[Mustang19]

The amount of harm these guys can do is minimal compared to the amount of harm we've done. One of them could probably organize another 9/11 attack and not manage to kill nearly as many innocent people as we've killed in our responses to 9/11.

We're the good guys here. We have an obligation to stand up for our principles, or we forfeit the moral high ground and become no better than them. Either they get trials or they get released.

Do you think it would better if the enemy combats were shot instead of imprisoned, so this problem wouldn't exist in the first place?

[General Battuta]

The amount of harm these guys can do is minimal compared to the amount of harm we've done. One of them could probably organize another 9/11 attack and not manage to kill nearly as many innocent people as we've killed in our responses to 9/11.

We're the good guys here. We have an obligation to stand up for our principles, or we forfeit the moral high ground and become no better than them. Either they get trials or they get released.

Do you think it would better if the enemy combats were shot instead of imprisoned, so this problem wouldn't exist in the first place?

Heck no, that's revolting. We should go out of our way to take them in, treat them well, give them fair trials and treat them as innocent until proven guilty, because we're the good guys and that's what we do, even if it comes at a price.

[Mustang19]

Heck no, that's revolting. We should go out of our way to take them in, treat them well, give them fair trials and treat them as innocent until proven guilty, because we're the good guys and that's what we do, even if it comes at a price.

You can believe what you want. But people probably died because of that decision and the world hates us more for it. The terrorist ranks would be thinner if the combatants were shot on the battlefield or handed over to the Saudis, denying Islamists the opportunity to rally around Guantanamo.

[General Battuta]

Heck no, that's revolting. We should go out of our way to take them in, treat them well, give them fair trials and treat them as innocent until proven guilty, because we're the good guys and that's what we do, even if it comes at a price.

You can believe what you want. But people probably died because of that decision and the world hates us more for it. The terrorist ranks would be thinner if the combatants were shot on the battlefield or handed over to the Saudis, denying Islamists the opportunity to rally around Guantanamo.

People are going to die no matter what decision you make. Utilitarian ethics are of limited use when only imperfect information and bad models are available. If you want to fight a war that is much more about the perception of justice and injustice than the number of rounds expended or people killed, you need to stop feeding the enemy ammunition for their most powerful weapon: the idea that we are the cruel, domneering, unjust bad guys.

You can't say 'the world hates us more for it'. You're talking about a decision that wasn't made. If you seriously advocate shooting people on the battlefield who may not even be enemy combatants, who could be useful intelligence sources even if they are, just because international law permits it you've lost sight of how to win.

Every time you release someone who turns out to have been a terrorist, you release one terrorist. Every time you execute or indefinitely detain someone who wasn't a terrorist, you create terrorists.  At least with one of those options you get to maintain the moral high ground.

[Herra Tohtori]

Under international law they are military prisoners suspected of espionage and have no rights and only the expectation of a quick death. International law does have a category for them and they're being treated quite leniently by those standards.

Military prisoners suspected of espionage have no rights* under international law?


Splendid.


I can't help but think there's something wrong with any system in which suspicion of something makes it so. I always thought "innocent until proven guilty" was supposed to be some sort of principle worth following, but I guess this is sort of eye-opening.

So uh, let's say I'm a leader of some banana republic and I need to get rid of some people. Can I just have my military capture some bunch of people under suspicion of espionage and make them "military prisoners suspected of espionage", and avoid all consequences because it's allowed under international law?

*I'm sure this is an exaggeration, but hey, you worded it so, not me...

[Mustang19]

People are going to die no matter what decision you make. Utilitarian ethics are of limited use when only imperfect information and bad models are available. If you want to fight a war that is much more about the perception of justice and injustice than the number of rounds expended or people killed, you need to stop feeding the enemy ammunition for their most powerful weapon: the idea that we are the cruel, domneering, unjust bad guys.

You can't say 'the world hates us more for it'. You're talking about a decision that wasn't made. If you seriously advocate shooting people on the battlefield who may not even be enemy combatants, who could be useful intelligence sources even if they are, just because international law permits it you've lost sight of how to win.

Every time you release someone who turns out to have been a terrorist, you release one terrorist. Every time you execute or indefinitely detain someone who wasn't a terrorist, you create terrorists.  At least with one of those options you get to maintain the moral high ground.

Shooting combatants would make us look bad, although this would likely hurt America's image less than imprisonment. Guantanamo has gotten far more attention than the sum of the many "collateral damage" incidents. But handing them over to the Saudis without trial would be an optimal solution.

Every time you release someone who turns out to have been a terrorist, you release one terrorist. Every time you execute or indefinitely detain someone who wasn't a terrorist, you create terrorists.  At least with one of those options you get to maintain the moral high ground.

I don't think there was ever any hope of the US maintaining a moral high ground. Even OEF was unpopular among the rest of the world. This is not about the long term because there is little chance of America "winning" Afghanistan in the long term. The only thing we can do now is minimize the number of terrorists and cell leaders out there. There are about 500 prisoners at Gitmo. Now it might make sense to put the less suspect ones on trial, but there would have to be a quite significant rise in terrorist activity following the Gitmo scandal to prove that releasing the majority of inmates would effective in improving international opinion of us and might prevent a hundred or so terrorists from signing up.

[Unknown Target]

Innocent until proven guilty? Or does that not apply to "foreigners"?

[Nuclear1]

If we don't close the Gitmo Detention Center, we let the terrorists win.

Either it happens through us handing the real terrorists an awesome recruiting tool, showing the world how we imprison people (suspected terrorist or not) and hold them without a trial and torture them, or we destroy our own principles and beliefs in pursuit of fighting terrorism.  We stare into the abyss long enough, and it stares right back.  Terrorists can knock down buildings, they can kill, but only we can take our freedom and rights away.

Gitmo was a cluster**** from the beginning.  I'm not even sure how many people being held there are actually connected to any terrorist organization.   When we went into Afghanistan, we offered rewards to the Afghans for them turning over people they suspected were connected to terrorism.  Of course, they never gave us any proof when they gave us these names, so they very well could have been turning over the village idiots or people they didn't like.   Powell's chief of staff just recently came out and said that Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. knew that innocent people were being held in Gitmo, but refused to release them, because it would make us look bad going into Iraq. 

We're Americans, we either believe in human rights for all, or for none.  Torture is evil, and I have no idea why the people who authorized it aren't on trial for it.

[Mustang19]

Close Gitmo. Send everybody to one of those already-less-than-perfect-human-rights-record countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Columbia, even Israel. People suddenly see the US as a saint now that it closed a single detention center. Problem solved.

[Nuclear1]

I don't care how the rest of the world views us.  It's for our own benefit that we shut down Gitmo. 

[Mustang19]

I don't care how the rest of the world views us.  It's for our own benefit that we shut down Gitmo.

Do you mind sending inmates to other countries which aren't as concerned with human rights, which is what we do most of the time?

[Herra Tohtori]

There's a difference between extradition of people accused of crimes committed in another countries to answer the accusations in a trial, and capturing people from another side of the world and then releasing them to a country in which they'll likely "disappear", regardless of their actions before being incarcerated.

[Mustang19]

It isn't the liberal thing to do. But the media fallout from handing prisoners off to other countries has been minimal and there is no risk of potential fighters being let go by the courts. In this case it's not a question of imprisoning terrorists versus denying them a recruiting tool. It's a matter of saving lives versus liberal ideals. And that's confusing ends with means.

[karajorma]

Yes you do. Unless you can turn them. Read a freaking book, watch a movie, something. This is patently false. You're a Brit for chrissakes, you should know something about this via XX Committee if you have any grounding in the subject at all.

You don't have to is the point I'm making. Besides, this all relies on me accepting your definition of these people as being involved in espionage. All you've proved is suspicion of espionage. There is a world of difference between the two.

Anyone who is not wearing a uniform or some form of recognizable identification, in time of war, engaged in action against the soldiers of a nation-state, is automatically considered to be engaged in espionage and has no protection or rights.

Again, what proof do you have that everyone captured and stuck in gitmo was involved in action against the soldiers of a nation state?

That is literally the way international law works on the subject. A lack of own national affiliation is not even referenced, probably quite deliberately to allow the full range of options to be employed against more anarchistic domestic groups.

Which is exactly the loophole I referred to in my earlier post. Can you not see how easily this can be abused?

Has anyone been released on the grounds they weren't guilty? Or simply because they weren't thought to pose a danger?

I'm so glad you asked that question. Oh it's far worse than that.

Of two dozen Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay, The Washington Post reported on August 25, 2005, fifteen were found not to be "enemy combatants." These Uyghurs remained in detention, however, because the United States refused to return them to China, fearing that China would "imprison, persecute or torture them"; U.S. officials note that their overtures to approximately 20 countries to grant the individuals asylum have thus far been rebuked, leaving the prisoners no place to be released to.

But in the simplest answer, we should have either shot them all or let them all go. It's been done before and it will be done again using the logic laid out above. Half-measures only serve to make the problem worse. The United States has shot itself in the foot before by falling between two stools of ruthlessness and leniency, most notably over the Native Americans. This is just another case of that.

I would, personally, prefer that most of them be let go.

Sorry but what the **** are you trying to argue here? You claim that the US took half measures by detaining people. You then claim that it should have let most of the people go. How the hell did you plan to tell who was guilty and who wasn't before lining the rest up for the shooting squad?

[Nuclear1]

I don't care how the rest of the world views us.  It's for our own benefit that we shut down Gitmo.

Do you mind sending inmates to other countries which aren't as concerned with human rights, which is what we do most of the time?

I prefer releasing the ones we can't find guilty, and giving due process to the ones we can make a case against.

This isn't a case of black-and-white 'treat them like **** here or let someone else treat them like ****'.  We were supposed to transfer the inmates to a prison in Illinois, under civilian control where the practices of Gitmo wouldn't follow.

[Mikes]

It isn't the liberal thing to do. But the media fallout from handing prisoners off to other countries has been minimal and there is no risk of potential fighters being let go by the courts. In this case it's not a question of imprisoning terrorists versus denying them a recruiting tool. It's a matter of saving lives versus liberal ideals. And that's confusing ends with means.

What it isn't...  is liberal or conservative. It's a matter of human rights and national integrety that transcends political party affiliation in all but the smallest minds.

It really doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative ...  if your "solution" involves violating human rights you effectively support terrorism much more than any guy blowing up a building ever could.


Every time I am over there in the US and see people still put up these "Land of the Free" "Land of the Brave" flags i really do not know if I should laugh or cry.

Which really is the crux of the isssue, isn't it? It's not even an issue of liberals vs. conservatives...  when you really think about it... you can only call it "Anti-American".
Which brings us back full circle to the real issue: How can a nation that betrays its own ideals "for the greater good" still be taken seriously?

Worse... what will become of that nation in the long run.

[Kosh]

It isn't the liberal thing to do. But the media fallout from handing prisoners off to other countries has been minimal and there is no risk of potential fighters being let go by the courts. In this case it's not a question of imprisoning terrorists versus denying them a recruiting tool. It's a matter of saving lives versus liberal ideals. And that's confusing ends with means.

Human rights is the American thing to do, not liberal or conservative.

[Mustang19]

Which really is the crux of the isssue, isn't it? It's not even an issue of liberals vs. conservatives...  when you really think about it... you can only call it "Anti-American".
Which brings us back full circle to the real issue: How can a nation that betrays its own ideals "for the greater good" still be taken seriously?

Worse... what will become of that nation in the long run.

When was human rights ever an American ideal? In 1776, back when people bought slaves? In the 20th century during the red scare? The constitution lays down rights but it doesn't mean the country ever fully follows these prescriptions.

If you think that America was ever the Jedi Order of the world you are mistaken. Now if you think closing down Gitmo is going to make it more comfortable to be a terrorist, ask yourself what other garden spot these prisoners are going to be sent to instead... it'll probably be Saudi Arabia.

Of two dozen Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay, The Washington Post reported on August 25, 2005, fifteen were found not to be "enemy combatants." These Uyghurs remained in detention, however, because the United States refused to return them to China, fearing that China would "imprison, persecute or torture them"; U.S. officials note that their overtures to approximately 20 countries to grant the individuals asylum have thus far been rebuked, leaving the prisoners no place to be released to.

Now this is probably just immigration politics stupidity. If there is no reason to suspect the Uyghurs have hostile intentions then by all means grant them asylum in our country. But this is a distraction. It doesn't change the fact that there are many militants locked up in Gitmo who will be a threat if released.

If anyone is still for in the "just put everyone on trial" idea, give this a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_released_Guantanamo_prisoners_who_allegedly_returned_to_battle

It takes quite a bit of evidence to keep someone imprisoned and you can't rely on a fair trial to always get it right. So if you put an inmate on trial you must accept the possibility that they are going to be let go. At present many if not most of the inmates have been allowed administrative review hearings. Yet there are some prisoners who are just too dangerous to risk putting on trial and the US has apparently not done a good job of sorting out who is dangerous and who isn't. This warrants caution.

What it isn't...  is liberal or conservative. It's a matter of human rights and national integrety that transcends political party affiliation in all but the smallest minds.

Well thanks.

[Herra Tohtori]

HE HAS CONTROL OF THE SENATE AND THE COURTS

HE'S TOO DANGEROUS TO BE LEFT ALIVE

[Flipside]

Innocent until proven guilty? Or does that not apply to "foreigners"?

There's an interesting story from when my brother was in the US. He stated at one point that he was an atheist and people started getting shirty about it, so he asked them whether they believed in Freedom of Speech. The response was 'American Law only applies to American People!'.

He asked to be excused as he had some people to murder seeing as he could apparently not be prosecuted for it