Don’t Close Gitmo Prison
Closing the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, sends the wrong message not just to our allies but to our enemies.
Enemy combatatants, that is, muslim terrorists, who have been released from Gitmo have claimed that they were subjected to a variety of tortures. Most likely they were subjected to some very stressful interrogation methods but that falls short of ripping out fingernails and electrocuting genitals. Some of the interrogation methods have been abandoned because of these complaints and the resultant bad publicity and should probably never have been instituted. As in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, things went too far.
In many of our prisons here in the US, things have gone too far. The Attica Prison riots were over such severe conditions that the resultant publicity caused wide-ranging changes in prison management. Attica prison is still there and still serving its purpose.
Our enemies are going to make every claim and tell every lie that they can think of to make things more difficult for us, including making false claims of excessive abuse. Our military has been very forthcoming about abuses that have come to light in Iraq and Gitmo. Because abuses did occur is no reason to shut down the facilities where they happened any more than you would shut down a school because a crime happened there.
Most of the people wanting the closure of Gitmo are the terrorists, many Democrats and a few Republicans like John McCain. About him, I’m sorry he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. I know it was a horrible experience. That doesn’t make him Presidential material or right about Gitmo. He’s not.
Personally, I think building a new prison way off in Afghanistan, which is much closer to where the terrorists come from, and shipping all the Gitmo detainees there, is a great idea. Then go ahead and close Gitmo and shut up all the whiners. There will be no oversight of prison conditions in Afghanistan and God knows what will happen to those incarcerated there, except that it wil probably be a whole lot worse, and the muzzies and lefties will only have themselves to thank.
If those people would rub their two remaining brain cells together they’d realize that they’re far better off now with Gitmo staying just like it is.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Unfortunately too many think in slogans but for the more sane “Close Gitmo” simply is a shorhand for end the abuses, the physical location has nothing to do with it.
The thing that rankles most is the lack of any proper sort of trial or representation. It has nothing to do with defending terrorists as some would have it but of defending individuals who are ACCUSED of terrorism and that is a very different thing. Hardly as though mistakes have never been made by the CIA.
It may be that in the circumstances the sort of proof that would lead to a conviction in a court of law are not available, but that does not mean there should not be some proper impartial process that demonstrates at least suffcient risk for continued detention. To have no such process is a disgrace to any nation that calls itself civilised.
When Republicans like Bush are in charge of the US with their nutjob Christianity, it is sometimes hard to decide who is the greater world threat, them or Islam.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Sorry but no. We are a signatory nation of the Geneva Convention, we have declared war, on terrorism, and under the rules of the Geneva Convention we can hold enemy combatants for the duration of the war under pretty minimal conditions, and we can interrogate our prisoners. We don’t have to try them and we don’t have to let them go before the end of the war. However, we are allowed to try them for war crimes if we want to.
We do in fact have a system in place for making a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, with the result that the vast majority of those taken to Gitmo have long since been released, a fact that’s studiously ignored by the MSM in favor of screaming that we’re holding people for years without trial. A Google search will reveal a long list of prisoner transfers and releases to Russia, Poland, and all over the Mid-East.
The problem is not the lack of trials. That’s all Left-Wing propaganda. The problem is the methods of interrogation that have been used. I have no doubt, from all the reports, that the rules of the Geneva Convention regarding interrogation have been trodden on. That the enemy has no regard for rules of any kind is no excuse for us.
The risk of employing the enemy’s methods is of becoming so much like the enemy that the moral high ground is lost.
June 24th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Not always the most accurate of sources, I admit, but Wikepedia says
“A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have the power to … declare War”
Those taken in Afghanistan or Iraq before successful occupation might be termed prisoners of war. but as I understand it that does not apply to all those taken there. The “war on terror” is just a daft term, one cannot declare war under the Geneva convention against some nebulous worldwide body of people in which the combatants are whoever the US says they are.
This is the real problem. The US seems to do whatever it feels like and ride roughshod over the laws of other countries and believe me, that doesn’t piss off lefties/liberal half as much as it does us right wing nationalists who want our own countries to have independent policies and control over our own affairs.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Xoggoth.
You are so far off-beam, I can’t believe I am reading it.
YOU may be right-wing, but the gov’t is a left wing Islamic appeasing collection of turds, who preach moral equivalence, human rights, etc, etc, about a load of sand-fleas. There is NO moral, religious, civilisational equivalence with a collection of stone age sand fleas. Period!
The problem with defining the enemy is that it is not so much a state, as a state of mind. However the states that offer sustenance to this state of mind can be identified.
This is where mistakes are made.
The costs of financing terrorism should be made so impossibly expensive that the nation-states involved desist, and handle their own social problems instead of exporting them!
The US may appear to ride roughshod over other states, thats your perception from reading left-wing crap. The fact is that the US is about the only nation that has the capacity to intervene in the fight against a 1.5bn diaspora of sand fleas. The fact that targeting is poor, is persuading lefties that the war is wrong and the US is wearing jackboots. No it isn’t, it’s the targeting.
If/When other western gov’ts wake up to the threat from Islamic expansion/terrorism/jihad, and realise that the Eurabia idea, and the Eurinals running it, are a recipe for western civilisational collapse, the sooner you will realise that appeasement fails every time, and offending right-wing nationalists in left-wing turd-land, is actually doing them a favour.
Lets face it, if you’re a right-wing nationalist in a left-wing turdland, the independent policies that you aspire to will hardly be the policies implemented by your gov’t even if it could, given its surrender to Eurabia.
So which is worst, Xoggoth, encroaching Eurabia/Eurinals/Islamic sandfleas, constantly rising eurinal taxes, more thought-crimes, etc, etc, OR a US that has drawn a line in the sand, and says enough is enough??
If it’s the latter, stop your fucking moaning and do something positive.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Rastaman OT OT,
In which administration is this blog hosted?
I ask because of publishing possibly sensitive info.
June 24th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Oops.
The recent post should read-
If it’s the former do something positive………
Sorry.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Xoggoth,
Rerference Blairs cave-in to the Eurinals.
All Blair is doing is setting tests he knows he can pass, or pretend to pass, while the real damage is done elsewhere. This new constitutional treaty, which the Eurinals prefer to say is “just a treatyâ€, will involve a further substantial transfer of power to Brussels at a time when the opposite – a massive repatriation of powers to national governments and directly to their citizens – is urgently required. This new treaty, brought back to life in German and French back rooms, needs to be defeated heavily so nobody will dare wheel it out again in a few years.
Amongst many other land-grabs, the new treaty will establish a full-time European president with a staff of 3,500 at his disposal and a foreign minister, though to spare British blushes this envoy will go by another name, in a typical EU sleight of hand. Even though the treaty will circumscribe these figures’ formal power, they will inevitably grow in stature and influence. For instance, the EU foreign minister would probably wish to negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear programme, squeezing out national governments.
There would also be pressure for him to speak on behalf of the EU at the UN Security Council, devaluing Britain’s permanent seat and making it more likely to lose it in any future reform of that body. The more foreign policy is Eurinalised, the harder it will be for Britain to break from a joint position when it needs to (as, for example, soon-to-be Prime Minister Brown will likely have to on Iran).
Now this is only a part of the tip of the iceberg, the diminution of national powers/legislative rights is, quite frankly, immoral.
Where is the independence of foreign policy, etc that you crave?
So Mr Xoggoth, are you a happy camper?
June 24th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Don’t worry, Jordon. We’re all safe here. This is the USA, southern Washington state, to be a bit more precise.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Thanks, Rastaman.
I’ll start work, although it may take some time.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Rasta, while tooling about, I found this.
It may be useful to you.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Jordon, that’s absolutely amazing! That was filed 3 years ago. I’m going to have to see if I can find out what progress its made through the courts. I saved it to disc for future reference. If that suit is won and the Arabs have to pay, it would knock their economies upside down and make financing terrorism a thing of the past.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
HEEP – HEEP – HURRA ! ! !
TERRORISM GOES TO KNOCK OUT ! ! !
June 25th, 2007 at 1:48 am
The only problem with Afghanistan is the prisoners escaping. They’ll be right at home, ha.
I thought you might be interested in this:
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/06/red-line-agreement.html
June 25th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Thanks. Debbie. More proof that it’s always been all about oil.
June 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Such a load of nutty crap Jordan I can’t be bothered reading it all let alone repying to it.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Xoggoth.
What’s wrong?
Short attention span?, – Alzheimer’s?
June 27th, 2007 at 5:55 am
“under the rules of the Geneva Convention we can hold enemy combatants for the duration of the war under pretty minimal conditions, and we can interrogate our prisoners”
Rastaman,
I want to add to that. Most of the detainees are considered “unlawful combatants” under the US military’s Law of Armed Conflict, which makes them not only prisoners of war but also war criminals. Those caught targeting civilians intentionally or in any of hundreds of violations common to the insurgencies in OIF and OEF are also held not only as prisoners of war, but as criminals as well. Under the Geneva conventions, there is no provision requiring war criminals to ever be tried, instead, justice for the criminals is incumbent of upon the nation holding them as criminals. Under the Patriot Act and pre-existing US laws, these prisoners are not entitled to due process (as long as they are kept out of the US), and until legislation or judicial decision changes the fact, there is nothing that compels the US to EVER try criminals from the War on Terror. Legally, they can be detained at Gitmo until they die of old age or until Obama Bin Laden takes office.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Ras,
Why these goons are housed in gitmo anyway is the question. Why were our intelligence agencies unable to pull a 007 and make them disappear until they had all they wanted from them without interference, or false sympathy engineered by the anti-American at any cost left. I think Parrot is speaking straight with knowledge.
On the oil issue, I don’t understand why it is not acknowledged since it is an obvious vital national interest to maintain an uninterrupted energy supply for any modern nation. That has to be a big one, if not the biggest. It is also a legitimate reason to conduct warfare. That doesn’t mean that there were not other valid reasons, even the stated ones.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Flanders… On the former, we’re not Soviets and we don’t run Gulags. We needed a clearinghouse for these people on territory we control but outside of our own country, for the legal reasons cited above, but making them disappear the way people do in Russia just isn’t the way we do things.
Oil… Agreed. It is unfortunate that the Bush Gang is such a bunch of liars and deceivers that the truth frightens them. There’s no reason not to be open about the fact that we are fighting for oil.
Infidel Parrot is obviously very well informed. That’s interesting stuff and I was totally unaware of it.
Good input. Thanks!
June 28th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
You cant imagine how much money they spend trying to silence good people who will put their lives on the line to fight for change.
http://www.faction3.us