Obama Orders Halt To Gitmo Tribunals

BPSCG said:
I really don't see the problem for the non-combatants erroneously or accidentally picked up in a war zone. Once we determine they are were non-combatants, we should simply drop them off in the same neighborhood where they were picked up, in the host country they were touring (that would be Afghanistan, right?).

I would not be averse to giving them a nice apology and some money by way of reparation for damages. "Gee, we're really sorry, hope you understand, these things can happen in the fog of war, here's five thousand U.S. dollars, go buy yourself a nice rocket launcher wide-screen TV. And of course, no charge for the medical care we gave you while in custody - the immunizations, the removal of the cancerous tumors..."
Click to expand...

And if they have been beaten to death while in custody?
 
DrBaltar said:
Uh, they're not able to commit acts of violence against the US or anyone else? These people are not US citizens. They are enemy prisoners of war. They should be locked up at least until the war is over.
Click to expand...

Reference from CFL about perpetual war......

then....

Japan & Germany were defeated. War over, end of story..
Click to expand...

The war will never be over. I could argue the war has been going on for thousands of years in different forms. What does "over" mean? These people will die of old age before someone claims victory, because it will never happen. It's the war on drugs. It's whacka-mole with free credits.
 
Tailgater said:
The war will never be over. I could argue the war has been going on for thousands of years in different forms. What does "over" mean? These people will die of old age before someone claims victory, because it will never happen. It's the war on drugs. It's whacka-mole with free credits.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for this to be pointed out. Yes, if the war goes on forever, then these people will be a threat until they die. So yes, you hold them until they die of old age if necessary. Why isn't this obvious?
 
Terrorists never breed? They never train new terrorists?

How naive can one be?
 
DrBaltar said:
I was waiting for this to be pointed out. Yes, if the war goes on forever, then these people will be a threat until they die. So yes, you hold them until they die of old age if necessary. Why isn't this obvious?
Click to expand...

Because the severity of the threat is not established. If we can let murderers go every day on the basis that they have reformed, we should be able to review someone held for training to be a terrorist but not actually killing anyone (which is basically what the chinese are being held for).
 
WildCat said:
When did our ideals prevent us from holding enemies captured in a war? Was the US ever in a war where we didn't hold captured combatants as long as we saw fit without charging or trying them?
Click to expand...

That "security versus ideals" quote comes up a lot. It's actually supposed to be "security versus liberty". Nevertheless, the quote doesn't support the position of the pacifists or "patriots" who use it. It was a part of a broader exhortation to proto-Americans (as they were still British subjects) to go to war to protect their rights.

It's a pro-war, pro-violence, anti-pacifist quote and it always surprises me to see people misapply it.
 
CFLarsen said:
Terrorists never breed? They never train new terrorists?

How naive can one be?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you're talking to, but I assume it's someone who suggested that we release the prisoners from Gitmo which would allow them to breed and train new terrorists, not to mention continue fighting.

Tailgater said:
Because the severity of the threat is not established. If we can let murderers go every day on the basis that they have reformed, we should be able to review someone held for training to be a terrorist but not actually killing anyone (which is basically what the chinese are being held for).
Click to expand...
Well out of 759 prisoners, 275 have been transfered or released. Perhaps some of these are people who train terrorists that you claim need to be out running around.

Ah... sorry, I think you're the person CFLarsen was addressing.
 
If people suspected of terrorism - but neither brought to trial nor convicted - are kept imprisoned because they would otherwise breed and train new terrorists, not to mention continue fighting, how can it be argued that this war can ever be won, since there are many more outside imprisonment who are right now breeding, training and fighting?

The only way to "win" a war like that, from that kind of argumentation, is to have a perpetual Orwellian war, where everyone is eventually imprisoned.

What drives this kind of thinking? Why is it seen as something worth striving for?
 
CFLarsen said:
The only way to "win" a war like that, from that kind of argumentation, is to have a perpetual Orwellian war, where everyone is eventually imprisoned.

What drives this kind of thinking? Why is it seen as something worth striving for?
Click to expand...

There's nothing new about this. Your enemy fights you, you defend yourself and try to end the fighting. As the saying goes, a good defense is a strong offense. It's not ideal, but the enemy sees us as the very embodiment of satan. We're not going to appease them. We're not going to reason with them. They want us dead, or they will die trying so they can be with their 72 virgins. I have no patience in trying to rehabilitate them.
 
CFLarsen said:
The only way to "win" a war like that, from that kind of argumentation, is to have a perpetual Orwellian war, where everyone is eventually imprisoned.
Click to expand...

The point of detaining specific individuals is to shorten the conflict against terrorist organisations. To release them would indeed be the quickest way to extend the conflict into a 'perpetual war'.

If, say, the Allies had quit the European Theatre of WWII in FEB 1945, released all their German POWs, and allowed Hitler and the Nazis to remain free and alive, do you think that might have extended or shortened the war?
 
It isn't a question of how you fight your enemy.

It's a question of when you know to stop fighting your enemy.

If you define your enemy as someone who will never cease to exist, how can your war ever end?
 
How do we know who to "detain"? And for how long?

Forget about comparisons to conventional wars. This isn't a case of fighting and defeating a clearly defined nation with a clearly defined army.
 
CFLarsen said:
It isn't a question of how you fight your enemy.

It's a question of when you know to stop fighting your enemy.

If you define your enemy as someone who will never cease to exist, how can your war ever end?
Click to expand...
Fortunately for us, the war was not authorized by a philosophy debating club. It was authorized by Congress, and the war will end when Congress decides it will.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
2,688 days without a major terrorist attack on Bush's watch after 9/11 and in less than 12 hours Obama is already throwing it all away.
Click to expand...

Was he not convincingly elected on the promise to close this place. A man that keeps his election pledges - this is a bad thing?

Those handful that are genuine terrorists can be tried in a real court and those who were simply in Afghanistan fighting for the Taleban against the Northern Alliance when we went in should be repatriated to their own countries, one that will take them or sent to face trial in Afghanistan if they committed crimes there.
 
CFLarsen said:
If you define your enemy as someone who will never cease to exist, how can your war ever end?
Click to expand...
So you just accept that your enemy is a nutjob that simply must keep fighting you? When planes plow into our buildings or when Hamas launches rockets into Israel, we just say, oh those crazy terrorists. When will they ever learn?
 
DrBaltar said:
So you just accept that your enemy is a nutjob that simply must keep fighting you? When planes plow into our buildings or when Hamas launches rockets into Israel, we just say, oh those crazy terrorists. When will they ever learn?
Click to expand...

Perhaps not but policies and wars that end up breaking the world economy are not a brilliant riposte either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom