PDA

View Full Version : Gitmo goes, vows Obama



Sonnabend
11-17-2008, 05:08 AM
US President-elect Barack Obama says he will shut down the "war on terror" internment camp at Guantanamo Bay and rebuild "America's moral stature in the world" during a major interview aired on Sunday.

"I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that," the Democrat, who takes office on January 20, told 60 Minutes.

"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world," Mr Obama added.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-bay-goes-vows-obama/2008/11/17/1226770308478.html

...and so it begins.

Moon
11-17-2008, 06:39 AM
I wonder what it really means. If we're going to start treating terrorists and heir supporters as criminals, then we need to teach every single military servicemember how to collect evidence, preserve a crime scene and be available for grand jury and trial testimony.

If it means we're going to stop pursuing terrorists, then that's just plain stupid.

Lars1701a
11-17-2008, 08:36 AM
I wonder what it really means. If we're going to start treating terrorists and heir supporters as criminals, then we need to teach every single military servicemember how to collect evidence, preserve a crime scene and be available for grand jury and trial testimony.

If it means we're going to stop pursuing terrorists, then that's just plain stupid.


I just hope the front line troops get the message and DONT take prisoners.... :D

cowbell
11-17-2008, 12:47 PM
US President-elect Barack Obama says he will shut down the "war on terror" internment camp at Guantanamo Bay and rebuild "America's moral stature in the world" during a major interview aired on Sunday.

"I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that," the Democrat, who takes office on January 20, told 60 Minutes.

"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm going to make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world," Mr Obama added.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-bay-goes-vows-obama/2008/11/17/1226770308478.html

...and so it begins.

And so what begins? If you are opposed to closing our military prison in Cuba, I implore you to ask yourself, "What purpose does it currently serve?" To answer this question, let's start by making the large assumption that continued detainment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo will lead to them divulging information. Unfortunately, all of the people in Guantanamo were taken into custody several years ago. The organizations that we seek are highly mobile, and highly cellular. The information we gain would most likely only deal with the cell the informant was immediately familiar with. And given the long time period that individual has been out of the loop, the information would no longer be relevant.

The purpose that Guantanamo served was to gain information about terrorist cells. It may have done that, though the public will never know exactly what intel was gained there. But terrorist information is highly time sensitive, therefore Guantanamo can help us no further. This does not indicate that we're simply going to pretend terrorism is dead. It is wrapping up an operation that has seen the end of its usefulness. Policing is the best way to deal with terrorism, and policing requires diplomatic cooperation between multiple nations. Closing Gitmo will further the war on terror by simultaneously freeing resources and promoting diplomacy, thus increasing the chances of building a worldwide front to confront this multinational problem.

Goldwater
11-17-2008, 12:51 PM
If it means we're going to stop pursuing terrorists, then that's just plain stupid.

Please, that is not what is going to happen.

Molon Labe
11-17-2008, 02:49 PM
I wonder what it really means. If we're going to start treating terrorists and heir supporters as criminals, then we need to teach every single military servicemember how to collect evidence, preserve a crime scene and be available for grand jury and trial testimony.

If it means we're going to stop pursuing terrorists, then that's just plain stupid.


It's not up to soldiers to collect evidence. It's up to the Federal government to make a case against terrorists with the evidence they are suppossed to be gathering.....
You know....the same way the CIA missed the boat on 9-11

YupItsMe
11-17-2008, 02:51 PM
And so what begins? If you are opposed to closing our military prison in Cuba, I implore you to ask yourself, "What purpose does it currently serve?" To answer this question, let's start by making the large assumption that continued detainment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo will lead to them divulging information. Unfortunately, all of the people in Guantanamo were taken into custody several years ago. The organizations that we seek are highly mobile, and highly cellular. The information we gain would most likely only deal with the cell the informant was immediately familiar with. And given the long time period that individual has been out of the loop, the information would no longer be relevant.

The purpose that Guantanamo served was to gain information about terrorist cells. It may have done that, though the public will never know exactly what intel was gained there. But terrorist information is highly time sensitive, therefore Guantanamo can help us no further. This does not indicate that we're simply going to pretend terrorism is dead. It is wrapping up an operation that has seen the end of its usefulness. Policing is the best way to deal with terrorism, and policing requires diplomatic cooperation between multiple nations. Closing Gitmo will further the war on terror by simultaneously freeing resources and promoting diplomacy, thus increasing the chances of building a worldwide front to confront this multinational problem.

It's also a place to hold bastards that if released will just go back to Iraq or Afghanistan and kill Americans, but that's alright with all of you on the left, isn't it? :mad:

YupItsMe
11-17-2008, 02:53 PM
I just hope the front line troops get the message and DONT take prisoners.... :D

Agreed, an M-16 shell is a shit load cheaper than their catered meals at Club Gitmo.

M21
11-17-2008, 03:06 PM
I just hope the front line troops get the message and DONT take prisoners.... :D

What's a prisoner? The other side doesn't take any.

Moon
11-17-2008, 07:10 PM
And so what begins? If you are opposed to closing our military prison in Cuba, I implore you to ask yourself, "What purpose does it currently serve?" To answer this question, let's start by making the large assumption that continued detainment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo will lead to them divulging information. Unfortunately, all of the people in Guantanamo were taken into custody several years ago. The organizations that we seek are highly mobile, and highly cellular. The information we gain would most likely only deal with the cell the informant was immediately familiar with. And given the long time period that individual has been out of the loop, the information would no longer be relevant.

The purpose that Guantanamo served was to gain information about terrorist cells. It may have done that, though the public will never know exactly what intel was gained there. But terrorist information is highly time sensitive, therefore Guantanamo can help us no further. This does not indicate that we're simply going to pretend terrorism is dead. It is wrapping up an operation that has seen the end of its usefulness. Policing is the best way to deal with terrorism, and policing requires diplomatic cooperation between multiple nations. Closing Gitmo will further the war on terror by simultaneously freeing resources and promoting diplomacy, thus increasing the chances of building a worldwide front to confront this multinational problem.

No, it was set up to keep the bastards from killing more of our troops. No different than the 300,000+ Germans we held in POW camps in the US during WWII.

Moon
11-17-2008, 07:11 PM
Please, that is not what is going to happen.

Then enlighten me.

Moon
11-17-2008, 07:14 PM
It's not up to soldiers to collect evidence. It's up to the Federal government to make a case against terrorists with the evidence they are suppossed to be gathering.....
You know....the same way the CIA missed the boat on 9-11

Soldiers ARE the federal government. I know it's not their job, but if we're going to treat the enemies we capture on the battlefield as criminals, and not as POWs or unlawful combatants, then someone will have to collect evidence. How many trials of terrorists do you think will be thrown outof US courts because chains of custody weren't followed on any evidence presented?

Sonnabend
11-18-2008, 04:50 AM
And so what begins? If you are opposed to closing our military prison in Cuba, I implore you to ask yourself, "What purpose does it currently serve?"

To keep a bunch of mad dog murderers penned up where they cant hurt anyone else.


To answer this question, let's start by making the large assumption that continued detainment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo will lead to them divulging information

It does.


Unfortunately, all of the people in Guantanamo were taken into custody several years ago.

You're actually right. Once we get what we want, we should take them outside and shoot them.


The organizations that we seek are highly mobile, and highly cellular. The information we gain would most likely only deal with the cell the informant was immediately familiar with. And given the long time period that individual has been out of the loop, the information would no longer be relevant.

Names, past associations. past operations, places he has been , places he has seen..all that takes time.


The purpose that Guantanamo served was to gain information about terrorist cells. It may have done that, though the public will never know exactly what intel was gained there.

I can guess why that might be :rolleyes:


But terrorist information is highly time sensitive, therefore Guantanamo can help us no further

Actually, it may take years to get all they know...sometimes they know details they did never think to divulge...the fact that they saw a certain person at a certain time may be the final piece to another puzzle.


This does not indicate that we're simply going to pretend terrorism is dead. It is wrapping up an operation that has seen the end of its usefulness.

Not by a long chalk.


Policing is the best way to deal with terrorism, and policing requires diplomatic cooperation between multiple nations.

When those nations are harbouring them, financing, them, arming them, feeding them...those nations cant exactly be trusted.


Closing Gitmo will further the war on terror by simultaneously freeing resources and promoting diplomacy, thus increasing the chances of building a worldwide front to confront this multinational problem.

You do not talk to a mad dog.
You do not negotiate with a mad dog
You take a Colt .45, a hollownose cartridge and you blow its brains out.

The only thing I want to see entering the mind of a terrorist is a 7.62mm steel jacketed bullet, preferably at high velocity.

Zathras
11-18-2008, 11:55 AM
The only thing I want to see entering the mind of a terrorist is a 7.62mm steel jacketed bullet, preferably at high velocity.

There is one more thing that I'd like to see. After the above, the body of the terrorist dumped into an unmarked grave with a gallon of pigs blood dumped in after.

M21
11-18-2008, 12:13 PM
You do not talk to a mad dog.
You do not negotiate with a mad dog
You take a Colt .45, a hollownose cartridge and you blow its brains out.


Exactly! I don't care if they ever see daylight. Justice would demand that Taliban Johnny Walker Lindh be there with them. How that rat got away is beyond belief.

PoliCon
11-18-2008, 12:22 PM
ask yourself, "What purpose does it currently serve?" It is a repository for violent terrorists that no other country on earth wants to take or to hold and if we don't hold them there - we will have to deal with them killing again - as soooo many who have been released from Gitmo have done. Where would you have them placed?

cowbell
11-18-2008, 12:23 PM
Wow guys. I agree, terrorists are horrible, but foaming at the mouth is not going to get rid of them. Furthermore, our main weapon against them so far has been 7.62 mm bullets, and according to all security estimates we are no safer now than we were 8 years ago.

I know that you quit listening to me the second I say something that is "liberal," but hear me out: our military is a powerful and useful tool, when used appropriately. It was most efficient at toppling the Taliban and Saddam's respective regimes, and it did an admirable job of preventing, or at the very least delaying, a full-blown American style civil war in Iraq. However, according to our own security experts, it has done little to hamstring terrorist efforts. Terrorists are too mobile and are able to escape across boarders or fade into anonymity in the face of our military. Suggesting that eventually, if we just kill some critical mass of terrorists, their efforts will fail seems short-sighted to me. Indeed, it reminds me of Einstein's famous definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

PoliCon
11-18-2008, 12:23 PM
It's also a place to hold bastards that if released will just go back to Iraq or Afghanistan and kill Americans, but that's alright with all of you on the left, isn't it? :mad:I know of no conservative who wants to shut down Gitmo.

Troll
11-18-2008, 12:42 PM
"As you know, I always favored closing of Guantanamo Bay and I still think that we ought to do that."


"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth, and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-06-18-gitmo-candidates_N.htm


For Republicans, who view fighting terrorism as a top issue in their presidential nomination fight, the divide is over whether to close the prison and how to extract information from detainees. Among the 10 announced Republican candidates, only Arizona Sen. John McCain and Texas Rep. Ron Paul favor closing the prison.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545925/Straight-talking-McCain-vows-to-fix-world's-view-of-the-'ugly-American'.html


But Sen McCain has also consistently criticised the handling of the war by the Bush administration, and has led efforts in the Senate to end torture and extrajudicial treatment of terror suspects.

In a sign that he wants to distance himself from the president - to whom he lost in an ugly campaign in 2000 - Sen McCain outlined a series of measures to roll back Bush policies and counter the "ugly American" image.

"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay..."

http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/18/mccain-close-guantanamo-bay/


Straight-talkin' John McCain is finally back to saying something worth listening to...How to accomplish this feat? First, close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and "expedite judicial proceedings" for the remaining prisoners.

Fail

PoliCon
11-18-2008, 01:04 PM
I repeat - I know of no CONSERVATIVE who wants to close Gitmo.

M21
11-18-2008, 01:09 PM
Wow guys. I agree, terrorists are horrible, but foaming at the mouth is not going to get rid of them. Furthermore, our main weapon against them so far has been 7.62 mm bullets, and according to all security estimates we are no safer now than we were 8 years ago. Many here are doing something about them and not foaming at the mouth. Our security experts disagree. No safer and yet I charge you to name another successful attack on US soil since 911. The proof is in the pudding.



I know that you quit listening to me the second I say something that is "liberal," but hear me out: our military is a powerful and useful tool, when used appropriately. Monkey stomping bad guys seems completely appropriate. What do you think is appropriate?


It was most efficient at toppling the Taliban and Saddam's respective regimes, and it did an admirable job of preventing, or at the very least delaying, a full-blown American style civil war in Iraq. However, according to our own security experts, it has done little to hamstring terrorist efforts. Change that again to your own experts. You've made a contradictory statement saying that we toppled the Taliban, but done little to hamstring their efforts. How is that?


Terrorists are too mobile and are able to escape across boarders or fade into anonymity in the face of our military. Where do you get this stuff? It's funny.


Suggesting that eventually, if we just kill some critical mass of terrorists, their efforts will fail seems short-sighted to me. Indeed, it reminds me of Einstein's famous definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Killing them at the point where they were rolled up would be the easy way. We took great care in transporting them to where they now reside for a very good reason. It's not about killing the snake, it's all about cutting off the head. It's about capturing the right ones.

noonwitch
11-18-2008, 02:26 PM
It's not up to soldiers to collect evidence. It's up to the Federal government to make a case against terrorists with the evidence they are suppossed to be gathering.....
You know....the same way the CIA missed the boat on 9-11


The thing with 9-11 is that everyone knows who did it, the men who actually executed it all died in the process, and the military has killed numerous of bin Laden's #2 men. Other than bin Laden, whom no one has been able to capture or kill in a verifiable manner yet, is there anyone left to prosecute? There's plenty of evidence, since bin Laden was proud enough to make a tape claiming responsibility for 911.

M21
11-18-2008, 02:35 PM
The thing with 9-11 is that everyone knows who did it, the men who actually executed it all died in the process, and the military has killed numerous of bin Laden's #2 men. Other than bin Laden, whom no one has been able to capture or kill in a verifiable manner yet, is there anyone left to prosecute? There's plenty of evidence, since bin Laden was proud enough to make a tape claiming responsibility for 911.

Do we really know everyone who was involved? Do you think that the GWOT might be much bigger than 911?

Teetop
11-18-2008, 03:22 PM
Easy solution.....take all Gitmo prisoners, load them onto a military aircraft, then somewhere over the Atlantic, it happens to go down. No survivors, except the pilot and co-pilot, of course. :D

PoliCon
11-18-2008, 03:28 PM
Easy solution.....take all Gitmo prisoners, load them onto a military aircraft, then somewhere over the Atlantic, it happens to go down. No survivors, except the pilot and co-pilot, of course. :Dno way. if you're going to go that far - fly it into something of theirs. There's a big ugly stone these assholes worship . . . . That would be a great target for starts.

Teetop
11-18-2008, 03:41 PM
no way. if you're going to go that far - fly it into something of theirs. There's a big ugly stone these assholes worship . . . . That would be a great target for starts.

Nahhhhhh. That's for the next time some terrorist blows something up, tell them to watch Mecca, cause it won't be there much longer.

Although, your idea is a good one.

Sonnabend
11-18-2008, 06:36 PM
Easy solution.....take all Gitmo prisoners, load them onto a military aircraft, then somewhere over the Atlantic, it happens to go down. No survivors, except the pilot and co-pilot, of course.

I beg your pardon.:mad:

You will do nothing of the kind.....I see no reason to waste a perfectly good aircraft.:D Are you the reason the VRWC budget never balances? :eek:

cowbell
11-18-2008, 11:31 PM
You've made a contradictory statement saying that we toppled the Taliban, but done little to hamstring their efforts. How is that?
Where do you get this stuff? It's funny.



But you have made my point. This is a prime example of the military's inability to tackle terrorism. We invaded Afghanistan in order to destroy the regime that condoned Al Qaeda's operations within their borders. However, there is no evidence that this significantly diminished their capabilities. Instead, their most important leaders trickled across the border into Pakistan, which happens to currently be out of reach of the military.

Furthermore, a lack of terrorist attacks in America does little to indicate a reduced threat. Before a global war on terror was even an idea, eight years elapsed between prominent terrorist attacks on American soil by foreign nationals ( I speak of the 1993 bombing of the world trade center, and of course the attacks in 2001).

Indeed, if anything, there is only evidence of the expansion of Al Qaeda's capabilities. They have launched major attacks across the world nearly yearly since 2001 and have shown impressive capabilities of developing major operations in new nations, such as their heavy presence in Iraq, which only occurred after 2003.

M21
11-19-2008, 01:55 AM
But you have made my point. This is a prime example of the military's inability to tackle terrorism. We invaded Afghanistan in order to destroy the regime that condoned Al Qaeda's operations within their borders. However, there is no evidence that this significantly diminished their capabilities. Instead, their most important leaders trickled across the border into Pakistan, which happens to currently be out of reach of the military. Keep on believing that.


Indeed, if anything, there is only evidence of the expansion of Al Qaeda's capabilities. They have launched major attacks across the world nearly yearly since 2001 and have shown impressive capabilities of developing major operations in new nations, such as their heavy presence in Iraq, which only occurred after 2003.Uh...sure. :rolleyes:

Major attacks? Impressive capabilities? Developing "major" operations? You're hopeless. Ground truth says otherwise but drive on with your bad self.

cowbell
11-19-2008, 11:50 AM
Keep on believing that.
Uh...sure. :rolleyes:

Major attacks? Impressive capabilities? Developing "major" operations? You're hopeless. Ground truth says otherwise but drive on with your bad self.

Ground truth says otherwise? What does that mean in this case? If you mean the truth that there are no longer terror training camps in Afghanistan, then we're in agreement. But Al-Qaeda still exists and government agencies still warn of its threat. Remember, Al-Qaeda had its first major base of operations in Sudan from 1992 to 1996. Once Sudan made it clear they were not welcome, Al-Qaeda moved to Afghanistan. Once our military swept through Afghanistan, they escaped across the border into Pakistan. Pakistan's a pretty smart place to be, since its nuclear capability means the US can't simply invade her borders at will. But, even if we could, I don't see why Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda core couldn't skip ship to another lawless country as they did before; there are plenty to go around in the world.

And yes, major attacks. The bombings of London subways in 2005 that killed 52 and injured 700; The Madrid train bombings which killed 191 and wounded 1,755 in 2004; the 2003 Casablanca bombings which killed 45; how many have to be killed in order to lose the quotes around "major" operations?

Finally, you previously suggested that the GWOT is bigger than 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Upon this, we are in agreement. We've spent 7 years in Afghanistan, we potentially need to occupy the country indefinitely to prevent the lawless environment that gave safe haven to terrorists, and Al-Qaeda still exists. America does not have enough money, people, or willpower to continue a campaign like this against other threats that arise. Instead of smirking at my liberal doom-saying, tell me how in the world you believe our current military strategy is working.

M21
11-19-2008, 12:09 PM
Ground truth says otherwise? What does that mean in this case? If you mean the truth that there are no longer terror training camps in Afghanistan, then we're in agreement. But Al-Qaeda still exists and government agencies still warn of its threat. Remember, Al-Qaeda had its first major base of operations in Sudan from 1992 to 1996. Once Sudan made it clear they were not welcome, Al-Qaeda moved to Afghanistan. Once our military swept through Afghanistan, they escaped across the border into Pakistan. Pakistan's a pretty smart place to be, since its nuclear capability means the US can't simply invade her borders at will. But, even if we could, I don't see why Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda core couldn't skip ship to another lawless country as they did before; there are plenty to go around in the world.

And yes, major attacks. The bombings of London subways in 2005 that killed 52 and injured 700; The Madrid train bombings which killed 191 and wounded 1,755 in 2004; the 2003 Casablanca bombings which killed 45; how many have to be killed in order to lose the quotes around "major" operations?

Finally, you previously suggested that the GWOT is bigger than 9/11 and Al-Qaeda. Upon this, we are in agreement. We've spent 7 years in Afghanistan, we potentially need to occupy the country indefinitely to prevent the lawless environment that gave safe haven to terrorists, and Al-Qaeda still exists. America does not have enough money, people, or willpower to continue a campaign like this against other threats that arise. Instead of smirking at my liberal doom-saying, tell me how in the world you believe our current military strategy is working.

It seems that based on your logic as long as one booger eater produces a video from the sanctuary of his mud hut claiming to be an Al-Qaeda we have lost and are ineffective. I don't buy it. In the big list of causes of death in the world Al-Qaeda attacks rank very, very far down the list.

I'm a very patient man. Some would say I have the patience of Job. That is what is required of us, but unfortunately and at our own peril that is not our culture.

cowbell
11-19-2008, 01:07 PM
It seems that based on your logic as long as one booger eater produces a video from the sanctuary of his mud hut claiming to be an Al-Qaeda we have lost and are ineffective. I don't buy it. In the big list of causes of death in the world Al-Qaeda attacks rank very, very far down the list.

I'm a very patient man. Some would say I have the patience of Job. That is what is required of us, but unfortunately and at our own peril that is not our culture.

This is not about patience. I agree that it will take an incredibly long time for situations to improve in Afghanistan, and that premature withdrawal will completely negate the lives lost there. My point is that while we are dealing with the aftermath of our campaign against the land that housed the training camps of Al-Qaeda, America cannot launch other military campaigns. We simply do not have the manpower to occupy many more countries. We can be as patient as we want in Afghanistan, but in the meantime the Al-Qaeda leadership (booger eaters, if you will) is reforming in Pakistan, Hezbollah and Hamas are gaining political clout in Israel and Syria, and terrorist training camps continue to operate throughout the Philippines. We need more tools than the military to deal with all of these threats.

M21
11-19-2008, 01:36 PM
This is not about patience. I agree that it will take an incredibly long time for situations to improve in Afghanistan, and that premature withdrawal will completely negate the lives lost there. My point is that while we are dealing with the aftermath of our campaign against the land that housed the training camps of Al-Qaeda, America cannot launch other military campaigns. We simply do not have the manpower to occupy many more countries. We can be as patient as we want in Afghanistan, but in the meantime the Al-Qaeda leadership (booger eaters, if you will) is reforming in Pakistan, Hezbollah and Hamas are gaining political clout in Israel and Syria, and terrorist training camps continue to operate throughout the Philippines. We need more tools than the military to deal with all of these threats.Where are you getting this load? Why would we need to or even desire to occupy other countries? Perhaps you might find this an interesting read from just hours ago. LINK (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD94I3NGG0)

Teetop
11-19-2008, 04:44 PM
I beg your pardon.:mad:

You will do nothing of the kind.....I see no reason to waste a perfectly good aircraft.:D Are you the reason the VRWC budget never balances? :eek:

Probably so.....

:D

Sergeant_Hard
11-20-2008, 10:19 PM
I agree, but there is a simpler solution. I am sure that we have alot of unworthy aircraft that can be used for transport and if these planes should just happen to go down because of some mechanical failure.... Well at least we tried to get Gitmo. Either way problem solved.