Guantanamo Still Going Strong

[Idaho]

So how much does everyone trust the US Government and Military to decide whether someone is guilty or not?

A bit of light reading after you vote

[PanzerJaeger]

I put "I trust them completely" because there was no "I could care less what happens to terrorists" option.

[Odin]

I put "I trust them completely" because there was no "I could care less what happens to terrorists" option.

Seconded

[Ronin]

I put "I trust them completely" because there was no "I could care less what happens to terrorists" option.

Even if you couldn´t care less what happens to terrorists.....
you should at least care about who gets to say who is a terrorist....It might come in handy further down the road.

[Duke John]

If the held men in Guantanamo are so obviously terrorists for whom you don't care whatever happens to them, could you (or anyone else) then explain why it takes years to prove the "obvious"?

(Voted total distrust)

[Proletariat]

The obvious short answer would be that a public trial would give away all of our 1337 s3kr3tz on how we got them, who they know, who they ratted on, etc.

Don't really trust any sort of gov't judgement system. Never been happy with the Gitmo system, but whenever I see it argued I agree alot more with the 'for' camp, since I don't see a decent alternative. However imperfect this is, does anyone have any viable alternatives? Short of public trials? Or is this just another all or nothing screaming match?

[HoreTore]

A viable alternative: Try reading the Geneva conventions, then doing what it says on the box.

[Proletariat]

Maybe you're new to the Org's tit for tat on this topic, but bringing up the GC here is only going to be met with a barrage of 'BUT IT DO NOT APPLY HURR' posts. Not really what I was hoping for, guess this is still one of those hot or cold, all or nothing, everyone-disagreeing-with-me-is-a-retard topics like global warming, abortion and gun control.

[Duke John]

Can the trials be held non-public?

Don't really trust any sort of gov't judgement system.

You have more trust in your judgement system if trials are postponed for years? If anything I lose my trust if persons charged cannot be given a trial with a reasonable time.

[KukriKhan]

I generally trust that the US Admin & Military will intend to:

1) Remove threats from the battlefield
2) Treat such removed threats humanely

But, given human nature and the tendancy of power (over others) to corrupt even the best-intentioned folks, I DON'T trust any single arm of the gov't to ALWAYS do the right thing; hence it needs oversight by some other gov't arm; legislative or judicial, or both. Just to keep things on the up-and-up.

I'd even allow for the need of secrecy of proceedings, IF a trusted, identifiable, and accountable, panel of judges was over-sighting.

Geneva Conventions should apply, IMO. Ignoring those was/is a mistake.

[Proletariat]

Why would I trust it if it took longer? Just because it takes longer doesn't mean that's the reason I accept it.

I don't think they should be publically tried because of the nature of why they're being picked up. The information is too sensitive, and for every one terrorist we'd convict publically, who knows how many resources and leads we'd lose by trying to prove it. Of course, this takes away all the transparencies of the system, and that's why I hate it, but still accept it. Like many other people (SCJ Scalia, I believe) I think one of the biggest concerns is that this WoT can be seemingly infinite, and that's the biggest issue over the detentions.

[rory_20_uk]

Convictions for being terrorists so far: NIL

[Adrian II]

The obvious short answer would be that a public trial would give away all of our 1337 s3kr3tz on how we got them, who they know, who they ratted on, etc.

Right now, an American of Chinese descent named Chi Mak is being tried in Santa Ana on charges of conspiracy to export U.S. secrets to China, possession of property in aid of a foreign government and failure to register as a foreign agent. This is a regular trial, portions of which I believe may be conducted behind closed doors if the nature of the material dicussed warrants it.

That's the way to go. The U.S. does it, other civilised nations do it.

Gitmo is just an instrument of intimidation. Nothing good has come of it, nothing good has come out of it.

[KukriKhan]

And SecDef Gates and SecState Rice are both on record as wanting to close it down. It was/is however, a creature of now SecJustice Gonzalez, supported by then-SecDef Rumsfeld & VP "they don't deserve rights!" Cheney.

What a mess.

[Odin]

for the life of me i still dont know why we havent put these people on trial and be done with it. "sensative secrets" can be kept out if need be from any trial, and the longer it goes on the more and more I am of the mind that it is infact being used as a deterrant measure.

[Adrian II]

for the life of me i still dont know why we havent put these people on trial and be done with it. "sensative secrets" can be kept out if need be from any trial, and the longer it goes on the more and more I am of the mind that it is infact being used as a deterrant measure.

You are right, of course they can. How else do people think Ramzi - "I'm a terrorist and I'm proud of it" - Yousef and the other perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing were tried? They got regular trials on U.S. soil and were put away for life without parole.

Oh, and kids: no torture was used in the production of these sentences...

[HoreTore]

Maybe you're new to the Org's tit for tat on this topic, but bringing up the GC here is only going to be met with a barrage of 'BUT IT DO NOT APPLY HURR' posts. Not really what I was hoping for, guess this is still one of those hot or cold, all or nothing, everyone-disagreeing-with-me-is-a-retard topics like global warming, abortion and gun control.

Haha! I'm not very surprised, actually...Conservatives everywhere have that position.

But anyway, I didn't state it as the only thing to do, I simply offered it as a viable alternative to the current situation. So, if any of those posts appear, they are rather, well, dumb and in the wrong place...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A viable alternative: Try reading the Geneva conventions, then doing what it says on the box.

Morally correct in an absolutist sense, but somewhat impractical.

Classifying them as prisoners-of-war would limit us to little or no interrogation, thus denying us (or severely limiting) a valuable source of information into organizations that we would, otherwise, have difficulty penetrating.

Conducting trials for those classified as prisoner-of-war is also problematic since much of the information used to confirm their "terrorist" and/or "enemy combatant" status is derived from any informants we may have in the field as well as turncoats etc. An open war-crimes trial (and none other would be deemed anything but "kangaroo") would necessitate compromising these sources. Failing to do so would result in an acquital on the charges and possibly even the release of the individual in question.

Moreover, since no "National" authority acknowledges these individuals as soldiers, treating them as prisoners of war might leave them a) incarcerated forever since this war appears endless; b) released to their nation of origin (which in a number of cases [not all, several nations discharge this responsibility with seriousness and honor] already has meant returned to the battlefied against us); or c) simply released.


Classified as "enemy combatants" but accorded the full slate of Geneva convention treatment obivates the need for immediate trials and/or returns to country of origin, but would still pose all of the noted limitations on intelligence gathering.


Classifying them as criminals and putting them through the USA or Hague court systems has all of the disadvantages of the "open" trial noted above; makes interrogation of any sort functionally impossible [the assigned lawyers would tell their clients to shut up and make them reveal their sources, betting that the government will release rather than doing so]; and would, I suspect, result in the early release of most of those held.


On the plus side, the USA would have shown itself to be willing to sacrifice combat intelligence and combat advantage in order to preserve the higher principles of moral behavior. Western Europe's Liberal (USA def) elements would be encouraged by the active demonstration that principle matters and that no individual would have cause to worry about unjust incarceration or the abrogation of their individual rights.

Presumably, this shining moral example and our willingness to accept casualties to perpetuate it -- and there would be more casualties since the opposition doesn't give a flying shit for such moral niceties -- would eventually convince the muslim extremists that our nation and the Western world in general will neither buckle in to their demands nor allow ourselves to be drawn down to their level in any degree. At which point they would discard terrorism as wasted effort and seek a higher moral level of action themselves.


Sorry, but I just don't see it. Defeating a challenging opponent often requires the eventual victor to adopt some of the policies/strategies/tactics/equipment of the challenging opponent in order to combat them on a more even footing. Overall, I'm willing to view this as a restrained step in that direction. I can't say I'm thrilled by it, but don't see a more practicable alternative.

[Goofball]

I voted for no trust whatsoever.

But if asked if I trusted my own government or military to decide guilt or innocence, my answer would be the same.

It is the job of the courts, not the government, to make those decisions.

And PJ: Good job ignoring the entire issue. I know you are a fairly intelligent individual, so I can only conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse in your response. Nobody really cares what happens to terrorists. We just want to make sure some poor guy who isn't a terrorist isn't being locked up for the rest of his life because some scared second john who couldn't tell one brown guy from another thought he say him taking part in a firefight in Afghanistan.

Once somebody is proved to be a terrorist, lock him up and throw away the key, as far as I'm concerned. Or even better, put him in general population in a New York state pen then broadcast webcasts of him being traded around the cellblock for a pack of smokes...

[JAG]

The words trust and the US military being in the same sentence is long gone,it went a long, long time ago. I voted no trust at all, because I fail to see how people can have trust in the whole process. Not only has no one been convicted of being a terrorist and attempting to carry out terrorist activities, but moreover there have been numerous people released and they have carried on in their respective countries quite happily not taking part in anything remotely terrorist. Furthermore it is the role of the courts not the military to deceide who is guilty or innocent of terrorism or anything else. We are meant to be spreading democracy and rule of law, are we not, not destroying it?

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think unless we gave them all public trials (which would simultaneously be derided as 'show trials' by the people who hate Gitmo) in such a way to expose all our secrets to the world, leftist haters of Gitmo will just find a new way to hate whatever new method or location we come up with to deal with these people. Yeah, we'll get rid of Gitmo, but they'll start screaming our new way or camp is just as bad.

Crazed Rabbit

[Odin]

Yeah, we'll get rid of Gitmo, but they'll start screaming our new way or camp is just as bad.

Crazed Rabbit

Well yes, thankfully the vast majority of the voting public in the U.S. dosent give 2 monkeys what the rest of the world thinks (that isnt always a good thing mind you).

Let them have thier say, freedom of speech is a wonderful aspect of the human condition

[Devastatin Dave]

We should just do what we did back in WW2. Get what we can out of them in the battle field, then use a bullet as a paint brush and make art with thier brains as paint and the gound as a canvas. We'll never beat these people if we don't find our balls soon.

[Blodrast]

I think unless we gave them all public trials (which would simultaneously be derided as 'show trials' by the people who hate Gitmo) in such a way to expose all our secrets to the world, leftist haters of Gitmo will just find a new way to hate whatever new method or location we come up with to deal with these people. Yeah, we'll get rid of Gitmo, but they'll start screaming our new way or camp is just as bad.

Crazed Rabbit

Right, so you're still going with Gitmo just as a pre-emptive measure... 'cause you think that even less drastic (and human rights-ignoring, and prone to error) measures would be criticized anyway... sure, makes perfect sense.

[Goofball]

We should just do what we did back in WW2. Get what we can out of them in the battle field, then use a bullet as a paint brush and make art with thier brains as paint and the gound as a canvas. We'll never beat these people if we don't find our balls soon.

Sounds like a half measure to me.

If you're really serious, you'll do it the way we did against the American Indians. Kill their women and children, infect them with diseases, take their land...

Now that was balls.

[gunslinger]

I think Gitmo is the least of several evils. It's still evil, but it's the best alternative we've got.

I put "somewhat trust" because I don't think V.P. Cheney or any other member of the administration is greedlily rubbing his hands together and cackling in anticipation of rounding up some more innocent people to lock up. However, I do recognize that the system relies on a lot of people to make the effort to "do the right thing" all of the time and not make mistakes.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I trust Guantanamo about as much as I trust Auschwitz. The nazi camps also started as camps for "dangerous combattants against the regime", it took around 5 years before they took in "undesirables" (if we count from the time dissidents were sent to Dachau after the Reichstag building - symboically equivalent to the Twin towers - was burnt down, according to nazi accusation by the "terrorist" Martin van der Lubbe, to the time of the Kristallnacht), and another few years before they begun mass-executions.

Oh and the argument that humanity, justice and destruction of the Guantanamo concentration camp are "impractical" are very dangerous. Such discussions about whether things were "practical" or not sounds a lot like how the top 10 sickest nazis discussed during the infamous "Endlösung" meeting, in 1941 I believe it was. Indeed, if you want it to be practical to keep thousands or even millions of people you consider possibly dangerous, then it's a lot more "practical" to kill them since you don't need as much space and food upkeep Guantanamo or not is an argument about morality foremost. But if you do want to discuss practical matters too, remember what happened to the Third Reich:
http://www.germannotes.com/hist_ww2_dresden.jpg

[doc_bean]

Sounds like a half measure to me.

If you're really serious, you'll do it the way we did against the American Indians. Kill their women and children, infect them with diseases, take their land...

Now that was balls.

You forgot: make them pay for objects carrying said diseases.

Whatever happened to you America...

[rory_20_uk]

We should just do what we did back in WW2. Get what we can out of them in the battle field, then use a bullet as a paint brush and make art with thier brains as paint and the ground as a canvas. We'll never beat these people if we don't find our balls soon.

NO, much of the time you recruited them en masse into the CIA et al. You even avoided the courts that were designed to convict them. Sure, a few were killed, but all the key ones were vanished.

[Pindar]

Classifying them as prisoners-of-war...
Sorry, but I just don't see it.

Good post.