Guantanamo
 

President Obama has issued an executive order to close Guantanamo. Within one year. Agree or disagree?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama issues executive order to close Guantanamo Bay prison « - Blogs from CNN.com

Agree. Close all foreign prisons as well, that might have been another order but agree as well. We have had terror suspects held other places before, no need to keep Gitmo open.

It seems that Guantanamo is under its own government and some human rights are not protected. I say close it, close it sooner if possible. That's not to say other "prisons" do not do the same.. but maybe that can be regulated as well.

It should never have been opened, it breaks international law.

The bottom line is that you cannot advocate human rights and then break international human rights conventions that you have agreed to. It is morally wrong to be a party to documents such as the Geneva Convention and then ignore them in practice.

I'm making no judgement on who is held there or why, but the methods and processes used there are wrong.

This is a good call by Obama, the rest of the world will be pleased by this change in US policy.

A nice little cabin somewhere southeast of Waterloo, ON might be a nice place for those terrorists. eh? ;-)

It does appear he is off to a good start to please that audience.

Geneva Convention I am no expert but I believe the Geneva Convention applies only under a formal declaration of war.

by no means am I condoning some of the things that are happening

Gitmo was chosen because the second the detainees made it onto US shores they are entitled to all the rights of the legal system even as non-citizens.

I say put them on a boat to sail home perhaps a wooden sailing vessel with no sails and a bit leaky ( joking)

Close it...but the prisoners still need to be detained until they can go on trial...or whatever else happens..but setting them free just makes no sense.

I say keep it open and keep doing what they are doing. I say throw out the Geneva Convention and do what you have to do to win the war.

War is War there are no rules to war. You shoot first before being shot at. These terrorist dont have rules to follow why should we?

Obama will give in we will lose and we will all be wishing we had a gitmo back.

Wirelessly posted

HoooRahhh u got it all right! I agree totally! (y)

Because we're better than they are, and don't wish to lower ourselves to their moral level?

You know, the same kind of argument for why, if your kids yell at you, you don't just stand there and yell back. Someone has to be the adult, someone has to stake out the higher moral ground.
That's my position too. They should be detained, and tried under the normal US Justice system for their crimes. I honestly believe the huge majority of them are guilty and animals, but we ARE better than them, and should be able to convict them under the rules, not ignoring the rules.

I'm not surprised with that answer. I disagree but I see where the hate comes from.

Gitmo is an embarrassment to the US, same as any US all sanctioned torture. We should be better then the terrorists, not the same. Follow both the Geneva convention guidelines and the US Army guidelines or send them through Federal Court, the mysterious tribunals should have ended years ago.

I say you are wrong Dallas, My kids live under my roof so they will do as I say when I say it.

These people do not live under our roof we declared war against them, if you declare war be prepared to kill each and every one of them. I say hell if we are going to go to war then plant the dang flag when we win.

This isn't a monopoly game its war. We use real bullets just as they do the only difference is they can lay mines and IEDs where ever they want. Our guys have to ask permission to defend themselves thats BS.

If you are going to send American men and women into combat give them the correct tools to do so and let them win by what ever means possible.

During WWII the soldiers didn't offer the Germans or Japanese an opportunity to surrender until we had beat them so bad they had no choice. The object is to win not handicap your team.

And test I didnt figure you would agree with me we already know where each of us stands on the political issue.

but we didn't declare war. the constitution is pretty god damn clear on who can declare war and that entity didn't.

Ok the when you authorize the use of Military force then. Its still war whether declared or not.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

Passed 420 to 1 10 abstained.

I say that pretty clear on what was allowed and who voted on it. The same people who now want us out.

(y)

I would like to know how much if any actionable intelligence was obtained from the detainees at Gitmo. I doubt that anybody here really knows, although I suspect that there are plenty of opinions.

I find the idea that the United States is keeping prisoners at a US military base in Cuba to be rather bizarre and humorous. I also find it interesting that the Castro brothers have not continuously lambasted us for doing it. If the Castro brothers really wanted to stir up the pot they would have threatened to invade and release the prisoners for humanitarian reasons. The whole thing reminds me of a Cohen Brothers movie.

We live in a strange and amusing world.

From a legal perspective the entire status of "enemy combatants" is murky to say the least, so you can probably make an argument that goes either way for what should be done to them. For me, the question comes down to one of answering the following question: Do you destroy the underlying values and principles of the country to save it, or do you follow those principles and accept the consequences?

(y)