Closure of Guantanamo

[Spiritwalker]

Originally Posted by atomdanger

*Shrug*

It should be illegal to hold somebody forever without bringing them to trial,

It is in Amercia. They are not in Amercia, not are they Amercians. They are not afforded our rights.

[QUOTE]
its BS what we're doing, he don't even have anything on a lot of these guys.

What happened to lead by example?
I feel like the US is more of a "Do as a say not as a I do" country lately.

We lead by example, and many contries that are scared to stand up on their own.. hate us.

We become isolationists again and we have a WW issue again.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Has anyone considered the possibility that treating someone innocent in the manner they treat people at Guantanamo, might actually CAUSE someone to want revenge on the host nation?

Supposing you were innocent, locked up for years without a trial and treated badly...when you got out...would you not feel angry and upset? Angry and upset enough to do the very crimes you were falsly imprisoned for out of spite and revenge.

You talk of prophecy..but the last thing you want to do is treat an innocent so badly as a prisoner of war, you turn him into an enemy when he leaves.

Again, they're prisoners of war, they don't get out until the war is over.

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker

It is in Amercia. They are not in Amercia, not are they Amercians. They are not afforded our rights.

its BS what we're doing, he don't even have anything on a lot of these guys.

We lead by example, and many contries that are scared to stand up on their own.. hate us.

We become isolationists again and we have a WW issue again.

We do not lead by example, we don't want others to act as we do,
we want them to act as we say.

And your point about them not being American, I pose this question.
Would you be OK with other countries snatching up our citizens/soldiers over there and treating them however they wanted?
Probably not, you would probably be outraged,
but they would by your logic not be due to any rights.

Originally Posted by NateR

Again, they're prisoners of war, they don't get out until the war is over.

So, by this thinking...

You're ok with them keeping US Soldiers until the war is over?

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Spiritwalker

Prophetic much?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...nee/index.html

Detainee went from Gitmo to al Qaeda, official says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Saudi national released from U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in September 2007 is believed to be a key leader in al Qaeda's operations in Yemen, according to a U.S. counterterrorism official.

The Defense Department recently estimated that more than 60 terrorists released from Guantanamo may have returned to the battlefield.

According to the counterterrorism official, freed detainee Ali al-Shiri traveled to Yemen after being released to Saudi Arabia and may have been involved in recent al Qaeda attacks in Yemen, including a car bombing outside the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa last year that killed nearly a dozen people.

"He is one of a handful of al Qaeda deputies in Yemen," the official said. "He is one of the top terrorists."

His title is deputy and senior operations commander, the source said.

According to the magazine Sada al-Malahem, or The Echo of the Epics, published by al Qaeda in Yemen, al-Shiri attended a media session in which Yemen commander Abu Baseer was interviewed.

The magazine identified al-Shiri as Baseer's deputy commander and quoted Baseer as announcing that al Qaeda's operations in Yemen and Saudi Arabia have been combined to become al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.

The magazine noted that al-Shiri was released from Guantanamo more than 10 months ago.

He fled a Saudi jihadi re-education program, where he went after his release, a Saudi source told CNN's Nic Robertson.

President Obama on Thursday signed an order mandating that the Guantanamo Bay prison be closed within the year. What to do with the detainees has been a hotly debated topic.

The issue of freed detainees engaging in terrorism is one concern. Another is housing them in prisons inside the United States. Video Watch experts debate the Guantanamo dilemma »

Rep. Bill Young, R-Florida, said he has "quite a bit of anxiety" about the possibility of transferring detainees

"Number one, they're dangerous," Young said. "Secondly, once they become present in the United States, what is their legal status? What is their constitutional status? I worry about that, because I don't want them to have the same constitutional rights that you and I have. They're our enemy."

Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo facility received immediate backing from his general election opponent, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain.

McCain, in a joint statement with South Carolina GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, said he supported Obama's decision to "begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees."

But Thursday night on CNN's "Larry King Live," McCain said the new president may have been hasty in the decision and should have taken the time to consider everything associated with closing the camp before forcing himself into a timetable.

Specifically, McCain said he thought Obama needed to consider what would happen to the prisoners held at Guantanamo before ordering the facility to be closed.

"So, the easy part, in all due respect, is to say we're going to close Guantanamo," McCain said. "Then I think I would have said where they were going to be taken. Because you're going to run into a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem here in the United States of America." Video Watch what may happen to Guantanamo's inmates »

Asked about that issue Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "We have developed some options in terms of how many we think could be returned to other countries to take them. That diplomatic initiative has not started. That will await work in carrying out the executive order."

"We have identified a number of possible prisons here in the United States" that could take the detainees. However, Gates added, "I've heard from members of Congress [representing] where all those prisons are located. Their enthusiasm is limited."

Many people assume that these are just innocent bystanders who were rounded up off the street and locked up in prison by the evil Americans. That couldn't be more false, these were combatants who were found on the battlefield and have every intention of killing Americans. We keep them because they are useful, we can get information out of them. Information that saves the lives of American troops and civilians. If they were completely oblivious and innocent of the charges, then they would be useless for information and we would have no reason to detain them.

[Llamafighter]

Originally Posted by NateR

These are prisoners of war, not common criminals. It's a different thing. They can't be tried by a jury of their peers, because their peers hate America and have no respect for our laws. America's justice system only applies to American citizens, because only American citizens are subject to American law. You need to start being a little more nationalistic in your thinking, because I can guarantee these terrorists are. We're not a one-world government yet. We will be when the Anti-Christ takes over and let's hope that's not anytime soon.

These are very dangerous men who have every intention of carrying out more attacks and killing more Americans. If we let them go, they're just going to go back to committing acts of terrorism against the US.

That's why closing Gitmo down prematurely is a very bad idea, because you're just sending enemy combatants back out onto the battlefield. POW camps have existed in every war, and that's all this place is. Anyone with a basic knowledge of world history would know that, unless they've been brainwashed by the silly liberal rhetoric that's been infecting our news media over the last 7 years.

Seriously, sometimes I wonder if the left-wing liberals are in league with the terrorists with the way they fight for the rights of terrorists while trying to strip American citizens of our basic Constitutional rights.

That isn't a fair statement...just sayin'
Nobody's fighting for the terrorists rights! As a member of the United Nations we have to show them that we're playing by the rules. Rules, that both Democrats and Republicans put into place.
Now I'm as leary of this decision to close Gitmo as much as anyone, but I'd like to see how it plays out IN THE NEXT YEAR (as is the timeline).
It doesn't seem to me that they're handing each inmate a gun and letting them out the front doors.

A new yorker who's brother was killed on 9/11 was attending the trials of several of the guys accussed of plotting hte attacks. They all three admitted guilt, that they were proud of it, and said they would do it a million times over. When this order passed down the trial was froze. That disturbs me a little bit, but there are good men and women figuring this all out and I have to have faith that they'll take care of it.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by atomdanger

So, by this thinking...

You're ok with them keeping US Soldiers until the war is over?

Not really, only as long as it takes for us to break in, kill all of their guards, and rescue our soldiers.

This is warfare where might makes right. If you're not aggressive and strong, then you're doomed to lose.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by NateR

Well, WW2 ended and the Third Reich collapsed over half a century ago. Our war against Al Qaeda is still going on. And I can almost guarantee that, barring any sort of prisoner trade, none of those German and Nazi POW's were released until Germany surrendered.

Once Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilized and Al Qaeda is completely destroyed, then we can let those men go back to their countries of origin. Until then, releasing them early would just be proof of Obama's incompetence when it comes to warfare and national security. Hopefully, he's not dumb enough to actually do that.

Again, my issue with Left-Wing Liberal nuts is that they will fight tooth and nail for the rights of these terrorists and fully support releasing them back into the wild to kill more American soldiers on the battlefield or civilians through acts of terror. Unfortunately, President Bush was bowing to political pressure to close down Gitmo because of the Left-Wing nutjobs, who have nothing but hatred for America (just like the terrorists).

AQ is a world wide network, even once Afghanistan and Iraq are stabalized...the war will never be over...because war on extremism and terrorism isnt something that began in 2001...its something thats been going on since Civilization began...sooo since the war will never be over...what do you do...because these are Prisoners of an unending war...you cant wait til the war is over the release them.

Bush doesnt bow to political pressure! if he did you'd have been out from Iraq some years ago! what makes you think Guantanamo is the result of left-wing lobbies...can you be more specific?

Solution: From now on, take no prisoners!

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Llamafighter

That isn't a fair statement...just sayin'
Nobody's fighting for the terrorists rights! As a member of the United Nations we have to show them that we're playing by the rules. Rules, that both Democrats and Republicans put into place.
Now I'm as leary of this decision to close Gitmo as much as anyone, but I'd like to see how it plays out IN THE NEXT YEAR (as is the timeline).
It doesn't seem to me that they're handing each inmate a gun and letting them out the front doors.

A new yorker who's brother was killed on 9/11 was attending the trials of several of the guys accussed of plotting hte attacks. They all three admitted guilt, that they were proud of it, and said they would do it a million times over. When this order passed down the trial was froze. That disturbs me a little bit, but there are good men and women figuring this all out and I have to have faith that they'll take care of it.

I'm not talking about Democrats and I'm not talking about Liberals. I'm talking about the Left-Wing Liberal extremists in the Democratic party. So this doesn't apply to the average "center-right" or "center-left" Democrat.