Comments on: The Gitmo blowback http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/ Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:31:02 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Sam http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-1002 Sam Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:32:46 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-1002 We will have become Terrorists! We will have become Terrorists!

]]> By: Sam http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-1001 Sam Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:31:28 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-1001 I think the important question is are we sure that the guys we have at Gitmo are the culprits? No we don't! at least by law we don't! so should we ensure of the fact by any means necessary including torture? No we shouldn't! for the sake of those who may actually innocent, no we Shouldn't! for in doing so we will have become exactly like those we wish to fight, causing anguish, apprehension & insecurity to innocent people. I think the important question is are we sure that the guys we have at Gitmo are the culprits? No we don't! at least by law we don't! so should we ensure of the fact by any means necessary including torture? No we shouldn't! for the sake of those who may actually innocent, no we Shouldn't! for in doing so we will have become exactly like those we wish to fight, causing anguish, apprehension & insecurity to innocent people.

]]> By: log140 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-946 log140 Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:07:43 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-946 makes me sad to read that we are still not sure, if we should close gitmo... what happened there- i mean torture- is a shame for the usa and a war-crime, by the geneva convention.. and will allways be!!! no mather if we prosecute bush or not.. ... you do`t have to study law to realize that anyone will state anything under torture and according to law, such statements cannot be used in a fair trial!! maybe hitler and other dictators did that, and many ppl still talk like, these were "terrorists" without realizing, that themselves would have confessed to be a "terrorist" under torture. .. and by protecting them from torture, we protect ourselves from beeing one day tortured!!! under the "patriot act" anyone can be made a terrorist. .. i just take some words out of context, from most coments written here and can make it look like the person who wrote that, is a suspected terrorist... than with "waterbording" and no lawyer allowed, we get a first class statement... and conviction... makes me sad to read that we are still not sure, if we should close gitmo... what happened there- i mean torture- is a shame for the usa and a war-crime, by the geneva convention.. and will allways be!!! no mather if we prosecute bush or not..
... you do`t have to study law to realize that anyone will state anything under torture and according to law, such statements cannot be used in a fair trial!! maybe hitler and other dictators did that, and many ppl still talk like, these were "terrorists" without realizing, that themselves would have confessed to be a "terrorist" under torture.
.. and by protecting them from torture, we protect ourselves from beeing one day tortured!!! under the "patriot act" anyone can be made a terrorist.
.. i just take some words out of context, from most coments written here and can make it look like the person who wrote that, is a suspected terrorist... than with "waterbording" and no lawyer allowed, we get a first class statement... and conviction...

]]> By: Myka http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-696 Myka Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:27:11 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-696 cmon ppl. its war............MikeC is rite he said Of course if in the course of transporting the detainees… The airplane crashed or the boat sank - no trial would be required - just a funeral with full honors etc… And naturally the offshoot of this for the terrorists is an express 1st class ticket to ‘paradise’ get over it ..... cmon ppl. its war............MikeC is rite he said

Of course if in the course of transporting the detainees… The airplane crashed or the boat sank – no trial would be required – just a funeral with full honors etc… And naturally the offshoot of this for the terrorists is an express 1st class ticket to ‘paradise’
get over it .....

]]> By: john wayne http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-535 john wayne Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:10:33 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-535 worry about political correctness after the war. prisoners of war don't deserve the same rights as american citizens. period. worry about political correctness after the war. prisoners of war don't deserve the same rights as american citizens. period.

]]> By: Paula Newton International Security Correspondent http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-532 Paula Newton International Security Correspondent Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:35:22 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-532 Please do not threaten the moderator. Please do not threaten the moderator.

]]> By: The Cucumber Kid http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-526 The Cucumber Kid Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:06:51 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-526 There are two separate issues here. One is whether the Guantanamo Prison and torture interrogation center should remain open. The answer to that is clearly NO. Close the thing. That and Abu Garaib (we all surely remember that) has done more damage to America than its occupants did. Its existence is multiplying the hatred for America all over the world. Those who used to hate us now hate us a lot more. Those who used to like us now like us a lot less. Americans set a high standard for dealing with war crimes after WWII under Truman's leadership. All that prestige is now gone. The second issue is what to do with these men when the prison is closed. I say, bring them here to the USA, put them in a high security federal detention facility and try them. I, for one, do not believe anything the Bush Administration has said about them. We don't know who is incarcerated at Guantanamo and we don't know why. All we know is what the Bush Administration has said, and that is not a credible source. There are two separate issues here. One is whether the Guantanamo Prison and torture interrogation center should remain open. The answer to that is clearly NO. Close the thing. That and Abu Garaib (we all surely remember that) has done more damage to America than its occupants did. Its existence is multiplying the hatred for America all over the world. Those who used to hate us now hate us a lot more. Those who used to like us now like us a lot less. Americans set a high standard for dealing with war crimes after WWII under Truman's leadership. All that prestige is now gone.

The second issue is what to do with these men when the prison is closed. I say, bring them here to the USA, put them in a high security federal detention facility and try them. I, for one, do not believe anything the Bush Administration has said about them. We don't know who is incarcerated at Guantanamo and we don't know why. All we know is what the Bush Administration has said, and that is not a credible source.

]]> By: Mekhong Kurt http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-525 Mekhong Kurt Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:13:44 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-525 If there remains a belief that some of the Gitmo detainees are indeed deserving of further prosecution, would it be possible to use, for instance, existing domestic hate laws to prosecute? Are the penalties severe enough under those laws to match the offenses, if a person is convicted under them? There's talk of the possibility of creating a new legal set-up for Gitmo detainees deemed prosecutable. However, what implications does this have for our legal principle of not allowing ex post facto prosecution, i.e., if something was not already an offense at the time it was done, we can't use a later law to go after those offenders. Is there a legal -- and, more importantly, moral -- way to work this out? I don't pretend to know the answers. Like anyone else, I don't want to see a person released from Gitmo to then show up somewhere or the other engaging in violence against us (or our allies). On the other hand, neither do I want to see us lowering ourselves to the level of jungle savagery of terrorists -- though I recognize a great many Americans are supportive of doing exactly that. Perhaps the closest comparison to Gitmo is to the internment camps we set up for Japanese, on American soil, during WWII, even multi-generational Americans who happened to be of Japanese descent. Most of us today are at the very least embarrassed by that dark episode in history, especially since we didn't do the same to Americans of German and Italian heritage. I do have a specific suggestion regarding the dismissal of evidence obtained by the newly-banned interrogation techniques such as water-boarding: interrogate the prisoners again, within the new guidelines, in a transparent way. There are dangers with that approach as well, I know. I live abroad, and the locals have often asked me how my country could have ever gotten into this mess in the first place. My response, of necessity, is silence, since I don't know. If there remains a belief that some of the Gitmo detainees are indeed deserving of further prosecution, would it be possible to use, for instance, existing domestic hate laws to prosecute? Are the penalties severe enough under those laws to match the offenses, if a person is convicted under them?

There's talk of the possibility of creating a new legal set-up for Gitmo detainees deemed prosecutable. However, what implications does this have for our legal principle of not allowing ex post facto prosecution, i.e., if something was not already an offense at the time it was done, we can't use a later law to go after those offenders. Is there a legal - and, more importantly, moral - way to work this out?

I don't pretend to know the answers. Like anyone else, I don't want to see a person released from Gitmo to then show up somewhere or the other engaging in violence against us (or our allies). On the other hand, neither do I want to see us lowering ourselves to the level of jungle savagery of terrorists - though I recognize a great many Americans are supportive of doing exactly that.

Perhaps the closest comparison to Gitmo is to the internment camps we set up for Japanese, on American soil, during WWII, even multi-generational Americans who happened to be of Japanese descent. Most of us today are at the very least embarrassed by that dark episode in history, especially since we didn't do the same to Americans of German and Italian heritage.

I do have a specific suggestion regarding the dismissal of evidence obtained by the newly-banned interrogation techniques such as water-boarding: interrogate the prisoners again, within the new guidelines, in a transparent way. There are dangers with that approach as well, I know.

I live abroad, and the locals have often asked me how my country could have ever gotten into this mess in the first place. My response, of necessity, is silence, since I don't know.

]]> By: Stiban http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-524 Stiban Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:22:30 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-524 The funniest part is on One side pakistan fighting for terrorism although not a great amount, and thereby getting funds and other favours from western countries, on the other side pakistan is sponsoring terrorism, not by curbing hate preaching imams and hard core islamists there by sowing the seeds of hatred among generations of pakistani youths and childern. Doing so pakistan can make sure they are getting enoguh funds and flowing it uninterruptedly in the name sake of fighting for terrorism. Obama should assess pakstans’ role in this context. The funniest part is on One side pakistan fighting for terrorism although not a great amount, and thereby getting funds and other favours from western countries, on the other side pakistan is sponsoring terrorism, not by curbing hate preaching imams and hard core islamists there by sowing the seeds of hatred among generations of pakistani youths and childern. Doing so pakistan can make sure they are getting enoguh funds and flowing it uninterruptedly in the name sake of fighting for terrorism.

Obama should assess pakstans’ role in this context.

]]> By: James Huck http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/the-gitmo-blowback/#comment-523 James Huck Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:14:31 +0000 http://securityfiles.blogs.cnn.com/?p=315#comment-523 I don't understand why we'd close down this prison. If someone commits a crime in the US, you are prosecuted in the US under our laws. If you start a war or are in prison for war crimes, you would/should fall under a different jurisdiction (doesn't have to be US Military, could be France for example). If you commit both (like 9/11 for example) you should have two trials. Now, being tortured into a confession is totally wrong. So, does the prison need shut down? No, but the system/process needs revamped. However if you have enough association to be put in Gitmo anyway, then, um, hmmmm. Should you really be set loose back into the world? If you think so, then maybe they should live next door to you for awhile. Just like a serial killer, when they get released from prison, do you want them moving next door to you and your kids? I didn't think so. The torturing is wrong. So is suicide bombing, plane hijacking, embassy bombing, World Trade Center bombing etc. If we torture someone into confession that is innocent, we still don't move forward in the process anyway, so what is the point? Releasing terrorists back into the world though?!?!?!?!?!? C'mon! The problem lies with our new president who will, most likely, take actions that improve our world opinion (which stinks right now) versus make our nation more secure. I don't understand why we'd close down this prison. If someone commits a crime in the US, you are prosecuted in the US under our laws. If you start a war or are in prison for war crimes, you would/should fall under a different jurisdiction (doesn't have to be US Military, could be France for example). If you commit both (like 9/11 for example) you should have two trials.

Now, being tortured into a confession is totally wrong. So, does the prison need shut down? No, but the system/process needs revamped.

However if you have enough association to be put in Gitmo anyway, then, um, hmmmm. Should you really be set loose back into the world? If you think so, then maybe they should live next door to you for awhile. Just like a serial killer, when they get released from prison, do you want them moving next door to you and your kids? I didn't think so.

The torturing is wrong. So is suicide bombing, plane hijacking, embassy bombing, World Trade Center bombing etc. If we torture someone into confession that is innocent, we still don't move forward in the process anyway, so what is the point? Releasing terrorists back into the world though?!?!?!?!?!? C'mon!

The problem lies with our new president who will, most likely, take actions that improve our world opinion (which stinks right now) versus make our nation more secure.

]]>