GITMO detainees, terrorists, etc

[powerboatr]

Last month i sent letters to our state officials as well as our Washington representatives....
so far only mrs.hutchison has responded.
this is her response.

"Dear Friend:
Thank you for writing me regarding the implications of President Obama’s Executive Order to close Guantanamo Bay. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

On September 11, 2001, the United States peered into the face of evil when 19 foreign terrorists brought the violence of Islamic extremism onto our soil, claiming the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans. That day changed the course of history, delineating the post-9/11 era from the days that came before. In the eight years since, America and its allies have boldly waged the Global War on Terror in an effort to prevent terrorism from ever reaching America’s shores again and to protect free nations across the world. This conflict has presented our nation with unique operational challenges for which there is no wartime precedent, such as where and how to detain captured terrorists, including the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Since shortly after 9/11, enemy combatants have been detained at a prisoner facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Now, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has become a point of contention. Just two days after President Obama’s Inauguration, he issued an Executive Order to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility within a year. I believe this action is premature, and I am extremely concerned about the fast-looming deadline, particularly when no viable alternative for housing these dangerous terrorists and enemy combatants has been outlined.

President Barack Obama’s Executive Order states that the closure, which would require the release or transfer of nearly 300 detainees, should be practicable and consistent with national security interests. This cannot happen without a full discussion and thorough plan for the detainment of these enemy combatants. The policy contemplates five scenarios for handling current detainees: hand them over to their home countries for incarceration; transfer them to a neutral country; transfer them to prisons on U.S. soil; send them to U.S. facilities abroad; or release them outright. Unfortunately, all of these alternatives heighten the threat to the lives of Americans at home and abroad.

Without question, the worst of these options is to send Guantanamo prisoners to domestic prisons in the United States. By taking this action, we would essentially place terrorists in the neighborhoods and communities of American citizens. In 2007, the U.S. Senate expressed its firm opposition to any plans to release Guantanamo detainees into American society or to house them in U.S. facilities, by a vote of 94-3. Vice President Biden (then-Senator of Delaware) was among the 94 Senators opposing transfer of the prisoners to the U.S; President Obama (then-Senator of Illinois) was not present for the vote.

Alternatively, transferring enemy combatants to prisons in foreign states or releasing them to their home countries is also a dangerous proposition. In January, it was reported that former Guantanamo detainee Said Ali al-Shihri, who had been released into the custody of Saudi Arabia, has subsequently resurfaced as a terrorist operative. Today, he is al-Qaeda’s deputy leader in Yemen and is charged with planning and executing acts of violence against the U.S. and its allies. And al-Shihri is not the exception. According to the Pentagon, as many as 61 enemy combatants released from Guantanamo have since reconnected with terrorist networks and renewed their commitment to destroying America and our way of life. Even more frightening, these 61 former prisoners came from the group of 500 that were deemed less dangerous and were thus released. That means that the approximately 270 detainees currently in Guantanamo represent the most violent and nefarious prisoners.

Clearly, a viable alternative to Guantanamo has not yet been identified. Expediting closure of this detention facility without absolutely ensuring American lives won’t be endangered would place misguided foreign policy goals above the protection of our homeland. Moreover, it signals a dangerous return to the pre-9/11 mindset.

On February 11, 2009, I sent a letter to the President, urging him to reconsider his Executive Order and to reject any option that could land terrorists in Texas or anywhere else on American soil. Before setting a deadline to close the detainment camp at Guantanamo Bay, the American people must first be assured that the transfer or release of detainees will not increase the risk of harm to American citizens at home or abroad. As it stands, the administration cannot give that assurance today.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue, and please feel free to write or call me in the future with your opinions.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator"
I do not support or not support her, but merely wanted you Texans to know her stance.

[LaUser]

Guantanamo should never have been used to house these prisoners in the first place. But thanks to the policies of George W. Bush, it was. The exact reason why those who were detained there were detained in the first place can only be speculation because of the secrecy of the Bush administration. It has been reported that some of the prisoners were originally detained was a result of informants collecting bounty money. If true, then the detention is highly suspicious. The information obtained from the interrogation of the detainees also is highly suspicious because of the interrogation techniques use, a nice way to say torture.

While I understand the reluctance to transfer the prisoners to the US mainland, it may be the price we pay for the violation of many of the principles of the US and what it stands for, as outlined in our Constitution. We are supposed to be better than that. If we no longer are governed by laws, if our Constitution becomes meaningless, then those who carried out the attacks on our country September 11, 2001 and the conspirators behind them did far greater damage than they could have imagined.

If any part of our Constitution can be disregarded for any reason, including national security, then we as Americans have suffered and none of our freedoms or rights are safe, including the right to keep and bear arms.

We can beat those who hate us and want to do us harm without taking short cuts.

[Oldgringo]

Guantanamo should never have been used to house these prisoners in the first place. But thanks to the policies of George W. Bush, it was. The exact reason why those who were detained there were detained in the first place can only be speculation because of the secrecy of the Bush administration. It has been reported that some of the prisoners were originally detained was a result of informants collecting bounty money. If true, then the detention is highly suspicious. The information obtained from the interrogation of the detainees also is highly suspicious because of the interrogation techniques use, a nice way to say torture.

While I understand the reluctance to transfer the prisoners to the US mainland, it may be the price we pay for the violation of many of the principles of the US and what it stands for, as outlined in our Constitution. We are supposed to be better than that. If we no longer are governed by laws, if our Constitution becomes meaningless, then those who carried out the attacks on our country September 11, 2001 and the conspirators behind them did far greater damage than they could have imagined.

If any part of our Constitution can be disregarded for any reason, including national security, then we as Americans have suffered and none of our freedoms or rights are safe, including the right to keep and bear arms.

We can beat those who hate us and want to do us harm without taking short cuts.

It takes absolutely no talent to criticize. How do you propose to provide security to "us Texans" and the rest of the country. Perhaps, there is a place in Austin, near your house, for the Gitmo abused and misunderstood to be held, comforted and assured that you and the POTUS are sorry that they were misunderstood by the previous administration?

[LaUser]

It takes absolutely no talent to criticize.

Who's criticizing? Am I call anyone names? It take absolutely no talent to call people names.
I'm stating facts as I know them.

[Doug.38PR]

Guantanamo should never have been used to house these prisoners in the first place. But thanks to the policies of George W. Bush, it was. The exact reason why those who were detained there were detained in the first place can only be speculation because of the secrecy of the Bush administration. It has been reported that some of the prisoners were originally detained was a result of informants collecting bounty money. If true, then the detention is highly suspicious. The information obtained from the interrogation of the detainees also is highly suspicious because of the interrogation techniques use, a nice way to say torture.

While I understand the reluctance to transfer the prisoners to the US mainland, it may be the price we pay for the violation of many of the principles of the US and what it stands for, as outlined in our Constitution. We are supposed to be better than that. If we no longer are governed by laws, if our Constitution becomes meaningless, then those who carried out the attacks on our country September 11, 2001 and the conspirators behind them did far greater damage than they could have imagined.

If any part of our Constitution can be disregarded for any reason, including national security, then we as Americans have suffered and none of our freedoms or rights are safe, including the right to keep and bear arms.

+1
I don't understand people getting all bent out of shape over this. What about all the criminals, gangleaders, terrorists and psychopaths that we have in Huntsville and other prisons around the country. Heck, apart from the State Prison, Huntsville is a beautiful place.

My mom is from a small town in Louisiana. Nice little place. Small town. It had a German POW camp right outside of town during WW2.

What about those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that were just pulled off the street on suspicion? They are entitled to a speedy and fair trial. Guantanamo bay is very dangerous. It highlights that the United States government can be and is, in many ways, even more dangerous to the liberty and security of our citizens and the world than these terrorists they claim to be hunting down. (and no I am not some left wing liberal swishy guy out of Austin. I love Texas and the rest of the South and consider myself a Southern Jeffersonian Agrarian Conservative who hates yankee/materialistic/leftist/socialists scum that seeks to destroy the Republican vision of the Jeffersonians.

[LaUser]

left wing liberal swishy guy out of Austin

At first I was having an hard time imagining that, until I thought of our 6th Street celebrity, Leslie, tutu and all.

[The Annoyed Man]

Just putting these questions out there...

1. Are the prisoners at Gitmo to be considered to be terrorists? That can only be answered on a case by case basis. Many have been already released (and many of the released have been picked up again in overseas operations, having returned to the same activities that caused their arrests in the first place).
2. Are terrorists criminals, or enemy combatants? The answer to that question matters because you can't make any further decisions about their disposition until it is answered.
3. Is there any conceivable scenario in which roughing up a prisoner to obtain information is legitimate? What if the information gained from roughing up one prisoner yields the intelligence that will save the lives of an entire company of marines in Afghanistan? What are the lives of a company of marines worth when balanced against the personal comfort of a terrorist?
4. If prisoners are determined to be criminals, is the death penalty appropriate? If not, how long may we imprison them before they have to be released?
5. What if a prisoner is a recidivist?
6. If the prisoners are determined to be terrorist combatants rather than criminals, do the Geneva Conventions apply - since they are not uniformed combatants of a sovereign nation?
7. If they are determined to be terrorist combatants rather than criminals, and if the Geneva Conventions do not apply, then what are we to do with them?

That is just a few of the questions I can think of. While I can appreciate your Jeffersonian concerns, I think that Oldgringo's statement about criticism to mean that it is easy to be a critic when you don't personally have to bear the responsibility of making any of those determinations - particularly when your decision may mean the deaths of more American soldiers or civilians.

I agree that Gitmo is ugly for all the reasons you've stated. But I'm also not convinced that there is any better way of managing it.

[Liberty]

Just putting these questions out there...

I agree that Gitmo is ugly for all the reasons you've stated. But I'm also not convinced that there is any better way of managing it.

I can think of some better ways, but they should be done discretely, quietly and with no publicity other than perhaps a polite letter to the next of kin.

[The Annoyed Man]

Just putting these questions out there...

I agree that Gitmo is ugly for all the reasons you've stated. But I'm also not convinced that there is any better way of managing it.

I can think of some better ways, but they should be done discretely, quietly and with no publicity other than perhaps a polite letter to the next of kin.

Actually, you echo my sentiments exactly, although that might be extraconstitutional also. I was trying to point out that critics of how things are currently being managed seldom (if ever) seem to offer any better solutions within a constitutional context - particularly solutions that won't result in the deaths of more Americans.

Thomas Jefferson knew what to do with terrorists (Pirates of Barbary). He blew them up, killed them, and hanged them - with very abbreviated trials. We can speak of "Jeffersonian" ideals, but we must look to his presidency to get a glimpse of how he would have handled the present situation. Jefferson was both an idealist and a pragmatist - a duality that is difficult for anyone of lesser caliber than he to pull off. Once can only speculate on what he would have done with Gitmo.

My understanding, admittedly limited, is that "waterboarding" does not fall under the heading of "torture" because the subject is not actually harmed or injured in any way during the procedure. However, he is made to believe that he is being harmed. So far as I know, waterboarding has never killed or injured anyone, the goal being to cause the subject to be so certain that he is drowning, even though he isn't, that he'll talk to keep it from happening again.

[poppo]

Oh boy, a hot topic.

First let me say that I am retired USMC, so my opinions are a little biased when it comes to protecting this country.

Personally, I don't think we just grabbed people willy nilly and tossed them in Guantanamo (long term) without a pretty good reason.

IMO Obama's decision to close the doors before doing a full and complete evaluation and discussion with all concerned, just shows that he does not have the experience or leadership qualities I look for in a Commander In Chief. And while I don't necessarily condone torture, I do believe it has it's place. So his other statement that the US will not use torture will only result in the terrorist laughing even more. Now when we grab them, we can't detain them, and we basically can't do anything. Yeah, I feel safer already.

I remember years ago a Bin Laden/Al-Qa'ida statment:

"The Blow Against the U.S. Will Come From Where Least Expected. America must prepare itself; it must go on maximum alert; … because, Allah willing, the blow will come from where they least expect it…"

and I am starting to believe it will be coming from the Oval Office.

[LaUser]

Just putting these questions out there...

I agree that Gitmo is ugly for all the reasons you've stated. But I'm also not convinced that there is any better way of managing it.

I can think of some better ways, but they should be done discretely, quietly and with no publicity other than perhaps a polite letter to the next of kin.

I beg to differ, I would not extend the common courtesy of sending a letter.

I lived in the Midde East for a while, years ago. It is a humbling experience to be a minority and eye'd with suspicion. What I learned is that the Middle East, Muslim mind is vastly different than the west especially the US. They live by "an eye for a eye." And many have been indoctrinated to believing that the west, especially the US, have victimized them for decades, especially by allowing Israel to be aggressors against Muslims. Their memory of history is lacking.

My way of thinking is I don't understand that. I cannot connect the dots. Another thing, some of them do not see the distinction of religion, the state, and politics. The law is the law handed down to Mohammad from God and not a legislative branch and interpreted by clerics and not a secular court.

Guantanamo and the other sites around the world that detained and tortured detainees did more harm than good. The treatment the detainees experienced did not break them. Sure they gave up information under torture. Lousy information. But is only confirmed that they already believed about us and hardened their resolve to continue to fight the US and cause damage given any opportunity. It was not surprising to learn that several who were released from Gitmo, returned to terrorist activities. There is only one way to negate this. Grant them their wish of martyrdom.

Bush wanted to detain these guys and interrogate them but not on US soil for fear of possible Court review. That did not work out so well. It appears that nobody planned on what to do with these guys when we were finished with them. Did they expect to hold these guys forever? At the US tax payer's expense? Don't know and nobody is talking.

[Purplehood]

It takes absolutely no talent to criticize.

And that in a nutshell defines why I criticize so prolifically.

[stevie_d_64]

I wish that Gitmo had had the chance to stay open and operational till the end of time...How's that for extreme!

Ok Factoids...Explain this one to me...

Every prisoner released, and repatriated has somehow been sucked back into the fold and fought against us again...They have either been defeated (i.e.: killed in combat) or been verified to have been given active tasking back into Al Quida or other terrorist organizations actively fighting us...We just haven't dealt with them yet...And those we haven't have been verified killed by their own countrymen, or just dropped off the map, and assumed to be Jimmy Hoffa'd, never to be found...Possibly...So maybe some would have been better off with the three hots and a cot, with a clean copy of the Koran, in a nice tropical environment...(some people here might like to have a tropical vacation, )

And some people want to close Gitmo down that is a facility fairly distant from our population, and bring those terrorists to our shores, near our friends and countrymen to stand trial as if they should be afforded those rights and privaledges...Sorry guys, that does not compute...

I'm going to wait for the inevitable comparison to the Japanese/German/Italian/French (Vichy) prisoners we held (captured) during WWII...And were released after hostilities were concluded...

If ever there was a fact that some are doing their best to return this country to a pre-9/11 posture...This is one cog in that mechanism...

I (and hopefully many others) are not impressed...

But I am willing to engage in the discussion regarding the justification of closing a strategically important facility, the information (we used to) gleened from the aggressive interrogations of those guests, the continued processing of those guests now within the domestic facilities and system we afford to our citizens (which they are not), clogging up our system with their ilk, and once the folks running the show now are satisfied, getting those guests a ticket home, and chance to get back into the game, that much smarter (about us) and more invigorated than before to do us harm once again...

To those that agree that we should process the guests now in our system,then I say we should just go ahead and save us some tax $$$, and just put them on a plane back home straight from the Gitmo facility...

I'm just one of those citizens who really likes to be honest and truthful to those who would be our enemies, for whatever reason...And defeat them on the merits of my core beliefs and honor to my countrymen...

And for those that want to be our friends and allies, you will find no greater friend than I...

But this is all just my opinion...

(rant mode off)

[The Annoyed Man]

Just putting these questions out there...

I agree that Gitmo is ugly for all the reasons you've stated. But I'm also not convinced that there is any better way of managing it.

I can think of some better ways, but they should be done discretely, quietly and with no publicity other than perhaps a polite letter to the next of kin.

I beg to differ, I would not extend the common courtesy of sending a letter.

{snip}

There is only one way to negate this. Grant them their wish of martyrdom.

Certainly, if they are not to be "interrogated," then that is the only truly logical thing to do. The problem for me is that, once you take a prisoner, it opens up a whole can of worms that is perfect for keeping the ACLU in business for the next 40 years - unless you actually can convict them of a crime punishable by death (the prisoners, not the ACLU. . . .although executing the ACLU might be worth bonus points). And conviction means a trial; and a trial implies rights for the accused. From a purely practical perspective then, it seems better to "take no prisoners" at all. If they don't enter the detention system to begin with, then they can't become a legal problem to you later. This answer seems even more pressing particularly if the intelligence gathering potential is practically nill.