• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Human rights groups say Obama has failed on Guantanamo

TheDemSocialist said:
Thing is if they are AQ terrorists why do the majority of them let go scott free, why have very very very very very few been convicted?
Click to expand...

the thing is and I forget the exact numbers, of those released some 25%, could have been 28% or there abouts showed back up on the battlefield. I don't remember where I read that or heard that, I haven't followed the Gitmo events for quite a few years. But being retired military, those figures stuck in my head.
 
Perotista said:
the thing is and I forget the exact numbers, of those released some 25%, could have been 28% or there abouts showed back up on the battlefield. I don't remember where I read that or heard that, I haven't followed the Gitmo events for quite a few years. But being retired military, those figures stuck in my head.
Click to expand...

I rememeber seeing a stat like that as well. But the questions remains why not convict them then?
 
Perotista said:
90 miles of ocean and being on a military base.
Click to expand...

just because it is on a military base, it does not mean something bad cannot happen, like what happened at fort hood.

besides why is a supermax prison not ideal for the prisoners at Guantanamo? we lock up plenty of psychopathic killers in supermax prisons.

what is the danger?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I rememeber seeing a stat like that as well. But the questions remains why not convict them then?
Click to expand...

I think the main reason for Gitmo in the beginning was a detainment center for suspected AQ terrorist. Originally Gitmo wasn't set up to judge or to have tribunals. I think as is the case in most wars the U.S. gets in, those in charge thought the war would be a quick one. No one thought or planned what to do with those detained after the war was over. More of a jump first and look later syndrome.

I think if Bush or Obama authorized military tribunals then most of these folks at Gitmo could be judged one way or the other. If judged a threat to U.S. security, deal out the proper punishment or prison time. If not, let them go. But again, this is an I think as I have stated, I haven't kept up with the happenings at Gitmo, it was the paper work shufflers, administrative folks that were going over all evidence to find out whether they were a threat or not. Hearings or what ever you want to call them, didn't take place or weren't allowed to take place.

Gitmo became a political football, once that happened i suppose everyone just opted for the best of no good choices and decided to do nothing.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
just because it is on a military base, it does not mean something bad cannot happen, like what happened at fort hood.

besides why is a supermax prison not ideal for the prisoners at Guantanamo? we lock up plenty of psychopathic killers in supermax prisons.

what is the danger?
Click to expand...

For me, it is a matter preference and my preference is Gitmo. these folks were not for the most part, if any part captured in the U.S. They were captured by U.S. military or paramilitary forces. I always felt U.S. prisons were for those criminals caught, not someone on the battlefield. Classify them as POW's if you like, but I doubt that those who want to do away with gitmo would like that. Mainly because Geneva says POW's can be held until the war is over and the war on terror looks like a never ending one.
 
Perotista said:
For me, it is a matter preference and my preference is Gitmo. these folks were not for the most part, if any part captured in the U.S. They were captured by U.S. military or paramilitary forces. I always felt U.S. prisons were for those criminals caught, not someone on the battlefield. Classify them as POW's if you like, but I doubt that those who want to do away with gitmo would like that. Mainly because Geneva says POW's can be held until the war is over and the war on terror looks like a never ending one.
Click to expand...

and terrorists have normally been tried as criminals.

Timothy McVeigh and the locherbie bomber come to mind as examples.
 
Perotista said:
I think the main reason for Gitmo in the beginning was a detainment center for suspected AQ terrorist. Originally Gitmo wasn't set up to judge or to have tribunals. I think as is the case in most wars the U.S. gets in, those in charge thought the war would be a quick one. No one thought or planned what to do with those detained after the war was over. More of a jump first and look later syndrome.

I think if Bush or Obama authorized military tribunals then most of these folks at Gitmo could be judged one way or the other. If judged a threat to U.S. security, deal out the proper punishment or prison time. If not, let them go. But again, this is an I think as I have stated, I haven't kept up with the happenings at Gitmo, it was the paper work shufflers, administrative folks that were going over all evidence to find out whether they were a threat or not. Hearings or what ever you want to call them, didn't take place or weren't allowed to take place.

Gitmo became a political football, once that happened i suppose everyone just opted for the best of no good choices and decided to do nothing.
Click to expand...

I agree that originally that was the plan then it just lost control especially when we started to pick up people pretty much off the streets and take them there, even teens, and hold them there without trial for years and years in and many of them just returning home. Sure some returned to the battlefield, but i believe this turned out to nothing of what it was supposed to be especially when human right abuses came out against this.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
and terrorists have normally been tried as criminals.

Timothy McVeigh and the locherbie bomber come to mind as examples.
Click to expand...

Pre-Gitmo. McVeigh was a U.S. citizen and his bombing took place in OKC. Strange, i can't remember anything or hearing about any trial dealing with Locherbie.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I agree that originally that was the plan then it just lost control especially when we started to pick up people pretty much off the streets and take them there, even teens, and hold them there without trial for years and years in and many of them just returning home. Sure some returned to the battlefield, but i believe this turned out to nothing of what it was supposed to be especially when human right abuses came out against this.
Click to expand...

I agree that Gitmo turned out to be something else than a detainment center for battlefield POW's for lack of a better word. Nothing is perfect and Gitmo is far from it. But for the time being it works for me. When war was between armies, things were pretty well defined. A terrorist could be a man in uniform, a battlefield combatant. A terrorist could be a man, a woman or a kid. When a war takes place and the enemy, again to use a word here that may or may not fit, wears no uniform, it becomes hard to impossible to determine who is a civilian or who is the enemy. In a war where anyone can set up an ied, how does one define combatant vs. civilian? An 8 year old kid placing an IED is just a guilty as a 30 year old man wearing an uniform carrying an AK-47 or an RPG.

I don't know, I do know I am more comfortable with them being at GITMO than at any other place.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What tinfoil hat? That statement about a tinfoil hat, is usually for conspiracy theorists. How is this at all a "tinfoil hat" kind of scenario?
Click to expand...

Its the difference between rhetoric and reality. Obama seems to have understood this when more is on the line than a popularity contest.
 
iguanaman said:
Congress passed a resolution forbidding him from bringing any Guantanamo prisoners on to American soil for trial. Could that have changed his mind?
Click to expand...

His Democrat controlled congress you mean?
 
ReformCollege said:
Its the difference between rhetoric and reality. Obama seems to have understood this when more is on the line than a popularity contest.
Click to expand...

So you're saying people who support the closure of guantanamo are in it for a "popularity contest"? I mean poll after poll states that majority of Americans favor keeping guantanamo open...
 
ReformCollege said:
His Democrat controlled congress you mean?
Click to expand...

Hardly...

WASHINGTON -- A worsening hunger strike and a fresh plea by President Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay prison fell on deaf ears in Congress Friday, as the House of Representatives voted to keep the increasingly infamous jail open.

The House voted to make it harder for Obama to begin shifting inmates, adding a restriction to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 that bars any of the roughly 56 prisoners who have been cleared by military and intelligence officials to be sent to Yemen from being transferred there for one year. Some 30 other Gitmo inmates of the 166 kept there have also been cleared for release.

"The Defense Department should not transfer detainees to Yemen because they represent some of the most dangerous terrorists known in the world," said Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), who sponsored the fresh ban on shipping anyone out of Gitmo.
Click to expand...

Guantanamo Bay To Stay Open As House Blocks Bill To Close Infamous Prison
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
why is a supermax prison not enough for the prisoners at gitmo?
Click to expand...

For me there are terrorist and then regular criminals. Two completely different sets, things, objects. Terrorist belong in Gitmo, criminals in prisons or supermax prisons. They in my mind do not fall into the same category. During a war nations set up POW camps for soldiers captured in battle, POW's are not sent to prisons full of regular criminals. Two different categories, criminals and POW's. The same logic plays out in my mind about the terrorists. It seems the proper procedure for me is to send terrorist, suspected terrorists to GITMO and criminals to prisons.

Civilian officials deal with criminals, police, and are detain and lock up in civilian justice system. POW, terrorists in my mind are dealt with the military and should stay in the military system. Two different categories of prisoners, detainees or what ever. This is how my mind plays out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom