Gitmo Gone

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 22, 2009, 12:43 pm

Obama is expected to announce the closure of Gitmo within the hour.

I consider this a bag of ice on one of our nation's black eyes!

Keep em coming Obama.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 22, 2009, 12:55 pm

There goes our National Security...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 22, 2009, 12:58 pm

Of course if a resident of Gitmo ends up being involved in a terrorist strike in the next couple of years, Obama is going to get his ass handed to him.

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » January 22, 2009, 1:09 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Of course if a resident of Gitmo ends up being involved in a terrorist strike in the next couple of years, Obama is going to get his ass handed to him.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 22, 2009, 1:23 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Of course if a resident of Gitmo ends up being involved in a terrorist strike in the next couple of years, Obama is going to get his ass handed to him.

Shouldn't the people who locked up and tortured said "future terrorist" up also be a bit culpable? Who is to say their treatment there isn't what will drive them to act?

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » January 22, 2009, 2:37 pm

you do have to wonder about what will happen to the inmates of that monstrosity. if they didn't hate america before they were locked up and likely tortured, you can bet your ass they do now. And they've built a network of like-minded would-be terrorists while they were there. it's could be eerily similar to our federal prisons and how they tend to create criminals instead of rehabilitating them.

very sad indeed.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 22, 2009, 2:41 pm

That would be assuming every person in there is innocent and was not captured as an enemy combatant as the palce was designed to be used for.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/14/gi ... index.html

According to the statistics, of the 61 former detainees that are believed to have returned to fighting, 18 have been officially confirmed while 43 are suspected, Morrell said.

The 18 were confirmed through intelligence, photographs, fingerprints and other information, Morrell said.

Of the 43 other detainees suspected of taking part in terrorist attacks, only "plausible reporting" on their activities indicated some kind of involvement, according to Morrell.

Let me bold this quote for you

About 250 detainees remain held at Guantanamo and about 60 of those detainees have been cleared for release by the Pentagon, but their home countries will not take them or the U.S. believes they could be harmed by their governments if returned.

That would be some upstanding citizens right there! You are free to go, but your country said they wanted you right where you are. Sorry!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 22, 2009, 3:12 pm

Honestly, the addition of a few hundred extra terrorists to the battlefield is beyond meaningless. Bigger picture issues can easily lead thousands of young people to become terrorists, or they can dissuade thousands. Even if Obama's plan was to immediately close Gitmo and release all the people imprisoned there, you'd have a few hundred more idiots with guns (and I'm sure they're devoted to the cause, but they've also been isolated for years and therefore are not likely to be particularly competent early on) and an immense symbolic and psychological action that could be used to dissuade thousands of young people from terrorism.

But, of course, that's not Obama's plan. He's made no indication that he will release the people in Guantanamo. It's exceedingly likely that he will continue to detain some or all of them and will bring them to trial. If he does release some and continue to detain others, you can bet your ass that the ones he releases will be the run-of-the-mill terrorists and the ones he detains will be those with particularly valuable knowledge or capacity.

Regardless of how you feel about Obama's foreign policy as a whole, this particular action should have no negative effect on your safety. None whatsoever.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 22, 2009, 3:20 pm

From what I read it's not like they're just letting everyone go. They'll just be transported to different facilities. So thanks for the fearmongering once again Kilmoll.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 22, 2009, 3:25 pm

"Additional guns" means jack. The issue is not them being back on a traditional battelfield, but being involved in a suicide bombing where they take out hundreds of non-combatants. Isn't the damage to innocents what everyone is screaming about anyway? The people in Gitmo weren't just sitting in school when the mean US swooped in to snatch them.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » January 22, 2009, 3:27 pm

Ali al-Marri was, but he was never a resident at Gitmo.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 22, 2009, 3:33 pm

Aslanna wrote:From what I read it's not like they're just letting everyone go. They'll just be transported to different facilities. So thanks for the fearmongering once again Kilmoll.

You are a fucking moron. I said only that if/when there is an attack and Obama released them, there will be a shit storm. That is not fear mongering...it is truth. If you do not like it I really don't care. Back to ignore with your worthless ass.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 22, 2009, 3:34 pm

They could also simply be people from the middle east or India who "just looked terrorist-like". Bush's sweeping security policies and Homeland Security post-9/11 were oftentimes in direct violation of the US Constitution. Hell, I have coworkers in NY that were harassed and even searched by the police just because of their accents and skin tone.

So let's say the folks currently in Gitmo are suspects and have not been formally charged. Isn't that a bit illegal as well? The folks there that have been tried and convicted will be transferred. I really doubt that Gitmo prisoners are just going to be let loose en masse....

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 22, 2009, 3:38 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/01/14/gi ... index.html

According to the statistics, of the 61 former detainees that are believed to have returned to fighting, 18 have been officially confirmed while 43 are suspected, Morrell said.

The 18 were confirmed through intelligence, photographs, fingerprints and other information, Morrell said.

Of the 43 other detainees suspected of taking part in terrorist attacks, only "plausible reporting" on their activities indicated some kind of involvement, according to Morrell.

So, it never even worked when we were throwing the Constitution and Genevea Convention rules out the window. What was your reasoning for keeping it open again?

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 22, 2009, 3:43 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: You are a fucking moron. I said only that if/when there is an attack and Obama released them, there will be a shit storm. That is not fear mongering...it is truth. If you do not like it I really don't care. Back to ignore with your worthless ass.

See ya! I like keeping you unignored so I can get dailys laughs at your stupidity.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » January 22, 2009, 3:43 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You are a fucking moron. I said only that if/when there is an attack and Obama released them, there will be a shit storm. That is not fear mongering...it is truth. If you do not like it I really don't care. Back to ignore with your worthless ass.

What ifs are not truths.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 22, 2009, 3:50 pm

Spang wrote:What ifs are not truths.

But what if they were?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 22, 2009, 3:53 pm

Canelek wrote:They could also simply be people from the middle east or India who "just looked terrorist-like". Bush's sweeping security policies and Homeland Security post-9/11 were oftentimes in direct violation of the US Constitution. Hell, I have coworkers in NY that were harassed and even searched by the police just because of their accents and skin tone.

So let's say the folks currently in Gitmo are suspects and have not been formally charged. Isn't that a bit illegal as well? The folks there that have been tried and convicted will be transferred. I really doubt that Gitmo prisoners are just going to be let loose en masse....

Not illegal. I really do not feel like looking up the relevant information in links, but the entire reason they pulled these people to Gitmo instead of keeping them in the combat zone or inside the US was precisely because of legalities. That and these combatants not wearing uniforms but wielding weapons while fighting against uniformed troops made them detainable in this fashion.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 22, 2009, 4:05 pm

So.... I'm not seeing any sort of news that this is happening? Is it?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » January 22, 2009, 4:06 pm

Fash wrote:So.... I'm not seeing any sort of news that this is happening? Is it?

Obama signs executive order to close Guantanamo Bay

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » January 22, 2009, 4:50 pm

Not illegal. I really do not feel like looking up the relevant information in links, but the entire reason they pulled these people to Gitmo instead of keeping them in the combat zone or inside the US was precisely because of legalities. That and these combatants not wearing uniforms but wielding weapons while fighting against uniformed troops made them detainable in this fashion.

You're right. Though it did fly in the face of the constitution and bill or rights. Those once worthless documents are now valuable once more. Fuck you George Bush! Fuck you Gitmo!

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 22, 2009, 4:51 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Canelek wrote:They could also simply be people from the middle east or India who "just looked terrorist-like". Bush's sweeping security policies and Homeland Security post-9/11 were oftentimes in direct violation of the US Constitution. Hell, I have coworkers in NY that were harassed and even searched by the police just because of their accents and skin tone.

So let's say the folks currently in Gitmo are suspects and have not been formally charged. Isn't that a bit illegal as well? The folks there that have been tried and convicted will be transferred. I really doubt that Gitmo prisoners are just going to be let loose en masse....

Not illegal. I really do not feel like looking up the relevant information in links, but the entire reason they pulled these people to Gitmo instead of keeping them in the combat zone or inside the US was precisely because of legalities. That and these combatants not wearing uniforms but wielding weapons while fighting against uniformed troops made them detainable in this fashion.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention was violated.

Hey the Supreme Court said it was illegal, but who the fuck are they? They don't have any say on what is or is not legal. GET A FUCKING CLUE.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 22, 2009, 5:10 pm

This is the best piece of news from Obama's first executive orders (not from the Gitmo one):

The Order also prohibits reliance on any Department of Justice or other legal advice concerning interrogation that was issued between September 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... ml?showall

Thank God, because some of the legal advice that came out of the Bush executive branch was straightforward legal malpractice. The advice was not simply arguably wrong; it was demonstrably in conflict with 200+ years of jurisprudence and it completely failed to discuss, distinguish, cite, or even reference some of the most substantial and relevant cases that are widely understood by conservatives and liberals alike to form the bedrock for the law of the issues under consideration, in total and blatant defiance of well-understood standards of ethical professional conduct. While I am (I think) opposed to war crimes prosecutions of Bush administration officials, I'm absolutely for the professional censure of John Yoo and others for their legal malpractice.

Now, those people are gone. And Obama has repudiated their advice, rendering it null and void. And Obama has recently made some prominent appointments-- Dawn Johnsen, David Barron, Marty Lederman-- to the Office of Legal Counsel. Dawn Johnsen has been one of the most insightful critics of Bush-era executive "lawyering," while Barron and Lederman combined to write the definitive analysis of the Commander in Chief power. You can read it here:

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/ ... erman2.pdf

This is real, honest-to-God, substantial change.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 22, 2009, 5:40 pm

Xyun wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Canelek wrote:They could also simply be people from the middle east or India who "just looked terrorist-like". Bush's sweeping security policies and Homeland Security post-9/11 were oftentimes in direct violation of the US Constitution. Hell, I have coworkers in NY that were harassed and even searched by the police just because of their accents and skin tone.

So let's say the folks currently in Gitmo are suspects and have not been formally charged. Isn't that a bit illegal as well? The folks there that have been tried and convicted will be transferred. I really doubt that Gitmo prisoners are just going to be let loose en masse....

Not illegal. I really do not feel like looking up the relevant information in links, but the entire reason they pulled these people to Gitmo instead of keeping them in the combat zone or inside the US was precisely because of legalities. That and these combatants not wearing uniforms but wielding weapons while fighting against uniformed troops made them detainable in this fashion.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."[1] Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention was violated.

Hey the Supreme Court said it was illegal, but who the fuck are they? They don't have any say on what is or is not legal. GET A FUCKING CLUE.

And article 3 is about violations of humane treatment, specifically degrading detainees. The case is also in reference to TRYING the detainees and not the detaining of them. That is two ENTIRELY different things and we were not discussing anything but detainment on this thread. So....I think I have a clue and will lend it to you if you would like.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » January 22, 2009, 5:51 pm

The Pentagon has said 61 people have returned to the battlefield after being released, here is a graph on what they and other Bush officials have said in the past.

Source: http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearc ... eports.htm

on that page there is also a video of the researcher being interviewed by Rachel Maddow.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » January 22, 2009, 11:00 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Of course if a resident of Gitmo ends up being involved in a terrorist strike in the next couple of years, Obama is going to get his ass handed to him.

If they put people like you in Gitmo style places I'd be all for the idea.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 22, 2009, 11:26 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:And article 3 is about violations of humane treatment, specifically degrading detainees. The case is also in reference to TRYING the detainees and not the detaining of them. That is two ENTIRELY different things and we were not discussing anything but detainment on this thread. So....I think I have a clue and will lend it to you if you would like.

"all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Article III of the 3rd Geneva Convention

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » January 23, 2009, 1:13 am

Oops it's already happened

Former Gitmo inmate now Al Qaida officer

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 23, 2009, 8:47 am

Hell, if some of them are officially released, just track their asses. Maybe it will lead us to some bigger fish.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » January 23, 2009, 11:35 am

Sueven wrote:Honestly, the addition of a few hundred extra terrorists to the battlefield is beyond meaningless.

I disagree with this statement. It only took a few dozen to take out the towers. It only takes one to run into a crowded market wearing a C4 vest. It only takes one to give an order that will effect hundreds or more.

Drolgin Steingrinder · January 23, 2009, 12:00 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:
Sueven wrote:Honestly, the addition of a few hundred extra terrorists to the battlefield is beyond meaningless.
I disagree with this statement. It only took a few dozen to take out the towers. It only takes one to run into a crowded market wearing a C4 vest. It only takes one to give an order that will effect hundreds or more.

Sadly, there's no shortage of foot soldiers available, and as it doesn't exactly seem like Gitmo is populated by terrorist masterminds, I doubt it will make any difference. As was said, the action of closing down one of the primary symbols of the Bush administration's willingness to set aside international conventions will, most likely, make a far greater positive impact.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 23, 2009, 12:03 pm

I like the tracking idea.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 23, 2009, 12:12 pm

How the hell are you going to track them without implanting a microchip or some crap that undoubtedly would be found illegal?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 23, 2009, 12:19 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:How the hell are you going to track them without implanting a microchip or some crap that undoubtedly would be found illegal?

I don't think it's illegal. The boyfriend of a girl I work with has one around his ankle for selling pot.

Btw, your attempt at trying to turn things around is about as clumsy as a 15 year old trying to finger his first pussy. Just stop because you're no good at it.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 23, 2009, 12:56 pm

Turn what around dipshit? I seriously doubt that installing an object under someone's skin is going to fly. Not to mention that you could just have the fucking thing cut out once you are back in friendly territory. Seriously....are you just so delusional that you have no thought processes that can delve outside what your messiah has fed you?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 23, 2009, 1:32 pm

Bubba wrote:I disagree with this statement. It only took a few dozen to take out the towers. It only takes one to run into a crowded market wearing a C4 vest. It only takes one to give an order that will effect hundreds or more.

Drolgin pretty much covered my bases on this one. I'd just add this: Do you think Al Qaeda struggled to find a few dozen people to fly into the towers? The reason that there hasn't been a second 9/11 has nothing to do with a shortage of willing attackers. If Al Qaeda had the operational capacity to do it, they would have done it.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » January 23, 2009, 3:42 pm

Between holding people for years with no trial or due process, or addressing the issue and trying to fix it, I'd rather be known as the country with leadership that's trying to fix it. Are people that have been held there for years going to be pissed? Yeah. But two wrongs don't make a right. If they deserve to be held, give them a trial. If you have no evidence, guess what? Let them the fuck go. Give them a raft and some oars and put them off the shore of Africa. Ciao!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 11, 2009, 2:36 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Obama is expected to announce the closure of Gitmo within the hour.

I consider this a bag of ice on one of our nation's black eyes!

Keep em coming Obama.

Keep them coming indeed! Turn them all loose Obama!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/world ... middleeast

Eleven Saudis who were released from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and then passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists are now believed to have fled the country and joined terrorist groups abroad, Saudi officials said Tuesday.

In even better news....

In addition to releasing the list of 85 terrorism suspects, Saudi officials made a striking accusation: one of the men on it, Abdullah al-Qarawi, is a Saudi who has been operating from Iran for three years.

Oooof. That is not going to be good for relations between Iran and Israel.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 11, 2009, 3:25 pm

Don't forget, these men wouldn't even BE terrorists if not for being falsely accused of terrorist activities while minding their own business on foreign battlefields, so they felt so outraged by their unjust imprisonment they decided the best career move upon their release was to actually become a terrorist, something they had never harbored aspirations of doing before, but their righteous anger at George Bush made it a moral obligation.

Did I get that right? I've heard the story so many times I want to make sure I'm repeating it correctly.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » February 11, 2009, 6:55 pm

These men were not released by Obama. They were released by George Bush.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 11, 2009, 8:08 pm

and stupidly so! Obama should not be releasing anyone just to get rid of gitmo

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 12, 2009, 2:42 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Israel.

Fuck Israel.