Obama Orders Halt To Gitmo Tribunals

[gtc]

If you define your enemy as someone who will never cease to exist, how can your war ever end?

The point is that radical Islam won't stop attacking Western targets (let alone targets in the Islamic world) just because Congress decides to end the war. America can define the enemy however it likes, but it won't stop the conflict.

 

[DrBaltar]

Was he not convincingly elected on the promise to close this place.

No, this is why he was elected:

 

[stilicho]

Forget about comparisons to conventional wars. This isn't a case of fighting and defeating a clearly defined nation with a clearly defined army.

What about clearly defined enemy then? Just because the definitions are difficult to explain doesn't mean this doesn't qualify as warfare. There are ample instances throughout history of assymetrical and unconventional warfare.

If you need some I will supply them. Or just Google and find them yourself.

 

[CFLarsen]

The conflict is certainly not stopped by rounding up people and incarcerating them indefinitely without a fair trial.

If anything, this provides the terrorists with valid arguments. What is the difference between us and them, if our side resort to not only unjust imprisonment, but also torture?

 

[DrBaltar]

Perhaps not but policies and wars that end up breaking the world economy are not a brilliant riposte either.

This isn't just to you, but to all the people who debate these issues. All I hear is criticisms of people who are in positions where they have to make decisions. They don't have the luxury of getting into an inconsequential philosophy debate. They have to make real world decisions which will protect their people, country and military.

It's fine to criticize the decisions of your leaders. But what I want to hear is YOUR solution to the problem.

ETA: Again... give us a SOLUTION! What will end the conflict?

The conflict is certainly not stopped by rounding up people and incarcerating them indefinitely without a fair trial.

If anything, this provides the terrorists with valid arguments. What is the difference between us and them, if our side resort to not only unjust imprisonment, but also torture?

 

[CFLarsen]

If you have problems explaining who your enemy is, then you got a problem. A big problem.

How is this "terrorist enemy" clearly defined? Until it is, how can the war be won?

 

[WildCat]

If you have problems explaining who your enemy is, then you got a problem. A big problem.

How is this "terrorist enemy" clearly defined? Until it is, how can the war be won?

It's amazing how many people never read the freaking AUMF:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Note this isn't a war against all terrorists anywhere, or against a philosophical concept.

It's a war against those that attacked us or helped to attack us on 9/11.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's amazing how many people don't realize that "aided" or "helped" are exactly as concrete as when psychics claim to have "aided" or "helped" the police in solving murder cases.

Is a Muslim exercising his right to freedom of speech to voice his opposition to the West "aiding" or "helping" Osama bin Laden?

Is merely being a Muslim "aiding" or "helping" Osama bin Laden?

"Aiding" and "helped" are weasel words.

 

[Patriot4life]

The conflict is certainly not stopped by rounding up people and incarcerating them indefinitely without a fair trial.

If anything, this provides the terrorists with valid arguments. What is the difference between us and them, if our side resort to not only unjust imprisonment, but also torture?

I think CFlarsen is spot on in this assessment. Don't you guys ever ask yourselves, why? Why are we the target of terrorism at home and abroad?

I think top military interrogators who feel that the transgressions and images produced from GITMO and ABU have been the leading cause of terrorist activity in Iraq, have a bit more validity then those assesing the situation from their offices. Just read this:

From hundreds of interrogations in Iraq, “Alexander” said he learned that the images from Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib were actually getting American soldiers killed by drawing angry young Arabs into the Iraq War.

“Torture and abuse cost American lives,” the interrogator wrote. “I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

“Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq.

“It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001."How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans

You can argue any way you want but here is some evidence that refutes the idea that GITMO is saving american lives. If you would like to read an article from somebody who, actually knows what he iis talking about here is the link, otherwise keep living in fantasyland.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242_pf.html

 

[stilicho]

The conflict is certainly not stopped by rounding up people and incarcerating them indefinitely without a fair trial.

If anything, this provides the terrorists with valid arguments. What is the difference between us and them, if our side resort to not only unjust imprisonment, but also torture?

The inspiration for terrorists has zero to do with it. Unlike a lot of armchair quarterbacks in the West, the terrorists have a very clear idea about their enemy, a very clear idea about how to defeat them, and a very clear idea about the means by which they intend to become victorious.

Says you: The conflict is certainly not stopped by rounding up people and incarcerating them indefinitely without a fair trial.

Upon what evidence do you base that assertion? Numerous conflicts have been stopped by incarcerating or executing people who had the means and the ability to inflict damage or defeat upon their foes. Here in Canada, we have to look no further than the trial and execution of Louis Riel. And in 1970, during the FLQ kidnapping crisis, emergency powers were invoked and hundreds of rather uninvolved people were rounded up and incarcerated. By your logic, each of those actions should have sparked a civil war or worse. But they didn't.

That's just a couple of examples from Canadian history but you can look at any wars, rebellions, and insurrections, and discover to your horror that a lot of them were stopped by rounding up people and incarcerating or executing them.

 

[stilicho]

I think CFlarsen is spot on in this assessment. Don't you guys ever ask yourselves, why? Why are we the target of terrorism at home and abroad?

Have you ever read Bin Laden's 1996 fatwa or any of the more recent pronouncements of al-Zawahiri? It's pretty clear what they want to do. And it isn't just the USA that is at risk. Nor is it only the non-Muslim "western world". The governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are frequently singled out too. Misrepresenting this whole issue as just an American problem is pretty narrow-minded.

 

[gnome]

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?

The point, I think, is not to stop fighting, but to avoid instituting plans that are justified by being considered temporary.

"We're in a war on terror, so we need these emergency powers" ... is the Orwellian point. If the war on terror will continue, it is not emergency powers you're asking for, it is ongoing powers.

 

[BPSCG]

Hmmm... should I? No, I can't say that. Oh but he left it wide open. Ok... here goes.

Then no apology needed!

duck

Thanks. I was casting about for the kind of smartass answer the question deserved. You saved me the work.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you want to incarcerate and execute people who have the means and the ability to inflict damage or defeat upon their foes...what separates you from the terrorists?

Having the means and the ability is not the same as carrying it out. If you want to incarcerate and execute people who have the means and the ability to inflict damage or defeat upon their foes, prepare to kill all people on this planet. One way or another, they have the means and the ability to do just that.

Pay attention to anyone who advocate extremist solutions.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Isn't the Jose Padilla case an exceptional one though? It certainly created a stir in the US and, in the end, the conviction was mitigated by a mere 17 year sentence. The "Bushbots" don't always win, it seems.

A 17 year sentence for conspiracy to do no specific thing, using evidence that he claims (highly plausibly) was obtained by the use of torture, obtained only after the executive kept up a battle for years to deny him his Constitutional rights, does not seem to me to be a suitable subject for the adjective "mere".

I've no great quarrel with the outcome of a seventeen year sentence, since Padilla probably was and is a danger to others, but the rule of law got thoroughly trampled to get to that outcome, and it seems highly likely some government kidnappers and torturers who belong in prison along with Padilla will never be brought to justice.

As for it being exceptional, you've still lost a right even if the government only uses its new powers when it feels like it.

 

[WildCat]

It's amazing how many people don't realize that "aided" or "helped" are exactly as concrete as when psychics claim to have "aided" or "helped" the police in solving murder cases.

Actually, it is pretty concrete.

Is a Muslim exercising his right to freedom of speech to voice his opposition to the West "aiding" or "helping" Osama bin Laden?

Why, no it isn't! Which is why no such people were sent to Gitmo. It's quiote clear-cut.

Is merely being a Muslim "aiding" or "helping" Osama bin Laden?

Why, no it isn't! Once again, quite clear-cut.

"Aiding" and "helped" are weasel words.

Not in the context of the law.

 

[stilicho]

A 17 year sentence for conspiracy to do no specific thing, using evidence that he claims (highly plausibly) was obtained by the use of torture, obtained only after the executive kept up a battle for years to deny him his Constitutional rights, does not seem to me to be a suitable subject for the adjective "mere".

I've no great quarrel with the outcome of a seventeen year sentence, since Padilla probably was and is a danger to others, but the rule of law got thoroughly trampled to get to that outcome, and it seems highly likely some government kidnappers and torturers who belong in prison along with Padilla will never be brought to justice.

As for it being exceptional, you've still lost a right even if the government only uses its new powers when it feels like it.

In no small way Jose Padilla contributed to the loss of his own rights.

I used the term "mere" because the "Bushbots" were asking for more than that. They lost.

I bolded the part of your reply that I completely agreed with.

 

[jj]

It could turn into a real fiasco if they end up in the civilian court system.

Really now, you have some objection to open trials, juries, etc?

 

[INRM]

Obama said he's going to pass three executive directives tomorrow one of which shuts down Gitmo, and another which governs interrogation proceedures.

I just hope the interrogation proceedures he puts into effect won't somehow be worse than the original.


CF Larsen,

You make very good points about a perpetual war, and it's results resembling 1984.

 

[stilicho]

If you want to incarcerate and execute people who have the means and the ability to inflict damage or defeat upon their foes...what separates you from the terrorists?

I would prefer peaceful negotiations to warfare. Always have. But in this particular war it would be exceedingly naive to believe that negotiations would succeed.

To return to the FLQ crisis of 1970, a simplified example, you are asking what separated PM Trudeau from the FLQ kidnappers. For one thing, Trudeau was the democratically elected representative of the Canadian public. The FLQ was a terrorist organisation pretending to speak for a large segment of Canada. Trudeau authorised the use of the military on the streets of Canadian cities and the arrest and jailing of hundreds of people who had merely expressed sympathy for the FLQ. The difference between this (perhaps objectionable) policy and the FLQ kidnappings should be clear to anyone.

Insofar as military goals, there is no difference between the US Administration and its foes. Each wishes to secure victory over its enemy. There is probably no way to secure a political end to a military problem. Can you think of one?