Why Shut Down Guantanamo?

[adrshepard]

Obama's efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and put an end to the interrogations there represent one of the worst outcomes for a nation's interests when fleeting emotional concerns and self-delusion override cold pragmatism. Fortunately, the stakes are small in this case. The 245 men held there, were they all to instantly return to their place of capture, probably wouldn't make that big of a difference to the US counterterrorist campaign, and their intelligence value, though useful, was never critical (they mostly gave information about terrorist networking and operations rather than specific details regarding attacks or leaders' locations). But that doesn't make the closure any more palatable.

But adrshepard, you are saying, Guantanamo Bay SHOULD be closed. I know. I have heard endless reasons. I'm saying they're all bullshit. They all rest upon pointlessly debilitating notions of justice and fundamentally incorrect views of foreign affairs. And now, thanks to Obama and the brilliant actions of the Supreme Court in granting terrorist suspects and foreigners Constitutional rights (basically, they apply precedents concerning the extension of rights to people in US-controlled territories like the Philipines and Puerto Rico to rule that terrorists captured thousands of miles away are equivalent to the average Hawaiian citizen during the US annexation. Way to go.) these opinions have gained undue legitimacy.

I'll begin with the most commonly cited criticisms of Guantanamo.
1. We are Americans; we have to be a moral people and proudly lead the world again.
This falls under the whole "internationalist" category of anti-Americanism, employed by Kerry with "Bush alienated our allies," and Obama with "When Bush leaves office, the world will breathe a sigh of relief." The foundation of these remarks is the belief that other nations' interactions with the US are dictated not by their relative power, wealth, influence, or potential for mutual profit, but by a collective moral judgment of US behavior, including events with absolutely no bearing on the countries involved. In this system, countries that are nice, respectful, and act justly in the eyes of other nations somehow prosper more than those which don't. For example, people in countries all over the world protested at the US invasion of Iraq and more recently the Israeli operation in Gaza. Why? The Japanese or Germans have absolutely no interest or connection with what went on in these small, insignificant lands, nor did any harm come to them because of US or Israeli actions. Yet passionate diatribes against these countries abound. More importantly, notice also that nothing ever came of these protests in either case. The UN stomped its feet, Europeans held rallies, but no sanctions or government actions were ever employed to intervene.
Basically, I'm accepting the "realist" view of international relations, as in that described by Morgenthau in "Principles of Political Realism." Simply put, nations do not act out of virtue, passion, or justice, only material (economic, strategic, security-related) interests. What other countries think about the US is entirely irrelevant because it will never interefere with any signficant arrangement based on mutual gain. It should never be used to influence national policy; its inclusion in popular rhetoric is distasteful enough.

2. Guantanamo Bay only inspires more terrorism.
Obviously, there is no way to empiricaly prove or disprove this statement, though I suppose you could go ask every terrorist about his life choices. But I think a simple logical argument will suffice. First of all, terrorism, by which I mean deliberate violence against civilians in order to intimidate bodies of power into submission, is not a rational means of ending suffering or defending others. I'm also assuming that the violent acts are not milder substitutes of a greater capability (ie The firebombing of Dresden or the nuclear attacks against Japan, though targeting civilians, were intended to prevent the necessity of prolonging a wider conflict. Islamic terrorists, however, cannot win militarily and slaughtering innocents represents the peak of their capability). Neither does terrorism represent anything remotely close to what we could call normal Western values. Since it targets people completely uninvolved with the dispute, it cannot be considered self-defense, and attacks with no objective other than to maximize the slaughter of innocents cannot be rationalized as just retribution for anything less than genocide.

With this in mind, it is foolish to believe that these radical, extremist, violent responses come from people with perfectly sound and rational thought processes. Even accepting for the difficulty in relating to foreigners of a substantially different culture, there's no way to explain away terrorist behavior as stemming from any cause we can control. People will always want power, will always have strange aspirations for martrydom and 72 virgins, will always abandon their values for a price, and will always unconditionally justify their own hatred if necessary. What was 9/11 retaliation for? Having US troops "defile" a sacred desert? Giving money and weapons to Israel so it could defend a tiny speck of land? Or how about the first WTC attack or the USS Cole attack? In what way did the US "force the hand" of Islamic terrorists? And we are supposed to believe that the average Middle-Easterner will join a group of wanton, extremist murders who torture people because they are Sunni or Shiite and behead Western truck drivers because a few men suffered physical and mental discomfort in Cuba? Too many want to de-vilify terrorists into some deranged "noble savage" whose cause is equally legitimate as our own.

That covers most of them, though I completely able to go after the anti-torture and "trial by jury is a human right" people as well. I'll see what develops, I guess.

[fli]

I think shut down is a misnomer--
the prisoners should be moved into US territory, that's all.

Maybe make Guantanamo, temporarily, into something like Puerto Rico-- a commonwealth. In that way, they will be under US jurisdictions so that they aren't tortured.

I mean, if we can convict, prosecute, and then punish Timothy McVeigh-- then we can do the same with those prisoners without going outside the law.

[Memorize]

At 1/30/09 12:31 AM, fli wrote: I think shut down is a misnomer--
the prisoners should be moved into US territory, that's all.

Maybe make Guantanamo, temporarily, into something like Puerto Rico-- a commonwealth. In that way, they will be under US jurisdictions so that they aren't tortured.

You know, you can still have habeas corpus at Gitmo.
You can also have regular trials... at Gitmo.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 1/29/09 11:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: Obama's efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and put an end to the interrogations there represent one of the worst outcomes for a nation's interests when fleeting emotional concerns and self-delusion override cold pragmatism.

The same could be said, that a cold-logic pragmatism concluded Gitmo is doing more damage worldwide than the benefits of continuing its operation in Cuba. It's not mystery the US has military installations worldwide, and it's no mystery we house non-traditional prisoners of war there, offshore yet close enough to maintain a firm grip.

Gitmo served an important purpose, but the opportunity to capitalize on shutting it down as the first order of business for BHO is too great to pass up. It had to close eventually; too many knew about it and it no longer served any purpose another offshore installation couldn't. Gitmo had to close, and closing it quick is better than waffling.

Fortunately, the stakes are small in this case. The 245 men held there, were they all to instantly return to their place of capture, probably wouldn't make that big of a difference to the US counterterrorist campaign, and their intelligence value, though useful, was never critical (they mostly gave information about terrorist networking and operations rather than specific details regarding attacks or leaders' locations). But that doesn't make the closure any more palatable.

Every cloud has a silver lining, I guess. We should know more about them now than before, and can probably expect certain things from them. DO you think they'd reintegrate well back into their native habitats after X amount of years and still be accepted... or would they be somehow tainted after being captured for so long?

I dunno the answer to that, but I think it's interesting to think about. Maybe they'll end up leading us to bigger cheeses, ya know?

But adrshepard, you are saying, Guantanamo Bay SHOULD be closed. I know. I have heard endless reasons. I'm saying they're all bullshit.

No they aren't. Some are fairly convincing if you believe in the military's capability to house a prison like Gitmo pretty much anywhere.

I believe they're capable, don't you? And maybe they'll keep it a lil quieter this time?

They all rest upon pointlessly debilitating notions of justice and fundamentally incorrect views of foreign affairs. And now, thanks to Obama and the brilliant actions of the Supreme Court in granting terrorist suspects and foreigners Constitutional rights (basically, they apply precedents concerning the extension of rights to people in US-controlled territories like the Philipines and Puerto Rico to rule that terrorists captured thousands of miles away are equivalent to the average Hawaiian citizen during the US annexation. Way to go.) these opinions have gained undue legitimacy.

Combatants are combatants and fit to be shot on the field of battle. Why even capture these guys anyways? Theoretically, they're taking everything they know to the grave for Allah, and capture wouldn't yield much fruit.

If you were a commander, and you were told by your superior that the only questions allowed are name rank and serial number, would your marching orders not be to capture, but to kill? In light of suicider bombers, it should be obvious.

People detained within the US shouldn't be sent offshore, period. If they're treasonous, execute them here, in America, with due process.

1. We are Americans; we have to be a moral people and proudly lead the world again.
This falls under the whole "internationalist" category of anti-Americanism, employed by Kerry with "Bush alienated our allies," and Obama with "When Bush leaves office, the world will breathe a sigh of relief."

That's politics, not internationalism.

The foundation of these remarks is the belief that other nations' interactions with the US are dictated not by their relative power, wealth, influence, or potential for mutual profit, but by a collective moral judgment of US behavior, including events with absolutely no bearing on the countries involved.

Morality helped found our nation and forge the founding documents. We didn't close Gitmo because the world hated it, BHO nixed it because it's expedient.

For example, people in countries all over the world protested at the US invasion of Iraq and more recently the Israeli operation in Gaza. Why?

Boredom.

The Japanese or Germans have absolutely no interest or connection with what went on in these small, insignificant lands, nor did any harm come to them because of US or Israeli actions. Yet passionate diatribes against these countries abound. More importantly, notice also that nothing ever came of these protests in either case.

Because both are defeated nations in the previous century with no military aspirations or obligations, does it matter if they bitch about war? It does nothing, as you've seen.

The UN

Obsolete, at least at the moment. An overhaul is overdue.

Basically, I'm accepting the "realist" view of international relations, as in that described by Morgenthau in "Principles of Political Realism." Simply put, nations do not act out of virtue, passion, or justice, only material (economic, strategic, security-related) interests.

Bullshit. Each of those is fashioned around a justice of it's own sort, embodied by it's respective laws centered on the US Constitution. We do what we do because it's supposed to be right, as far as well understand it, and Gitmo in 2009 was just that. Sorry, but it's the cold truth, from a libertarian American who voted against Obama. He's the president, so buck up.

2. Guantanamo Bay only inspires more terrorism.

It's too well-known, so yeah.

Islamic terrorists, however, cannot win militarily and slaughtering innocents represents the peak of their capability). Neither does terrorism represent anything remotely close to what we could call normal Western values. Since it targets people completely uninvolved with the dispute, it cannot be considered self-defense, and attacks with no objective other than to maximize the slaughter of innocents cannot be rationalized as just retribution for anything less than genocide.

...which is why we're in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and 50 other countries nowhere near the umbrella of US law.

We're fighting a war with shitty odds and a crooked bookie for nothing more than pride and peace of mind.

What was 9/11 retaliation for? Having US troops "defile" a sacred desert? Giving money and weapons to Israel so it could defend a tiny speck of land? Or how about the first WTC attack or the USS Cole attack? In what way did the US "force the hand" of Islamic terrorists?

By not submitting to Allah, of course. And for not paying debts. A little probably came from the Iran contra fiasco, maybe a little let over from the awesome endorsement of the Saudi royals... the old shahs... unwavering Israeli support...

.... there really is a shit-ton of reasons, non of which are reasonable, mind you. The trick is getting the KO without spilling blood on the crowd, ya know?

That covers most of them, though I completely able to go after the anti-torture and "trial by jury is a human right" people as well.

Don't they get tribunals? I'm fairly certain they would.

Nice thread :)

[fli]

At 1/30/09 12:39 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/30/09 12:31 AM, fli wrote: I think shut down is a misnomer--
the prisoners should be moved into US territory, that's all.

Maybe make Guantanamo, temporarily, into something like Puerto Rico-- a commonwealth. In that way, they will be under US jurisdictions so that they aren't tortured.

You know, you can still have habeas corpus at Gitmo.
You can also have regular trials... at Gitmo.

But the thing is... who's going to make them?
You could happen. If they wanted to.

The point of Guantanamo was to have the suspects in custody, but without having them under the law. It's proven that under habeas corpus of law, crap happens such as torture and ecetera.

If we don't want them in the US, then temporarily make Guantanamo a legal US territory. Or maybe-- just the prison itself. Embassies do this... have their buildings be legal territory of which ever country they're serving.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/30/09 12:39 AM, Memorize wrote: You know, you can still have habeas corpus at Gitmo.
You can also have regular trials... at Gitmo.

You can have those things in the states too. Which would ya know, inspire more of the public and international trust (but since you and shepherd don't care about the international reaction, and hey, I do think some very valid points about not running our policies by the morals of others makes good sense). But again, would you really believe it if they suddenly said "hey, guess what? At that used to be secret terrorist camp we had way offshore where we tortured people and treated them like animals and shit? Yeah, well we're gonna stop that now, we're gonna have law and trials and all that happy stuff...trust us". You really think that'll work for most people? Would that work for you? Because it sure wouldn't work for me, it'd sound like an absolute snow job.

[Musician]

Adrsheperd, could you clarify something for me?

Why is it "torture" when the Islamic radicals do it, and "physical and mental discomfort" when the US does it?

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 1/30/09 01:15 AM, Musician wrote: Adrsheperd, could you clarify something for me?

Why is it "torture" when the Islamic radicals do it, and "physical and mental discomfort" when the US does it?

We don't drill kneecaps and limb the bodies pre-immolation.

Are you really such a fuck-up?

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/30/09 01:20 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: We don't drill kneecaps and limb the bodies pre-immolation.

Oh, well as long as we don't do THAT, then it's all good. Please reattach those electrodes to their balls with my blessing (I'm trying to be funny people, don't take this as me literally saying they attach electrodes to their balls, I don't have evidence)

Are you really such a fuck-up?

Are you?

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 1/30/09 01:32 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/30/09 01:20 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: We don't drill kneecaps and limb the bodies pre-immolation.

Oh, well as long as we don't do THAT, then it's all good. Please reattach those electrodes to their balls with my blessing (I'm trying to be funny people, don't take this as me literally saying they attach electrodes to their balls, I don't have evidence)

I'd rather have my nuts tazed than my life taken with a dull knife.

I'd joke more, but I guess it's not really all that funny, is it.

Are you really such a fuck-up?

Are you?

What do you think, keith?

[Memorize]

At 1/30/09 01:11 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

You can have those things in the states too.

So what you're telling me is that a military court with a military judge who specialized in military matters, isn't suitable to judge over enemy combatants in a trial?

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/30/09 02:10 AM, Memorize wrote: So what you're telling me is that a military court with a military judge who specialized in military matters, isn't suitable to judge over enemy combatants in a trial?

If it's the same people that have been running an illegal torture camp with no oversight or give a shit from the people charged with defending the principles this country is founded on? Then yeah, absolutely.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/30/09 01:46 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: I'd rather have my nuts tazed than my life taken with a dull knife.

So it's cool to torture as long as we don't kill people? Sorry, just can't buy into the idea that a civilized nation, that wants to claim moral superiority to it's enemies can engage in torture and violating it's own laws of habeas corpus and due process to achieve it's ends. That's just me

I'd joke more, but I guess it's not really all that funny, is it.

I was more or less trying to point out the absurdity I felt was inherent in your point. But I can see how the way I did it may have seemed offensive.

What do you think, keith?

I think I'd prefer you not use my first name like you know me. You don't, so let's just stick to "avie" or "aviewaskewed" or whatever the hell else you'd like to call me within reason and the rules of the board. My actual first name is reserved for friends and acquaintances, not random people online I don't know.

[qu3muchach0]

At 1/30/09 03:23 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: BAWWW...

if you're supposedly "evil", then why don't you support torture? are you some kind of faggy leveyan or something?

[i-hope-you-die]

At 1/30/09 03:23 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: So it's cool to torture as long as we don't kill people? Sorry, just can't buy into the idea that a civilized nation, that wants to claim moral superiority to it's enemies can engage in torture and violating it's own laws of habeas corpus and due process to achieve it's ends. That's just me

How many have been waterboarded?

[Memorize]

At 1/30/09 03:15 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/30/09 02:10 AM, Memorize wrote: So what you're telling me is that a military court with a military judge who specialized in military matters, isn't suitable to judge over enemy combatants in a trial?

If it's the same people that have been running an illegal torture camp with no oversight or give a shit from the people charged with defending the principles this country is founded on? Then yeah, absolutely.

What are you talking about?

About the only thing we've done was waterboard 3 people.
Abuse is extemely low, much lower than previous major conflicts and wars.
And we investigated, caught, and prosecuted all of those who were involved with Abu Ghraib.

They also have a recreation center and 3 meals a day like a regular prison.

Are you high?

Next thing I'll know, you'll be telling me that the planes that hit the Trade Centers are just digitally altered footage.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 1/30/09 03:23 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I think I'd prefer you not use my first name like you know me.

I figured if you were insinuating I was a fuck-up, you knew me about as well as I could possibly know you.

I won't use your name, but at least be aware if you play in the sandbox you might get dirty.

[Korriken]

At 1/30/09 12:31 AM, fli wrote: I think shut down is a misnomer--
the prisoners should be moved into US territory, that's all.

well we could transport them to America with a small boat and have the boat mysteriously sink in the middle of the night. Blame it on terrorists.

[Alphabit]

Closing Guantanamo is a great moral act on Obama's part and it sends a clear message to the world that the US believes in its system of law and in its ability to protect itself well without having to resort to loopholes.

It's highly hypocritical to be the head of a government whose laws require to be bi-passed in order to maintain national security... What's the point of defending ideals that even you don't respect? By shutting down Guantanamo, Obama is saying 'I believe in our judicial system and in the constitution and I will uphold it to the letter because it represents everything that Americans stand for.' You cannot have double standards... If the laws don't suit society, you change them.

Also, there is nothing to lose by releasing the prisoners... Most of them haven't had any terrorist contact for years; any information that they may have is of NO practical use today... Also, their positions in terrorist organizations have probably already been filled by some other guys ages ago - at worst they'll take back their position but it's not like that'll change anything.
Keeping them locked up is just superstition.

If the military has reason to believe that someone committed a crime, they'd better have some evidence to prove it in court because America will no longer tolerate 'gut feelings' as a means of putting people behind bars. As I said, if there is REASON to believe that someone is guilty, then in all likeliness, they will be found guilty under this system of law.

[JoS]

Cuba imports 5.1% of its stuff from the US. Since the trade embargo forbids American companies from trading with Cuba that only leaves one commodity left, terrorists.

Thats right 5.1% of Cuba's imports are terrorists.

[Ericho]

At 1/30/09 07:18 AM, Alphabit wrote: Closing Guantanamo is a great moral act on Obama's part and it sends a clear message to the world that the US believes in its system of law and in its ability to protect itself well without having to resort to loopholes.

I agree. One of the biggest criticisms of the Bush adminstration was the acts of torture that were played out against our enemies. The administration even went out and claimed that they did not torture, or that what they did was not torture. This is a truly hypocritical act, and none of it seemed to be doing any good. After all this, Bin Laden is still out there and the Iraq War saw no end in sight. Was it even worth it to go through all this? This is just another problem that's closer to being solved.

[Dogbert581]

Hes going to shut down Guantanamo and replace it with something the same only this time it'll be a secret.

The protestors will be happy it's closed, the military will be happy they can continue interrogations and gain more evidence. Everybody's a winner

Except the inmates

[morefngdbs]

I was kind of hoping that they were going to close & destroy the prison & put in a 'all inclusive' hotel resort complex. Which would allow me to go back to Cuba...but eat better, & be able to take advantage of American hospitality...& everyone working there would speak english ;)

[PowerRangerYELLOW]

Maybe because Harold and Kumar was almost feed cock meat sandwhiches in Gutantanamo bay.

They weren't hungry.

Have some compassion people.

[MultiCanimefan]

The closing of Guantanamo signifies a willingness to pursue moral obligations that appear to have been neglected by the United States; I believe it was done to improve our image and promote more trusted international relations and agreements. Being the most powerful nation on Earth is no excuse.

[S-W-A-R-M-generation]

I think irregardless of times of toil, the existence of any kind of camp such as Guantanamo or even the Japanese interment camps of WWII are a shameful undermining of the values of this country that I greatly respect.

I will pull a Categorical Imperative here and say that no matter how many good things have occurred due to the existence of Guantanamo, the mere existence of such a place and the unethical holding of peoples is not just in it of itself.

It really boils down to the trolley question. I myself find utilitarian values dehumanizing and revolting, but others may disagree.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/30/09 04:23 AM, Memorize wrote: About the only thing we've done was waterboard 3 people.

For me that's 3 people too many.

Abuse is extemely low, much lower than previous major conflicts and wars.

We should strive to have no abuse at all. How hard is it to not abuse the prisoners? If they abuse EACH OTHER, well ok, that I could see because I'm sure it's very difficult to monitor every single person at all times. But WE should not be abusing them.

And we investigated, caught, and prosecuted all of those who were involved with Abu Ghraib.

Great, now let's turn that investigative lense around on Gitmo and prosecute anyone who broke the law there and I'll be very very happy.

They also have a recreation center and 3 meals a day like a regular prison.

Awesome, but unlike a regular prison, people get tortured, and that is unacceptable to me because it violates the principles of this country and the established laws.

Are you high?

No, I don't think so. Somebody has to be high to say that we shouldn't condone torture?

Next thing I'll know, you'll be telling me that the planes that hit the Trade Centers are just digitally altered footage.

Oh no, I'm very aware that was a real attack, but I don't think that some animals attacking us gives us the right to act like animals in return. If we want to say we're superior to these fuckers then we have to ACT superior to them, and not resort to the kinds of tactics they would use.

[aviewaskewed]

At 1/30/09 04:32 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: I figured if you were insinuating I was a fuck-up, you knew me about as well as I could possibly know you.

A little, but also pointing out how useless I think that kind of debating is. If you have to resort to starting an insult contest in a debate, it says to me you either aren't confident in your points, you aren't horribly intelligent, or you just aren't very mature. But that's me.

I won't use your name, but at least be aware if you play in the sandbox you might get dirty.

I'm fine with that, I just don't think we should be getting so "personal" on an internet forum about a political debate that really means fuck all. You want to pick apart my ideas and whatever, that's fine, by speaking out in public I open myself up to that, but I'm just saying using my first name to me implies someone knws me, which you don't, unless you're somebody's alt.

[AntiangelicAngel]

I thought this was a funny concept. "Shutting down" the Guantanamo Naval Base is a strange idea. The problem wasn't the geographical location, it was some of the legal and interrogation practices. I can see wanting to keep detainees within US borders for fiscal and accountability reasons, but I don't think it's necessary.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 1/30/09 02:34 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/30/09 04:32 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: I figured if you were insinuating I was a fuck-up, you knew me about as well as I could possibly know you.

A little, but also pointing out how useless I think that kind of debating is. If you have to resort to starting an insult contest in a debate, it says to me you either aren't confident in your points, you aren't horribly intelligent, or you just aren't very mature. But that's me.

I'm fairly certain our forces don't "torture" on the same level as our enemies. I'm not exceptionally intelligent, nor am I one to suffer fools.. ON THE INTERNET. But that's just me. If you were trying to prove or disprove something with your first post to me, I didn't pick up what you put down.

I won't use your name, but at least be aware if you play in the sandbox you might get dirty.

I'm fine with that, I just don't think we should be getting so "personal" on an internet forum about a political debate that really means fuck all.

You're right, and I apologize for the slight incursion on your privacy. The difference, and my point, should've been obvious.. especially following my original post here. Having friends and family disappear in Iraq and Afghanistan only to show up in the desert with remarkable signs of torture on their corpses tends to lead to very little tolerance for indifference of treatment of prisoners.

And human right's workers, too, for heaven's sake.. do you really think we're on par with that, and that's why you gave the reply you did?

You want to pick apart my ideas and whatever, that's fine, by speaking out in public I open myself up to that, but I'm just saying using my first name to me implies someone knws me, which you don't, unless you're somebody's alt.

What ideas? Up to that point, your only idea was to respond in an equally dismissive manner, equating ball-zapping to the whole nine yards. Yeah, you were joking, great. I wasn't as far out of line as you may think.

And I am an alt.