has reported) were captured on during open battles, and were not sneaking in to attack—it also seems very clear that the next two stipulations you listed could accurately describe the state of the Taliban resistance to the US invasion.
I don’t see how, given these criterias & the circumstances in which most of these people were captured, you can label them belligerents. Just because they were members of the Taliban does not automatically make them terrorists. After Nazi Germany fell, did we detain all the soldiers captured on the battleground indefinitely, even if they had been members of the Nazi party & not simply conscripts? No. How are these any different? Just because they may (according to our gov’t (whose credibility on this is very suspect)) hate us, does not mean that they are not guaranteed rights. The narrow definition you are trying to pull justification from has usually been applied to sabateurs & the like, not open enemy soldiers who surrendered on the various fields of battle.
Personally, I’m not comfortable letting them go, however I’m REALLY not comfortable with the current situation–the no due-process is a very slippery slope that our current administration is treading (though politically, neither side can afford to be the one to let them go only to have one of them come back in 2-5-10 years & blow up a building on US soil). However the current situation is untenable–we are basically martyring them in perpetuity, and it really is a global black eye we have given ourselves. Not that Bush & Co. give a shit about such things.
All of the detainees in Gitmo were picked up on the battlefield fighting against US servicemen.
Then why weren’t they gunned down on the battlefield? Surely we idnt think that all 500+ of these footsoldiers had vluable intel, did we?