Opinion Talk

By Dan

June 20, 2005 08:02 AM | Link to this

of course not all politics aside, any comparisons to gulags or facism etc are clearly politically motivated. These are people who captured in the act of attacking civilians and troops. The fact that they have not been executed as would be the case in most countries for ununiformed combantants, means their treatment already exceeds what is required in the geneva convention. Clearly some plan is called for regarding their eventual incarceration or release, but it is clearly serving a purpose and any calls for it’s closing need to be accompanied by a reasonable alternative

By Fritzane Kiki

June 20, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

When I take a look at the Gwantanamo bay prison and from all indications the freed inmates who leave and give testimonies from their ill-treatments I think of torture camps in the days o Adolf Hitler and why not Saddam Hussien.The fight against terrorism should not be the fight against humanity and human rithg abuse. What Bush should do is to quietly transnfer this prison yard to the USA where many similar prisons used for illegal alliens and asylum seekers can be used to harbour these gwantanamo bay prisoners of which some are locked up without bail or trail.

By Brian Curtis

June 20, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

The “Amnesty International” topic (June 6) already covered this.

Yes, it should be closed. It does no credit to America when we set up a prison camp in a non-jurisdiction area (specifically to avoid being bound by any laws) to confine non-persons (an invented category) without trial, counsel, or even charges. This is not what the U.S. stands for.

Claiming that “anything goes if it’ll stop terrorists” is a cheap excuse for police-state tactics, and an indicator of just how successfully terrorized we really are.

By Dan

June 21, 2005 12:09 PM | Link to this

If gitmo truly reminds you of nazi camps or police states, even assuming the absolute worst stories we have heard are common occurances. Your concept of reality and understanding of history is so far off the mark that rational debate is impossible

By Mike J

June 22, 2005 12:53 AM | Link to this

Gitmo is definitely not a place of torture. Yes, we torture our prisoners by turning the thermostat down, serving 3 meals a day and giving them taxpayer paid for Qurans. Interestly, I agree we haven’t abided by the Geneva Convention since we could have lined them all up in front of firing squad for being captured without uniforms and trying to decieve their enemy by wearing civilian clothes.

By BigDaddy

June 22, 2005 01:50 PM | Link to this

Dan, you are absolutely correct in your assessment. Brian Curtis, it would be counterproductive to close Gitmo - for one it would give added ammunition to our enemies to see that with just a little whining, they can change US policy. Secondly, all we would do is move these people to another base not on US soil. The reason we can hold them as we do is that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to non-uniformed combatants. Essentially they forefeited their rights under international law. If we were to bring them on to US soil there is the potential that they could be afforded the same rights as US citizens for a trial by jury - but these are not US citizens, they are prisoners of war to whom the Geneva Conventions have no application. Non-uniformed combatants in WWII were summarily executed by firing squad; I think our treatment of these murderers and would-be murderers is incredibly humane by comparison. Any comparison to Hitler, Saddam, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin or Lenin is absurd hyperbole, and those that make such statements are either historically uneducated, willfully ignorant or trying to score cheap political points with those who are ignorant and uneducated. Shame on them…

I do agree that being forced to listen to Christina Aguilera is a gross form of torture. But heck, maybe the weird beards will be inspired by singing along - “I am beautiful, no matter what they say. Words can’t bring me down…”

By Crystal

June 22, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

I agree with Dan and BigDaddy. Guantanamo should NOT be closed. Where are we supposed to put foreign civilian fighters? Alcatraz, a Marriot or West Palm Beach? All claims of torture have been investigated and the results reported. I am sure there is an even closer watch on guards and prisoners at this facility. Guantanamo stays in the spotlight because of unbridled political interests and terrorists’ efforts.

Sen. Durbin (D) has apologized for his dishonest, political, unpatriotic accusations about Guantanamo. He should resign as whip of the minority Democrats. Remember Trent Lott? Durbin should also remove himself from any leadership role.

By Brian Curtis

June 23, 2005 08:49 AM | Link to this

“Murderers”, eh? That seems to be the rationale offered by all the right-wing radio blowhards: “They don’t have rights because they’re anti-American murderers!”

Really? When exactly was this proven? Have they had a trial? Have any charges been made, hearings scheduled, counsel provided? No, of course not. That would be forcing us to live up to our high-sounding rhetoric about freedom and rights. And we certainly can’t afford THAT in a time of war!

Remind me again—exactly what are these soldiers of ours fighting for? The U.S. holds itself to a higher standard than terrorist states do; and I do the same.

By Carlton Wyatt

June 23, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Too bad we can’t send people to Gitmo who wrongly accuse others of being “dishonest” and “unpatriotic” when all the accused has done is question the motives and actions of the Bush administration. What is really “unpatriotic” is the infantile notion that Bush can do no wrong.

Gitmo has become an embarrassment to the United States. However, considering the even bigger embarrassment that are the GOP and Bushies, there isn’t much more damage Gitmo can do to our image that hasn’t already been accomplished.

By BigDaddy

June 23, 2005 01:35 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, actually they’ve all had trials - military tribunals which are legal in these situations according to international law. They are not afforded the same protections as you and I under the US Constitution because they are not US citizens and are not in the United States. Are you suggesting that we forcibly patriate them into the US just so they can have a criminal trial by jury?

I’ll agree with you on this point - I have a major problem with the Justice Department’s ongoing attempt to hold the Shoelace Bomber (his name escapes me at the moment) indefinitely without trial, as he is a US citizen and was captured in US airspace.

I’m assuming that you would prefer to fight terrorism as Clinton, Bush pere, Reagan, Carter, et al, did - through appeasement and the court system. That didn’t work out too well though, did it?

And as far as treatment of detainees - would you rather be an Islamic terrorist captured by American soldiers, or an American soldier captured by Islamic terrorists? I think Nick Berg and a few hundred others would have loved to be able to have that discussion with you.

I’m glad you hold the US to a higher standard than the terrorists; our men and women in uniform hold themselves to a higher standard as well…

By Dan

June 23, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Actually almost all of the prisoners at Gitmo were captured engaging our troops or afghan and iraqi civilians in battle. Every last one of them recieved a miltary hearing as the geneva convention dictates despite the fact that the convention does not require this in the case of non-uniformed combatants. Many have been freed due to these hearings (many have also been subsequently recaptured) Clearly something needs to be decided regarding final resolution of these prisoners either sentence them or let them go. That is a debatable issue. But calling it torture and comparing it to the gulag and nazis etc is clearly nonsense. Both regarding the actual physical handling of the prisoners and the fact that these are in fact captured combatants not undesirable civilians. This is the dems problem, there are enough real problems to complain about, but when you cry wolf about torture where none exists it undermines your argument when it is legitimate

By Brian Curtis

June 23, 2005 08:20 PM | Link to this

I’m not crying about torture; I’m outraged by the invention of a category of “nonpersons” (aka “enemy combatants”) that doesn’t exist and indefinite detention in a “non-location” to keep it outside everyone’s jurisdiction.

I’m angry that BushCo keeps assuming they can do whatever they want and to hell with the Constitution. (And yes, noncitizens STILL have rights, under our Constitution. Look it up.)

And I’m disgusted that so many mindless sheep seem willing to pretend that the Bush administration can do no wrong—and that when they do make an embarrassing mistake, the top priority should be to hush it up to avoid “demoralizing the troops.” After all, there’s a WAR on.

But isn’t there always?

By Dan

June 24, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this

Thats what most of the liberal anguish is about and bush certainly has made mistakes as we all do but as I said before it would help the dems if they would complain about those rather than making up mistakes. But my favorite part is again Curtis brings up the constition, which is convenient because 99 out of 100 times he proves himself wrong (you really should read it before using it in your arguments V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

See while you can make any argument against the indefinite detention, and I have already agreed that we need to address that. It is specifically addressed in the constitution that those rights are suspended in time of war. It is so clear even a dem can understand it, (despite there overall lower education level)

By BigDaddy

June 24, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Okay, Brian Curtis, no there is not always a war on. Second, the term “enemy combatants” was not invented by the Bush fils administration; rules for treatment of non-uniformed enemby combatants are set forth in the Geneva Convention - and torture and execution are perfectly legitimate treatment for this group of people, legally speaking.

Second, while non-citizens do have rights under the US Constitution, those rights are applicable if a foreign national is captured on US soil; that is why they are being held outside of the United States - to bring them onto official US soil would create a legal mess and extend rights to these people to which they are currently not entitled.

If you would, please tell us what you would have adminitration officials do? If you were in charge of this operation, how would you hold these people (or how would you go about releasing them?)

Generally, POWs are not released to return to fight for their side during a time of war. Granted these are not technically POWs, as defined by the Geneva Conventions. Nor is this a traditional war against a sovereign state that can be completed by signing a formal treaty. But so far you have offered only criticism; please, offer an alternative treatment measure. We all eagerly await your reply…

By Mike B.

June 25, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

This is why America is going to hell in a hand basket. I will some it all up in one word. Media. Without these lowlifes running around trumping up stories, we wouldn’t have this problem. We, are stopping people from protecting us. Does this make any sense?

By Brian Curtis

June 26, 2005 10:36 PM | Link to this

I know Dan likes to hold himself out as an expert on the Constitution—tell me, are you familiar with the part about treaties being supreme law of the land? Do the Geneva Conventions ring a bell with you?

The Conventions very specifically FORBID the use of torture on ANY foreign nationals captured or detained in ANY sort of conflict, regardless of circumstances. In other words, no excuses. Period. And Pres. Bush has neither the right nor the power to ignore the Geneva protections for ANY category of detainees.

Perhaps Dan should do some reading too. Like the Supreme Court’s ruling on this “Guantanamo puts us beyond checks and balances” nonsense. Anywhere the executive (i.e., military) controls is equally subject to judicial constraints.

Bush is NOT above the law—and the “hearings” tribunal procedures are a joke, as you would know if you did a little digging. Would you like to try to defend YOURself in a hearing where you have no counsel, no access to witnesses or evidence, and a presumption of “guilty until proven innocent?” That’s how our so-called “neutral tribunal” operates. And that’s why Guantanamo will be a blot on our history when this country regains its senses again.

By jon

June 27, 2005 01:08 AM | Link to this

No. But, they can bring them to Texas where we will take really good care of them.

By Dan

June 27, 2005 09:11 AM | Link to this

Curtis in a previous post you said you weren’t crying about torture. But rather how holding these people without a trial is unconstitutional. Go read it you said. Then upon being proved wrong regarding the constitution (again) you reinsert the torture theory, and I state again anyone condidering even the worst accusations from gitmo torture is woefully ignorant of history.
So which are you mad about the detainment, which is clearly not unconstitutional, the torture which clearly exists only in the the minds of the angry left. Or are you just ticked off because anything our government does is evil and facist. Just apply a small bit of common sense and you won’t be so mad all the time

By Brian Curtis

June 28, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

Dan: Holding them without trial IS unconstitutional—as I said, check up on your Supreme Court rulings on this subject. Indefinite detainment is, by definition, ILLEGAL. Denying a hearing and counsel is, again, ILLEGAL. What part of this are you not getting?

The treatment and handling of these detainees has been is illegal too, but the confinement sans charges/hearings/counsel and declaration that Geneva Conventions don’t apply is, all by itself, sufficient to prove that the Bush administration is BREAKING. THE. LAW. Where do you think you’ve “proven” that there’s a category of detainees which—as Bush claims—are entitled to neither trial nor Geneva protections?

Is it really so much to ask that we have a president who’s NOT a criminal? They DO swear to actually uphold the law, after all….

By Van

June 28, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, Do you approve of the way FDR handled the POW question?

Marine Corps Recruit Depot (Boot Camp) was far worse than the “poor” innocents” at Gitmo are facing. BTW, why were they shooting at us if they are so innocent?

By Brian Curtis

June 28, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

Van: Addressing your questions in order.

FDR’s handling of POWs: Heck no, I don’t approve. He may have been our greatest 20th century president, but he made some serious mistakes too.

Boot camp: Last time I checked, people volunteered for boot camp.

Innocence: I have no idea if they’re innocent or guilty; they certainly weren’t all “shooting at us.” The point is, we have a presumption of innocence and a process that requires proof (evidence) before anyone can “lock ‘em up and throw away the key.”

If anyone’s not worried about this violation of due process, just wait until you or someone you know falls under the “watch list” category.