Guantanamo To Close

[Peter Parka]

Guantanamo closure plan ordered
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered plans to be drafted for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, the Pentagon says.
A team was looking at moving inmates from the facility in a way that continued to protect the American people, a spokesman said.
About 250 detainees remain in the controversial camp in Cuba.
US President-elect Barack Obama says closing the camp "in a responsible way" is one of his top priorities.
Mr Obama takes office on 20 January.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Mr Gates - who is to retain his position in the new administration - had wanted to be prepared in case Mr Obama wished to tackle the issue "early in his tenure".
"He has asked his team for a proposal on how to shut it down, what will be required specifically to close it and move the detainees from that facility, and at the same time protect the American people from dangerous terrorists," he said.
The Guantanamo Bay prison opened shortly after the attacks of 11 September 2001. Hundreds of men suspected of links to terrorism or al-Qaeda were held without trial as "unlawful enemy combatants".
Many are now challenging their detention in civilian courts, after the Supreme Court ruled in June that they could.
Some officials have warned that closing the camp will be an extremely complicated process.
But earlier this week, Mr Obama said he aimed to shut the facility within two years.

Story from BBC NEWS:

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[Wookiegirl]

what sucks about this though is that they're going to close it but move the prisioners to other locations...which changes nothing about the human rights issues I have with the place to begin with. If he can move them to other locations and give them some rights back, good on him. If he moves them somewhere else and keeps the same standard of treatment, well that's just geography.

 

[SgtSpike]

what sucks about this though is that they're going to close it but move the prisioners to other locations...which changes nothing about the human rights issues I have with the place to begin with. If he can move them to other locations and give them some rights back, good on him. If he moves them somewhere else and keeps the same standard of treatment, well that's just geography.

So, you don't care that one (or more) of those guys who are currently being detained would probably repeat 9/11 if there was any possible way that he could?

I don't understand Americans... it's like they want to paint a target on our country, saying "Here, we're good and easy to hit with terrorist attacks, have at it!"

 

[Peter Parka]

So, you don't care that one (or more) of those guys who are currently being detained would probably repeat 9/11 if there was any possible way that he could?

I don't understand Americans... it's like they want to paint a target on our country, saying "Here, we're good and easy to hit with terrorist attacks, have at it!"

Seeing they havent been charged yet, please justify the statement with some actual evidence.

 

[Zorak]

It's an absolute travesty.

We should be able to lock up whomever we damn well please, wherever we damn well please, and for as long as we damn well please, with as little reason as we damn well please!!!1

 

[Wookiegirl]

Seeing they havent been charged yet, please justify the statement with some actual evidence.

:homo:


If your Mom or Dad or other family member got hauled off to jail with no proof and only the accusation, not an actual charge, for something - how would you feel about that I wonder?
I'm not saying that all the people in there are innocent.
What I am saying is that all the people in there are someone's Mom or Dad or Son or Daughter and every single one of them is entitled to basic human rights and to know what they are being charged with. It's absolutely unthinkable what goes on there and countless people turn a blind eye to it in the name of 9/11 or terrorism.

 

[Peter Parka]

Sound familiar, people?

 

[Wookiegirl]

We (Americans) are *THIS* close to a dictatorship
Only cuz ole W says it's in the name of terrorism or 9/11, we all fall down and say OK
The comparasions to Hitler sound radical but if anyone looked at what he really does all day long, they'd see he's not all that different really.

 

[pianoman49]

If your Mom or Dad or other family member got hauled off to jail with no proof and only the accusation, not an actual charge, for something - how would you feel about that I wonder?
I'm not saying that all the people in there are innocent.
What I am saying is that all the people in there are someone's Mom or Dad or Son or Daughter and every single one of them is entitled to basic human rights and to know what they are being charged with. It's absolutely unthinkable what goes on there and countless people turn a blind eye to it in the name of 9/11 or terrorism.

I can see where you're coming from, but it all comes down to what you prefer: human rights for everybody, or safety for everybody. Yes it's likely that there are innocent people that have been detained, but unless you want to just ignore anyone who may be connected with terrorism for human right's sake, there's really no way around it. Plus, it's not like the US government just goes and arrests people without reasons behind it.

 

[Wookiegirl]

I can see where you're coming from, but it all comes down to what you prefer: human rights for everybody, or safety for everybody. Yes it's likely that there are innocent people that have been detained, but unless you want to just ignore anyone who may be connected with terrorism for human right's sake, there's really no way around it. Plus, it's not like the US government just goes and arrests people without reasons behind it.

But I could lock your Mom up and say it's in the name of national security. That doesn't make it true! We're running around like it's the Wild Wild West locking people up in the name of national security but not saying what security they're actually threatening!
You can lock dangerous people up and CHARGE THEM, GIVE THEM MIRANDA RIGHTS etc etc. That's all I would ask for. But instead we throw people in there under the blanket national security excuse.

 

[BlackCherry]

Seeing they havent been charged yet, please justify the statement with some actual evidence.

It's an absolute travesty.
We should be able to lock up whomever we damn well please, wherever we damn well please, and for as long as we damn well please, with as little reason as we damn well please!!!1

:homo:
If your Mom or Dad or other family member got hauled off to jail with no proof and only the accusation, not an actual charge, for something - how would you feel about that I wonder?
I'm not saying that all the people in there are innocent.
What I am saying is that all the people in there are someone's Mom or Dad or Son or Daughter and every single one of them is entitled to basic human rights and to know what they are being charged with. It's absolutely unthinkable what goes on there and countless people turn a blind eye to it in the name of 9/11 or terrorism.

:homo:'s

Benny Franklin said it best, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

 

[pianoman49]

But I could lock your Mom up and say it's in the name of national security. That doesn't make it true! We're running around like it's the Wild Wild West locking people up in the name of national security but not saying what security they're actually threatening!
You can lock dangerous people up and CHARGE THEM, GIVE THEM MIRANDA RIGHTS etc etc. That's all I would ask for. But instead we throw people in there under the blanket national security excuse.

yeah, i suppose you could. but why would you? there is no logical reason for the government to just lock up people unless they're actually related to terrorism. unless or course, you're implying that the government locks up anyone who disagrees with them, and that sort of thing, but that's a different argument than human rights, in my opinion. working on the assumption that the majority of people at Guantanamo Bay are legitimately terrorists, i believe that they shouldn't have rights to any trial.

 

[Wookiegirl]

yeah, i suppose you could. but why would you? there is no logical reason for the government to just lock up people unless they're actually related to terrorism. unless or course, you're implying that the government locks up anyone who disagrees with them, and that sort of thing, but that's a different argument than human rights, in my opinion. working on the assumption that the majority of people at Guantanamo Bay are legitimately terrorists, i believe that they shouldn't have rights to any trial.

that could be a different arguement however i think it's one in the same in this particular instance.
why should they not have rights?
Because they're accused of something they haven't been told they're accused of?
Being accused of it makes them guilty?

 

[Peter Parka]

I can see where you're coming from, but it all comes down to what you prefer: human rights for everybody, or safety for everybody. Yes it's likely that there are innocent people that have been detained, but unless you want to just ignore anyone who may be connected with terrorism for human right's sake, there's really no way around it. Plus, it's not like the US government just goes and arrests people without reasons behind it.

yeah, i suppose you could. but why would you? there is no logical reason for the government to just lock up people unless they're actually related to terrorism. unless or course, you're implying that the government locks up anyone who disagrees with them, and that sort of thing, but that's a different argument than human rights, in my opinion. working on the assumption that the majority of people at Guantanamo Bay are legitimately terrorists, i believe that they shouldn't have rights to any trial.

Sound familiar, people?

Why are you so worried about them having a fair trial? Are you so gulliable that you think everything the government does is right and shouldn't be questioned? Would you rather live in a dictatorship?

 

[SgtSpike]

yeah, i suppose you could. but why would you? there is no logical reason for the government to just lock up people unless they're actually related to terrorism. unless or course, you're implying that the government locks up anyone who disagrees with them, and that sort of thing, but that's a different argument than human rights, in my opinion. working on the assumption that the majority of people at Guantanamo Bay are legitimately terrorists, i believe that they shouldn't have rights to any trial.

THANK YOU! Finally someone who agrees with me!

I think it is better to lock up people who *might* be terrorists than to let the people go who *might* be terrorists. Because if they are terrorists, and we let them go, we could end up with another 9/11.

So tell me, which would you rather have: Another 9/11 where thousands of Americans die (or possibly millions in another attack), or a few people's human rights maintained?

It all comes down to trust. If you do not trust the government, then obviously, you're going to have a problem with them detaining people without a full arsenal of evidence against them. If you do trust the government, then you know they will not lock people up without a good reason, without believing that they pose a problem to the safety of our country.

I don't necessarily trust our government, but I do trust the military commanders at Guantanamo Bay. I believe they are doing what they can to ensure the safety of Americans, and I don't see any reason to believe that they might be detaining people without a good reason to believe they pose a threat to America.

 

[Wookiegirl]

THANK YOU! Finally someone who agrees with me!

I think it is better to lock up people who *might* be terrorists than to let the people go who *might* be terrorists. Because if they are terrorists, and we let them go, we could end up with another 9/11.

So tell me, which would you rather have: Another 9/11 where thousands of Americans die (or possibly millions in another attack), or a few people's human rights maintained?

It all comes down to trust. If you do not trust the government, then obviously, you're going to have a problem with them detaining people without a full arsenal of evidence against them. If you do trust the government, then you know they will not lock people up without a good reason, without believing that they pose a problem to the safety of our country.

I don't necessarily trust our government, but I do trust the military commanders at Guantanamo Bay. I believe they are doing what they can to ensure the safety of Americans, and I don't see any reason to believe that they might be detaining people without a good reason to believe they pose a threat to America.

why does it have to be either another 9/11 or give people basic rights? Frankly, the way i see it, it's the job of the government to see that both are objectives met.

 

[SgtSpike]

why does it have to be either another 9/11 or give people basic rights? Frankly, the way i see it, it's the job of the government to see that both are objectives met.

I agree, but there will always be times (such as guantanamo bay) when you have to choose between one or the other. The people running the show down there have chosen the safety of Americans, and I'm quite glad they did.

There are some people being held who they highly suspect are involved in terrorist activities, and maybe they even have some good evidence against them, but not enough to convict them. They don't want to release those people, because they'll likely go straight back to planning terror on the US, and that is why they are held without trial.

 

[Wookiegirl]

I totally disagree. If all this evidence was there, accuse them and try them. Why would a serial killer deserve better treatment here than a alleged terrorist receive there? All this violates every imaginable law in the name of terrorism. And the government is abusing that label to run around like renegades

 

[SgtSpike]

I totally disagree. If all this evidence was there, accuse them and try them. Why would a serial killer deserve better treatment here than a alleged terrorist receive there? All this violates every imaginable law in the name of terrorism. And the government is abusing that label to run around like renegades

Well that's the problem, they don't have enough evidence to convict them, but they strongly suspect they are involved. They can't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", but they're pretty dang sure they're still involved. If we let them go, we are shooting ourself in the foot.

I also don't think that our justice system is near as strict as it should be (i.e. your example with serial killers), but that's another subject.

 

[Wookiegirl]

That's what makes America, America. You have to proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Saddam Hussein. We accused him of having weapons of mass destruction which started a war that's killed how many people so far? He got a trial. He knew what he was charged with and he was convicted. So Saddam Hussein got justice and the people in Gitmo get tortured and have been stripped of every basic right but that's ok? I can't see it. I don't think I ever will and I think that it's about time we stop hiding behind 9/11 and terrorism and stand up for justice and what our fore fathers faught and sacrificed their lives for. Candidly, I think they'd be ashamed of the sheep like mentality that has overcome our nation.