The baddest of the bad Gitmo style

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Sentencing an innocent to jail after a fair trial is not analogous to sentencing an innocent to jail with no trial.

POWs don't get trials until hostilities are over.

How about we do neither?

There is only one possible way to do this. Let all terrorists win. That's it. Or do you think that we can have Napoleonic battles where all combatants dress in bright colors, and line up away from civilians and fight like men? As long as the enemy intentionally blurs the distinction between combatants and noncombatants, as long as they hide among innocents, etc, ad nauseum, then engaging them ALWAYS will result in a % of innocents being killed. Always.

Every one of those deaths, and every innocent loss of liberty is not the fault of the US. It is the fault of the "terrorists" (I'm using that for these combatants who willfully violate rules of war designed to protect innocents). If you rob a bank, and a guy in the bathroom has a heart attack and dies during the robbery—completely unaware that said robbery is taking place—the robbers are now murderers. If the enemy (AQ, for example) wanted to reduce innocent deaths, they'd wear uniforms. Instead, innocent deaths help them because they can rely on the (unwitting, I hope) aid of people in the West willing to blame the wrong side.

That said, it's very progressive of us to treat them well, and make the effort at great cost to harm as few innocents as possible. Good for us.

Not indefinitely, until hostilities are over. In the case of AQ, I'd say that we should require unconditional surrender from them.

Yet due to the stupidity of the process that was started you have prisoners who are not Al-Qaida, who are not wanted for any crime by the people holding them in prison yet they still cannot be set free.
So that isn't just indefinate detention, it is indefinate detention for absolutely no purpose because from some dickwad in Washington deciding that it was better to apply a flawed logic like.....Loss of freedom for a few is a grossly lower "cost" than loss of life for even the same few ....than to actually think.

Tater, your approach seems to be "we could have done worse". Pointing out that something that was wrong could have been more wrong doesn't alter the fact that it is still wrong.

POWs don't get trials until hostilities are over.

Errrrrr....they can if they have commited a crime, those people who are rightly held are only accused of commiting crimes ain't they.

There is only one possible way to do this. Let all terrorists win.

That shows that you know you have no point but do not wish to admit it.

[Armistead]

Most accept many innocent players end up in prision, it only becomes a problem when it happens to them or someone they love.


Heck, american prisions are full of innocent people, just look at how many DNA has set free.

Everyone deserves a trial. I think these deserve a military court with congressional oversight from both parties.

Only problem, if I were locked up for years knowing I'm innocent, if I got out I might want payback. My guess is in years to come we'll be paying millions in reparations or creating more terrorist.

At least they get good healthcare, more than millions of US citizens can say.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It's not the conditions of Gitmo that are the problem - it's not even the fact that innocent people have been rounded up. It's the fact that it's a symbol of the abdication of 800 years of judicial tradition. If you imprison someone with no trial proving their guilt, then that. is. wrong.

My thoughts exactly.

If there any guilty people at Gitmo, I want them punished and locked away. But to establish guilt, they need to be tried and the evidence presented and evaluated. That is the only way the detention at Gitmo can find any legitimacy. Otherwise it is a concentration camp for political prisoners.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Otherwise it is a concentration camp for political prisoners.

Indeed. And when there are reports of people like the al Jazeera cameraman who was held for no other reason but to grill him about the network, then that proves it. And it's disgusting.

[Skybird]

Gitmo never had anything to do with law and order in Western understanding, it always was a populistic and opportunistic easy way of going like usually you see it being practised in rogue states. This bilance revealed now spells a condemning verdict.

Guilt must be proven, not just claimed and assumed. This is one of the most basic, most elemental, most fundamental, most essential principles of Western tradition of law and order. Unlimited imprisonment without court procedures or evidence of guilt, is not acceptable - it's police state measures, it is arbitary "justice".

The whole Guantanamo project was a stupid idea from stupid minds from the very beginning on.

[tater]

I have no point? Come again?

There is no way to prevent innocent deaths in military action where combatants intentionally dress and hide among civilians. None at all save not ever engaging them. Terrorists strike, and you make zero response. That has a 100% chance of not killing innocents. ANY other military action can cause unwanted deaths, period.

Show me otherwise, and I'll happily correct myself. US police SWAT teams kick the wrong doors down periodically, and they act within full due process (warrants, etc). People die by those mistakes, too.

My point is we could do very much worse. Any action other than grabbing these few up (total throughput at Gitmo is what?) would be presumably attacking said targets of presumed value (some of which will certainly be mistakenly placed at value). That would mean more innocent dead, period.

"Could have done worse" is fine, and realistic. A "zero tolerance" policy is an impossible standard, and in fact "actionable" intel that results in the use of deadly force has a far lower standard than the due process we afford citizens.

I'm fine with mitigating such unwanted imprisonment as much as is possible, but some loss of freedom by a few is without question better than killing more people. It's a sad calculus, but it is realistic, and has an end result that is better than not doing it.

The 2 atomic bombs, for example, without question resulted in fewer deaths than had the war continued. Fewer Japanese deaths, in fact. Kill a couple hundred thousand to save many more. Tough call, but a good call.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Gitmo never had anything to do with law and order in Western understanding, it always was a populistic and opportunistic easy way of going like usually you see it being practised in rogue states. This bilance revealed now spells a condemning verdict.

Guilt must be proven, not just claimed and assumed. This is one of the most basic, most elemental, most fundamental, most essential principles of Western tradition of law and order. Unlimited imprisonment without court procedures or evidence of guilt, is not acceptable - it's police state measures, it is arbitary "justice".

The whole Guantanamo project was a stupid idea from stupid minds from the very beginning on.

Leaving out for a moment the possible abuse in gitmo-wasn't the idea of detaining Al Quaida collaborators/POWs whole purpose of the prison?


Maybe it should be looked more at who and why is send there and not existence of the place itself.
I wonder really how many cases of abuse/false impressment happened comparing to militants and collaborators that are held there.
So we hear about some wrongly detained people that instantly make to all the news what about all the rest?

So what about the POWs should US just should them between the ayes or charge them with guerrilla warfare and shoot them then.

[tater]

The total held at gitmo has been 778 apparently. The max at one time was 660, and currently the population is around 250.

778 imprisoned, of which ~500 have been transferred or released.

There are what, 1.6 billion muslims? Say 10% support AQ's efforts (a recent study of indonesia, morocco, pakistan and one other country showed 15%, and the US support level is 5%, so 10% seems a nice, lowball number). That's ~160 million people who think what AQ is doing is a good idea. 250/160M is 0.0002%. As a reality check, 0.7% of Americans are currently in prison (and a substantial multiple of that are under supervision (parole, etc)).

It's a tiny %, statistically insignificant.

I have no point? Come again?

You have no point.

My point is we could do very much worse.

That is your only response which is null and void so demonstrates that you have no point.

Come along tater , you are throwing out lots of little irrelevant things. Justify the program being run that is pointless, has made a mockery of america and its values and continues to cost a big pile of money for no real purpose and seems to produce only negative results.
Deal with the issues at hand not some little irrelevance of how you can treat people even worse as that doesn't justify the program at all.

It's a tiny %, statistically insignificant.

Really clutching at straws there ain't ya
Murderers are statistically insignificant so are rapists.

@MH

Maybe it should be looked more at who and why is send there and not existence of the place itself.

Thats easy, the problem with who and why stems from the same reason the place exists. It was a dumb attempt to dodge legal complications.

[AVGWarhawk]

Let's send them all to Galway , Eire. Since Tribesman has such a concern for the taxi driver and such he can house them.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Leaving out for a moment the possible abuse in gitmo-wasn't the idea of detaining Al Quaida collaborators/POWs whole purpose of the prison?


Maybe it should be looked more at who and why is send there and not existence of the place itself.
I wonder really how many cases of abuse/false impressment happened comparing to militants and collaborators that are held there.
So we hear about some wrongly detained people that instantly make to all the news what about all the rest?

So what about the POWs should US just should them between the ayes or charge them with guerrilla warfare and shoot them then.

Gitmo was about finding a place outside of and unavailable to US laws. Plain and simple.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Gitmo was about finding a place outside of and unavailable to US laws. Plain and simple.

Exactly

They should read their rights emphasizing on right to remain silent

I guess its another of those things that law struggles with.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Gitmo never had anything to do with law and order in Western understanding, it always was a populistic and opportunistic easy way of going like usually you see it being practised in rogue states. This bilance revealed now spells a condemning verdict.

Guilt must be proven, not just claimed and assumed. This is one of the most basic, most elemental, most fundamental, most essential principles of Western tradition of law and order. Unlimited imprisonment without court procedures or evidence of guilt, is not acceptable - it's police state measures, it is arbitary "justice".

The whole Guantanamo project was a stupid idea from stupid minds from the very beginning on.

I don't think it was a bad idea, if we had turned them over to the newly formed goverments they probably would've been tortured or killed.

The bad of it was how it was run, little oversight.

It's our history, we did it to the american indian, japanese americans and now gitmo..

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by tater

POWs don't get trials until hostilities are over.

What POWs? Guantanamo was exactly about denying the prisoners that status, instead making them unavailable for legal procedures by declaring them as illegal somethings. It was also claimed that no international convention would cover them for that reason. Whatever they are, they are neither internees nor POWs in this kind of thinking. And as we now know, one quarter of them were not even dangerous enemies at all, one half of them were no activists but just "Mitläufer" and opportunists, and just one quarter were really dangerous men. A disastrous balance, and a declaration of bancruptcy of essential legal principles and morals as well.