Liberals: Trying to understand GITMO shutdown...

[Patranus]

I do not understand what shutting down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba is going to accomplish. The prisoners will still be isolated and have limited contact no matter where they are housed.

The facility is built. The facility is staffed. The prisoners are there. There is ZERO capital cost to leaving the facility open.

On the other hand, there are significant costs to shutting down the facility. Those costs are compounded with the upgrade or construction of facilities on the continental United States. Initially, Obama requested $80 million to shut down the facility but has recently brokered a deal with the island of Palau to take 17 Chinese Muslim terror suspects in exchange for $200,000,000 - $11,764,705.90 per prisoner.

I just don't understand what the *need* is to shut this facility down especially when it costs money and the country is essentially broke.

Thank You.

 

[Craig234]

I think it's largely and perhaps mostly symbolic.

Gitmo represented the Bush policies to try to evade the moral and legal constraints on the treatment of detainees, chosen for its legal situation as 'not on US soil' but nearby.

Closing it was a public desire in the campaign, and therefore became a campaign promise.

Closing it seems to be a message that the worst of those policies are over - though Obama is continuing too many of those policies as far as most liberals are concerned.

 

[sandorski]

It is a blight on American History.

 

[Patranus]

So you are saying it is pointless then?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Patranus
So you are saying it is pointless then?

No.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Patranus
So you are saying it is pointless then?

No it's actually it's more pointed than your head.

 

[OCGuy]

It is to make the hippies feel better.

Just rename or play a shell game and it goes away. I think next our occupation of Iraq is going to be called an "extended-vacation in the sand for the troops." Then he can say he actually ended it in his original time frame.

 

[JSt0rm]

for me personally I'm not sure those people aren't still being tortured there. If they were here in our maximum security prisons I wouldn't really need to worry that they are being bolted to a floor for 3 days with death metal blasting them at 100db 18 hours a day.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
for me personally I'm not sure those people aren't still being tortured there. If they were here in our maximum security prisons I wouldn't really need to worry that they are being bolted to a floor for 3 days with death metal blasting them at 100db 18 hours a day.

Yes, all they have to worry about is syrup or jelly.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think it's largely and perhaps mostly symbolic.

Gitmo represented the Bush policies to try to evade the moral and legal constraints on the treatment of detainees, chosen for its legal situation as 'not on US soil' but nearby.

Closing it was a public desire in the campaign, and therefore became a campaign promise.

Closing it seems to be a message that the worst of those policies are over - though Obama is continuing too many of those policies as far as most liberals are concerned.

The other part (at least I hope) is to get them on US soil so they are actually charged or released. Holding prisoners off of US soil simply so we don't have to follow our own as well as international law does not work for me.

 

[Carmen813]

Personally, I hope to see Gitmo closed down just so all the conservative fear mongering about it is proved false.

 

[Vic]

The OP is clearly a textbook example of a small govt Republican

 

[her209]

Same reason why ABU GRABASS was renamed.

 

[umbrella39]

Wow, someone had a backup account on stand-by.

 

[Rainsford]

It's a lot harder to fight a war on terrorism, which is really a war against extremism, when we're spending so much time and effort convincing people that we're not the bad guys. That fact should be self-evident to even the average person in the Middle East, but it's not, because we do things like keep prisoners in secret prisons, or overseas specifically to try to avoid US law, or in reopened prisons notorious for abuses under the regime we just overthrew.

People who dismiss such problems as "symbolic" are totally missing the point. Of COURSE it's all symbolism, but that doesn't make it unimportant. You've all been watching too many bad action movies, we're not going to win the war against terrorism just by killing all the current extremists, we're going to win by making sure we're not creating them faster than we can deal with them. And doing that requires EXACTLY the kind of symbolism management that people love to dismiss for some reason...as if it's smarter to attack the problem with brute force instead of putting a little thought into it.

TLDR: Being the good guys means more than loudly proclaiming it, we have to act like it. And once we do, we make the choice for moderates a lot easier. If spending a little bit of money to close Gitmo helps us do that, it seems like a small price to pay.

 

[seemingly random]

A few years ago there was a mass murder at an amish school. They ended up tearing the school down. It was a perfectly good structure - well, it was amish so it was probably more than good.

See any connection or similarities?

Hint: playing spreadsheet won't give you the answer.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
It's a lot harder to fight a war on terrorism, which is really a war against extremism, when we're spending so much time and effort convincing people that we're not the bad guys. That fact should be self-evident to even the average person in the Middle East, but it's not, because we do things like keep prisoners in secret prisons, or overseas specifically to try to avoid US law, or in reopened prisons notorious for abuses under the regime we just overthrew.

People who dismiss such problems as "symbolic" are totally missing the point. Of COURSE it's all symbolism, but that doesn't make it unimportant. You've all been watching too many bad action movies, we're not going to win the war against terrorism just by killing all the current extremists, we're going to win by making sure we're not creating them faster than we can deal with them. And doing that requires EXACTLY the kind of symbolism management that people love to dismiss for some reason...as if it's smarter to attack the problem with brute force instead of putting a little thought into it.

TLDR: Being the good guys means more than loudly proclaiming it, we have to act like it. And once we do, we make the choice for moderates a lot easier. If spending a little bit of money to close Gitmo helps us do that, it seems like a small price to pay.

Hehe, so closing down Gitmo convinces people we are not the bad guy? So what if we close down Gitmo but continue the one sided support of Israel. Continue to have "collateral damage", killing innocent civilian, women and children in Iraq/Afghan. Continue to support undemocratic Arab royals so we can have control over oil supply. Continue to support our conglomerates, mega business to pillage and plunder natural resources around the world. Continue hypocritical action like preaching peace/weapon/nuclear weapon reduction while continue to spend close to half of what entire world is spending on military.

what I find ironic is how all these people making Gitmo like the biggest crime America has committed against humanity and the single cause of the resentment against the US. Gitmo is nothing, it has no impact on war on terror. Extremists existed long before Gitmo was created, and it will continue to exist after you close Gitmo, you know why? Because of all these things I mentioned above, the way American exerted its force around the world to obtain resources/power and the one sided support of Israel which has caused lots of griefs and casualty among Islamic people.

All these Gitmo closing is nothing but a political show. Political show that waste money, accomplish nothing other than bashing previous admin/party. It has no substance, nothing to do with the reality of war on terror.

 

[miketheidiot]

because american citizens shouldn't support their government running legal black holes in foreign countries.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Wow, someone had a backup account on stand-by.

I'd agree with this.

To the OP, I agree with pretty much with what Rainsford said. Imagine where you live, the police need your and your communities help to stop crime.

But your police force randomly beats up people for no real reason, and tend to ignore you when you call for help. Are you really going to go out of your way to help them, when they are hurting you?

No, you will not trust them, and will stay away from them because you don't want to be randomly beat up. And the police's job to stop crime will fail.

Simple (and exaggerated ) example, but there you go.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Patranus
So you are saying it is pointless then?

Yup.

When you throw out 800 years of common law, the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, the Geneva Convention and habeas corpus ...

All that remains is Gitmo.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Patranus
So you are saying it is pointless then?

Seriously, you are pointless.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Patranus

I do not understand what shutting down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba is going to accomplish. The prisoners will still be isolated and have limited contact no matter where they are housed.

The facility is built. The facility is staffed. The prisoners are there. There is ZERO capital cost to leaving the facility open.

Which of those prisoners should remain isolated with limited contact? Many have yet to be formally accused of any crimes or hostile acts, let alone given access to legal counsel or a chance to see, let alone to refute, any such charges or evidence against them.

Anyone who advocates such continued imprisonment of possibly innocent human beings should be made to endure what they have suffered for several years before speaking. That includes George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and the rest of their corrupt gang of traitors, murderers, torturers. war criminals and war profiteers.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Rainsford
It's a lot harder to fight a war on terrorism, which is really a war against extremism, when we're spending so much time and effort convincing people that we're not the bad guys. That fact should be self-evident to even the average person in the Middle East, but it's not, because we do things like keep prisoners in secret prisons, or overseas specifically to try to avoid US law, or in reopened prisons notorious for abuses under the regime we just overthrew.

People who dismiss such problems as "symbolic" are totally missing the point. Of COURSE it's all symbolism, but that doesn't make it unimportant. You've all been watching too many bad action movies, we're not going to win the war against terrorism just by killing all the current extremists, we're going to win by making sure we're not creating them faster than we can deal with them. And doing that requires EXACTLY the kind of symbolism management that people love to dismiss for some reason...as if it's smarter to attack the problem with brute force instead of putting a little thought into it.

TLDR: Being the good guys means more than loudly proclaiming it, we have to act like it. And once we do, we make the choice for moderates a lot easier. If spending a little bit of money to close Gitmo helps us do that, it seems like a small price to pay.

Hehe, so closing down Gitmo convinces people we are not the bad guy? So what if we close down Gitmo but continue the one sided support of Israel. Continue to have "collateral damage", killing innocent civilian, women and children in Iraq/Afghan. Continue to support undemocratic Arab royals so we can have control over oil supply. Continue to support our conglomerates, mega business to pillage and plunder natural resources around the world. Continue hypocritical action like preaching peace/weapon/nuclear weapon reduction while continue to spend close to half of what entire world is spending on military.

what I find ironic is how all these people making Gitmo like the biggest crime America has committed against humanity and the single cause of the resentment against the US. Gitmo is nothing, it has no impact on war on terror. Extremists existed long before Gitmo was created, and it will continue to exist after you close Gitmo, you know why? Because of all these things I mentioned above, the way American exerted its force around the world to obtain resources/power and the one sided support of Israel which has caused lots of griefs and casualty among Islamic people.

All these Gitmo closing is nothing but a political show. Political show that waste money, accomplish nothing other than bashing previous admin/party. It has no substance, nothing to do with the reality of war on terror.

Don't be silly, I didn't say Gitmo is the ONLY thing we need to change to help win "hearts and minds". But it's definitely part of the problem, as are many of the other things you mentioned. Nor did I say that it's "the biggest crime America has committed against humanity", but on the other hand, closing it is a step that's relatively easy to take and will have a relatively major impact on how we're viewed in the rest of the world.

That said, it also has an important domestic political component that has nothing to do with the Bush administration. The current debate NOW is virtually overflowing with Republicans suggesting we NEED prisons like Gitmo to deal with suspected terrorists, especially ones we can't or wont try in a court of law. Or even, as one Republican congressman suggested, we need a special place to keep prisoners that the courts find not guilty. There's also the overly dramatized "threat" of having terrorists being held in US prisoners, like we're holding Magneto or something, as Jon Stewart suggested.

The basic point of the Republican argument is that terrorists are super villians that we can't possibly try in regular courts, that we cant hold in regular prisons, and that we can't interrogate using normal techniques. Even gathering intelligence on them is so difficult that it requires us to twist and shred our laws and ideals just a little to get anything done. Gitmo is emblematic of this, an approach that gives unnecessarily increased power to the government and turns the terrorists into actual foes worthy of fighting us instead of criminals we need to just deal with. Closing Gitmo, and NOT having the world go to hell, will be a big win for the counter-argument that we need to capture, try and lock up terrorists like any other murderers...and get on with our lives.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Patranus

I do not understand what shutting down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba is going to accomplish. The prisoners will still be isolated and have limited contact no matter where they are housed.

The facility is built. The facility is staffed. The prisoners are there. There is ZERO capital cost to leaving the facility open.

Which of those prisoners should remain isolated with limited contact? Many have yet to be formally accused of any crimes or hostile acts, let alone given access to legal counsel or a chance to see, let alone to refute, any such charges or evidence against them.

Anyone who advocates such continued imprisonment of possibly innocent human beings should be made to endure what they have suffered for several years before speaking. That includes George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and the rest of their corrupt gang of traitors, murderers, torturers. war criminals and war profiteers.

I just watched a Daily Show episode from this past week, and they had a few clips from Republican congressmen talking about closing Gitmo. And one of them (I can't remember who, I'll try to find it) seriously suggested that we need Gitmo specifically to lock up prisoners that courts find INNOCENT. In my opinion, that's the kind of thinking we really need to get away from here...

 

[ZeGermans]

it's a rallying cry for iraqi freedom fighters. Removing it removes that rallying cry. Sorry if you can't see that.