Northern Ireland Police Uniforms -...
How it Works5 mins ago
Should Guantanamo Bay Now Be Closed, And If So What Should Be Done Regarding It's Prisoners?
38 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't share your confidence that the Americans would not detain these men without any sort of evidence.
In the turmoil post 9/11, it seems that it was sufficient simply to be denounced by someone.
A trial open, partially open or closed but open to scrutiny by impartial observers could sort out the guilty from the innocent.
In the turmoil post 9/11, it seems that it was sufficient simply to be denounced by someone.
A trial open, partially open or closed but open to scrutiny by impartial observers could sort out the guilty from the innocent.
Leaving aside the issue of torture (which I’m completely opposed to) and just concentrating on internment, I’m badly torn on this. Most people will know that I support the rule of law and generally believe that everybody should be entitled to a fair trial. This includes having the accusations against them made clear and the evidence against them tested properly in court should they deny the accusations.
However (and this is where I’m torn) the people detained there are, in the most part, enemies of the US and have been undertaking what they call a war against them (among others). In war, in my view, normal rules have to sometimes be suspended.
At the outbreak of WW2 there were around 80,000 potential enemy aliens in Britain who, it was feared, could be spies, or willing to assist Britain's enemies in the event of an invasion. All Germans and Austrians over the age of 16 were called before special tribunals and some 600 were immediately interned. As the war developed thousands of Germans, Austrians and Italians were sent to camps set up at racecourses and incomplete housing estates, such as Huyton outside Liverpool.
It is arguable that the US is doing just what Britain did in WW2 (though on a far smaller scale). It was clear that those interned in the UK could not be tried for any offences. It was doubtful that they had committed any. They were confined simply because of what they might do. Of course there is also the argument that, not having had their accusers forced to go to the trouble of proving their case, such imprisonment is completely arbitrary. It’s a powerful argument and the Americans have done themselves no favours by the activities they have undertaken in Guantanamo. But there is no doubt there are factions that have declared war on the USA and even though they are not flying over New York in Junkers 88 bombers their intentions are none the less serious.
“….they had the british detainee for years and he was innocent until proven guilty”
I always have to comment whenever I hear the phrase. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. But that is a legal convention, not a fact. Very many guilty people (that is, guilty in that they committed an offence) remain “innocent” under that convention but that does not mean they did not commit the offence.
However (and this is where I’m torn) the people detained there are, in the most part, enemies of the US and have been undertaking what they call a war against them (among others). In war, in my view, normal rules have to sometimes be suspended.
At the outbreak of WW2 there were around 80,000 potential enemy aliens in Britain who, it was feared, could be spies, or willing to assist Britain's enemies in the event of an invasion. All Germans and Austrians over the age of 16 were called before special tribunals and some 600 were immediately interned. As the war developed thousands of Germans, Austrians and Italians were sent to camps set up at racecourses and incomplete housing estates, such as Huyton outside Liverpool.
It is arguable that the US is doing just what Britain did in WW2 (though on a far smaller scale). It was clear that those interned in the UK could not be tried for any offences. It was doubtful that they had committed any. They were confined simply because of what they might do. Of course there is also the argument that, not having had their accusers forced to go to the trouble of proving their case, such imprisonment is completely arbitrary. It’s a powerful argument and the Americans have done themselves no favours by the activities they have undertaken in Guantanamo. But there is no doubt there are factions that have declared war on the USA and even though they are not flying over New York in Junkers 88 bombers their intentions are none the less serious.
“….they had the british detainee for years and he was innocent until proven guilty”
I always have to comment whenever I hear the phrase. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. But that is a legal convention, not a fact. Very many guilty people (that is, guilty in that they committed an offence) remain “innocent” under that convention but that does not mean they did not commit the offence.
NJ...I am glad that you are opposed to torture, although I never suspected anything different. Its worth point out here that in addition to all his other many gaffs, Trump is pro-torture !
But its now accepted by everybody, even the Americans themselves, that the detainees at Guantanamo have been tortured, and that the torture mat still be going on.
I appreciate what you are saying in your last paragraph, but considering the length of time that these people have been detained, and that they may very well have been tortured over the years, don't you think that any guilt would now have been beaten out of them, and that they should now be released ?
But its now accepted by everybody, even the Americans themselves, that the detainees at Guantanamo have been tortured, and that the torture mat still be going on.
I appreciate what you are saying in your last paragraph, but considering the length of time that these people have been detained, and that they may very well have been tortured over the years, don't you think that any guilt would now have been beaten out of them, and that they should now be released ?
///Surely they will now be in a more hateful state of mind, and can't wait to seek their revenge?///
I have no doubt that some of them will be.
But the U.S. Authorities only have themselves to blame if that proves to be the case.
They have had 15 years to deal with these men and spectacularly failed to do so.
I have no doubt that some of them will be.
But the U.S. Authorities only have themselves to blame if that proves to be the case.
They have had 15 years to deal with these men and spectacularly failed to do so.
Yes Mikey it is the torture aspect that has really turned opinion against the US over Guantanamo. I could just about accept incarceration under the "war" scenario I described (I'd be uneasy with it nonetheless). But the undoubted atrocities that have gone on there have simply destroyed any support the US might have garnered.
BTW, my recent sojourn saw me staying in Cuba less than a hundred miles from Guantanamo so I know far more about it than anyone else :-) :-)
I was hoping for a day trip to see the facilities for myself but it was not offered. What I did learn (from an earlier trip) is that the US pays Cuba around $4,000 pa for Guantanamo (not bad for around 50 sq. miles). The cheques have remained uncashed since the Cuban revolution and there is talk, now that relations with the US are thawing, that the back rent may be offered. Another thing I learned this time is that Cubans, almost to a man, are absolutely against restoring ties with the US. They believe they have endured more than 50 years of grinding poverty as a result of the US embargoes and that no recompense is on offer. They believe they are being sold down the river. On a more practical note they dread an invasion of US tourists which would probably destroy the character of many of the towns and cities entirely.
BTW, my recent sojourn saw me staying in Cuba less than a hundred miles from Guantanamo so I know far more about it than anyone else :-) :-)
I was hoping for a day trip to see the facilities for myself but it was not offered. What I did learn (from an earlier trip) is that the US pays Cuba around $4,000 pa for Guantanamo (not bad for around 50 sq. miles). The cheques have remained uncashed since the Cuban revolution and there is talk, now that relations with the US are thawing, that the back rent may be offered. Another thing I learned this time is that Cubans, almost to a man, are absolutely against restoring ties with the US. They believe they have endured more than 50 years of grinding poverty as a result of the US embargoes and that no recompense is on offer. They believe they are being sold down the river. On a more practical note they dread an invasion of US tourists which would probably destroy the character of many of the towns and cities entirely.
The comparison to the British War camps where Germans, Italians, and immigrants from other Axis powers is interesting, but appears to fall down a little (as far as I'm concerned) because of the comparative treatment between Guantanamo Bay detainees and those stuck on the Isle of Man, who -- apart from being held captive for no substantial reason whatsoever beyond paranoia -- at least enjoyed a decent quality of life.
Actually the comparison also falls down for another reason -- those held at Guantanamo Bay at least have some concrete allegations against them (apparently), so despite having not be tried it's reasonable to suspect that some of the detainees did actually do what they are accused of doing. Those held in the WWII camps were, almost to a man, guilty of nothing other than being born in the wrong country. Arguably that makes the WWII camps (those in the UK and the US for Japanese detainees) even worse in some sense.
Perhaps a better comparison then is with the American version of the UK's internment camps -- where, again, conditions for those stuck in the camps were unpleasant, to say the least (this probably varied between camps from dire to passable up to the accusation of guilt and disloyalty by nationality). Oh yes, and there were thousands of children held captive for no reason, too.
Frankly, it's all pretty shocking -- yes, so was the war that provided the context, but it seems to me that such camps provide a stark message that war tends to make people lose sight far too quickly of what they were actually fighting for.
Actually the comparison also falls down for another reason -- those held at Guantanamo Bay at least have some concrete allegations against them (apparently), so despite having not be tried it's reasonable to suspect that some of the detainees did actually do what they are accused of doing. Those held in the WWII camps were, almost to a man, guilty of nothing other than being born in the wrong country. Arguably that makes the WWII camps (those in the UK and the US for Japanese detainees) even worse in some sense.
Perhaps a better comparison then is with the American version of the UK's internment camps -- where, again, conditions for those stuck in the camps were unpleasant, to say the least (this probably varied between camps from dire to passable up to the accusation of guilt and disloyalty by nationality). Oh yes, and there were thousands of children held captive for no reason, too.
Frankly, it's all pretty shocking -- yes, so was the war that provided the context, but it seems to me that such camps provide a stark message that war tends to make people lose sight far too quickly of what they were actually fighting for.
Regardless of Obama's announcement concerning closing 'Gitmo', he certainly knows that it's not possible legally:
During a press conference earlier today in response to Obama's plan, Ryan also warned about Obama issuing orders to the military to transfer detainees and requiring they do so knowing they'll be breaking the law.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley also opposes the move.
“The facility at Guantanamo Bay houses terrorists and enemy combatants, many of whom are the ‘worst of the worst.’ Even the Obama administration has determined that some of these individuals are too dangerous for release anywhere in the world. The President’s proposal to close Gitmo would involve moving these enemies of the United States to prisons in communities across our country," Grassley released in a statement. "Some could be granted trials in our criminal justice system, which would afford them additional constitutional rights that are unavailable to terrorists at Guantanamo. This is a dangerous, unnecessary and misguided plan that is contrary to a law the President himself signed, as the President’s own Attorney General and Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have acknowledged. And perhaps most importantly, it’s a slap in the face to the families of victims lost to terrorist attacks."
It should be noted that a majority of Americans oppose closing GITMO..."
During a press conference earlier today in response to Obama's plan, Ryan also warned about Obama issuing orders to the military to transfer detainees and requiring they do so knowing they'll be breaking the law.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley also opposes the move.
“The facility at Guantanamo Bay houses terrorists and enemy combatants, many of whom are the ‘worst of the worst.’ Even the Obama administration has determined that some of these individuals are too dangerous for release anywhere in the world. The President’s proposal to close Gitmo would involve moving these enemies of the United States to prisons in communities across our country," Grassley released in a statement. "Some could be granted trials in our criminal justice system, which would afford them additional constitutional rights that are unavailable to terrorists at Guantanamo. This is a dangerous, unnecessary and misguided plan that is contrary to a law the President himself signed, as the President’s own Attorney General and Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have acknowledged. And perhaps most importantly, it’s a slap in the face to the families of victims lost to terrorist attacks."
It should be noted that a majority of Americans oppose closing GITMO..."
Perhaps this article more clearly describes the predicament in which Obama finds himself:
http://
http://
mikey4444
/// AOG...from my understanding my friends incredulity, it was the wanting to visit, rather than the method of getting there. ///
I was aware of that, I was just pointing out that many Americans wanted to visit Cuba enough so as to go to that additional expense and inconvenience to visit Cuba.
Perhaps your friends didn't wish to visit Cuba enough to go to that trouble.
/// AOG...from my understanding my friends incredulity, it was the wanting to visit, rather than the method of getting there. ///
I was aware of that, I was just pointing out that many Americans wanted to visit Cuba enough so as to go to that additional expense and inconvenience to visit Cuba.
Perhaps your friends didn't wish to visit Cuba enough to go to that trouble.
mikey4444
/// Clanad....congratulations for supporting the torture of political prisoners and the continuing detention of people with charge or trial ! ///
Er? have I missed something?
Where has Clanad said anything like that?
But if one cannot directly nail one down as actually saying anything, always best to invent such matters, in the true Left-Wing manner of going about things.
/// Clanad....congratulations for supporting the torture of political prisoners and the continuing detention of people with charge or trial ! ///
Er? have I missed something?
Where has Clanad said anything like that?
But if one cannot directly nail one down as actually saying anything, always best to invent such matters, in the true Left-Wing manner of going about things.
Latest Posts
The Tories Want You To Just Stop It!
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
Body & Soul75 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.