US administration to abolish due process

[Rick]

There is reason to capture them for intel. If they're thought to be that valuable them keep them. Else give them to the cuntry we found them and let their justice mentality deal with it.

Intel gets stale very quickly. I say interrogate them, then shoot them.

 

[Rick]

Circumventing established standards for the treatment of prisoners by inventing new terminology could also be a threat to national security, as well detrimental to the war effort.

From the beginning, the leftwing, as always solid supporters of america's enemies in every war since the korean war, wanted them treated as ordinary criminals, because they knew that in an ordinary trial, the government would be forced to disclose military secrets, and they wouldn't do that, so the al qaeda would be sprung - the ultimate leftwing goal.

Bush, knowing this would happen, ill-advisedly created the new statuses and gitmo to head this off.

But all that history has nothing to do with what should be their correct status: POWs, held as in all wars for the duration of hostilities, or war criminal suspects, held as eg Rudolph Hess in WWII was for the duration of the war, and then tried in military tribunals at its conclusion.

 

[PLC1]

Attempting to classify detainees under the established standards (when they have not met the established standards, as prescribed by the documents you want to hold them under, to entitle them to that treatment) is a farce.

I am also curious to hear your argument as to why "detainees" as opposed to "POW's" is a "threat to national security"?

Regardless of which side of the "it was torture, no it wasn't" argument you're on, the perception by our enemies and allies that we've engaged in torture is a threat to national security, and is counterproductive to the goals of the so called "war on terror." Moreover, trying them in civilian courts, rather than in military one, poses the risk of leaking information to the enemy.

For once, I'll agree with Rick: They should be POWs. Additionally, they should always have been POWs.

 

[BigRob]

Regardless of which side of the "it was torture, no it wasn't" argument you're on, the perception by our enemies and allies that we've engaged in torture is a threat to national security, and is counterproductive to the goals of the so called "war on terror."

....Why is that perception a "threat to national security"?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

....Why is that perception a "threat to national security"?

its a great recruiting tool, and its hard to win hearts and minds ( what we where trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan) when your views as someone torturing there people...while your claiming to free them.

Even in a regular battle, its better to have the enemy think they will be treated humanly if captured...rather then tortured...it makes them more likely to lay down arms then fight to the death.

 

[PLC1]

its a great recruiting tool, and its hard to win hearts and minds ( what we where trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan) when your views as someone torturing there people...while your claiming to free them.

Even in a regular battle, its better to have the enemy think they will be treated humanly if captured...rather then tortured...it makes them more likely to lay down arms then fight to the death.

I couldn't have answered the question any better than that.

 

[Rick]

its a great recruiting tool, and its hard to win hearts and minds ( what we where trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan) when your views as someone torturing there people...while your claiming to free them.

Assinine statement - you're apparently referring to the actions of a few rogue troops, as if they represented US government policy. And you think we merely "CLAIMED" to free them???

 

[PLC1]

Assinine statement - you're apparently referring to the actions of a few rogue troops, as if they represented US government policy. And you think we merely "CLAIMED" to free them???

Please reread post 33.
That should answer your question.

 

[Rick]

Please reread post 33.
That should answer your question.

That "perception of torture is a threat to national security" claim is about as lame a stretch as I can imagine. The people who grow up to become al qaeda have been fed lies about the US with their mother's milk, and brainwashed hours and hours every day of their lives in islamofascist madrassas. Even the "normal" people in the middle east are completely brainwashed by the state run media to be thorough-going haters of the US and israel. To believe there's anything we can do, or not do, that would affect their "perception" in the slightest is poppycock.

 

[BigRob]

its a great recruiting tool

We hear this argument almost daily by opponents of GITMO, but really it does not stand up to scrutiny. If it is such a great recruiting tool... why doesn't the top Al Quada leadership use it?

From the WSJ:

Tom Joscelyn, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, reviewed 34 statements and interviews of top al Qaeda leadership since January 2009. Writing for the Weekly Standard, he reported only seven references to Guantanamo in just three public pronouncements.

In the same period, however, Mr. Joscelyn found top al Qaeda leaders mentioned Crusaders (their label for Western leaders and military) 322 times, Palestine 200 times, Gaza 131 times, Jews 129 times, Israel 98 times and Zionists 94 times. Al Qaeda leaders also talked more about Afghanistan (333 mentions), Pakistan (331), Iraq (157), Somalia (67), Yemen (18) and even Chechnya (15) than they did about Guantanamo.

New York Daily News reporter James Gordon Meek obtained similar results last January. U.S. government officials told him that al Qaeda and its affiliates "griped" about Guantanamo in only 58 out of hundreds of public statements and interviews between 2003 and 2009.

To follow the idea that we ought to close GITMO because it is a great recruiting tool, we ought to also end our support for Israel and abandon Iraq and Afghanistan... surely you can agree that a tank division is someone's backyard is a better recruiting tool than some prison thousands of miles away?

The overall point is simply that regardless of the existence of GITMO, Al Qaeda has been able to recruit, and will continue to do so.

and its hard to win hearts and minds ( what we where trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan) when your views as someone torturing there people...while your claiming to free them.

We are not trying to win the hearts and minds of Al Qaeda, (or really even the Taliban for that matter) we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

Even in a regular battle, its better to have the enemy think they will be treated humanly if captured...rather then tortured...it makes them more likely to lay down arms then fight to the death.

While there are some examples of Taliban fighters ending up in GITMO, the vast majority were treated as POW's and have been sent home. You make it sound like everyone we capture will be sent to GITMO, which is simply not the case.

 

[PLC1]

We are not trying to win the hearts and minds of Al Qaeda, (or really even the Taliban for that matter) we are trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

So is Al Qaeda. So is the Taliban. It is a war of propaganda as much as one of bullets. Perceptions are important in such a war.

While there are some examples of Taliban fighters ending up in GITMO, the vast majority were treated as POW's and have been sent home. You make it sound like everyone we capture will be sent to GITMO, which is simply not the case.

Again, if that is the perception, then it works against us whether it is true or not.

I can't answer your question of why the Taliban don't make more use of the GITMO detainees. If they're not using it, they're missing a good bet.

 

[BigRob]

So is Al Qaeda. So is the Taliban. It is a war of propaganda as much as one of bullets. Perceptions are important in such a war.

Al Qaeda is not really trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people...the Taliban certainly is however, I can agree with that.

And I also agree that perceptions play an important role in this war.

Again, if that is the perception, then it works against us whether it is true or not.

If perceptions are the key factor here, and we close GITMO, how does that change the perception of the Afghan people?

• 
  They probably won't even hear about it.

• They will still be told other "secret prisons" exist where the United States "tortures" people.

• It won't change their situation on the ground.

I can't answer your question of why the Taliban don't make more use of the GITMO detainees. If they're not using it, they're missing a good bet.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not stupid.. if they thought they could get traction from the GITMO issue, they would be getting traction from it...it appears however that is not the case.

To me, it seems the only people who think GITMO is a great "terrorist recruiting tool" are Americans.

 

[PLC1]

Al Qaeda is not really trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people...the Taliban certainly is however, I can agree with that.

And I also agree that perceptions play an important role in this war.



If perceptions are the key factor here, and we close GITMO, how does that change the perception of the Afghan people?

• 
  They probably won't even hear about it.

• They will still be told other "secret prisons" exist where the United States "tortures" people.

• It won't change their situation on the ground.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are not stupid.. if they thought they could get traction from the GITMO issue, they would be getting traction from it...it appears however that is not the case.

To me, it seems the only people who think GITMO is a great "terrorist recruiting tool" are Americans.

Maybe the impact of GITMO has faded. Maybe you're correct that the terrorist organizations find the issue a poor recruiting tool. It's hard to see how that could be, but maybe so. Perhaps the fact that we have troops in Muslim lands at all is a better tool.

And, since perception is the important thing, making up stories could be as effective as using actual facts and embellishing them.

Sometimes, I wonder whether the so called "war on terror" is winnable at all. If we keep troops in Afganistan and Iraq, then the Taliban will point fingers at the "infidel" who is trying to "take over our lands." If we leave, then we've left an unsustainable government that can't defend itself against the Taliban. It's a heads I win, tails you lose sort of scenario.

Of course, we know now that the proper course of action would have been to have gone in and taken out Bin Laden and his cohorts, then left. In that scenario, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, nor tried a "nation building" project.

But, it's too late to do the right thing now.

 

[Rick]

While there are some examples of Taliban fighters ending up in GITMO, the vast majority were treated as POW's and have been sent home.

THAT probably serves as a great recruiting tool for them. because it shows them they are fighting a stupid enemy. I read somewhere (have to find a link) that some of those released from gitmo went back to their IF units to continue killing american troops, or their all-time favorite: blowing up women and children in marketplaces.

 

[BigRob]

Maybe the impact of GITMO has faded. Maybe you're correct that the terrorist organizations find the issue a poor recruiting tool. It's hard to see how that could be, but maybe so. Perhaps the fact that we have troops in Muslim lands at all is a better tool.

I think most of the "impact" of GITMO came in the Western World, and not really as a major recruitment tool for extremists... certainly they mention it, and it probably has played a small role, but it is nowhere near the #1 recruiting tool that President Obama called it a week or so ago.

And, since perception is the important thing, making up stories could be as effective as using actual facts and embellishing them.

Sometimes, I wonder whether the so called "war on terror" is winnable at all. If we keep troops in Afganistan and Iraq, then the Taliban will point fingers at the "infidel" who is trying to "take over our lands." If we leave, then we've left an unsustainable government that can't defend itself against the Taliban. It's a heads I win, tails you lose sort of scenario.

There is no doubt it is a tough mission.

Of course, we know now that the proper course of action would have been to have gone in and taken out Bin Laden and his cohorts, then left. In that scenario, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq, nor tried a "nation building" project.

Iraq aside, what would you have proposed that would create a scenario where we could "go after Bin Laden" and then simply leave?

But, it's too late to do the right thing now.

I am not sure that proposal was really ever a viable option.