Obama: Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world

[GaryC 7]

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

I have many Vietnam vet friends. The things they told me are much worse than that. We are playing it very civilized in this war compared to Nam.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

No kidding. How someone can say they embrace the priniciples that this country was founded on and think it's ok to treat non-citizens by a different standard is disturbing and sad. We don't have any idea if the remaining detainees have actually done anything against the U.S., but to some, if you're middle eastern and look suspicious, that's reason enough to assume you're guilty of terrorism.

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

I have many Vietnam vet friends. The things they told me are much worse than that. We are playing it very civilized in this war compared to Nam.

Gary, you think that behavior is acceptable to American values and principles?

[scandal 951]

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

No kidding. How someone can say they embrace the priniciples that this country was founded on and think it's ok to treat non-citizens by a different standard is disturbing and sad. We don't have any idea if the remaining detainees have actually done anything against the U.S., but to some, if you're middle eastern and look suspicious, that's reason enough to assume you're guilty of terrorism.

Steve, there's always a balance between national security and civil rights.

Most of the time our system errs on the side of civil liberties and individual protections. Our constitution is biased in that direction and our courts interpret in that direction. Which is a good and a fine thing. Most of the time.

This is not one of those "most of the times".

If 9/11 taught us anything it's that these guys are playing for keeps. I feel we do have to tilt the balance at least somewhat if we're not going to go into this fight with one arm tied behind our backs.

I'm obviously not advocating throwing them out of helicopters (though boy that's a tempting way to quickly 'dispose' of the problem....).

You are saying trust the military tribunals. The old Bush tribunals were hopelessly flawed. The new Obama ones have yet to be defined.

If the intent is to hold the tribunals on US soil, they will immediately be challenged through the federal courts and there is a very high likelihood the courts will determine that the detainees are entitled to civilian trials and full Due Process under the constitution. Keep in mind not one of these guys was ever mirandized on the battlefield. They will quite likely walk. Not an acceptable outcome.

[SMOKE 1,426]

you think that behavior is acceptable to American values and principles?

if it is in order to protect America or Americans abroad...you betcha!

isn't there an issue w/ some if not most of the gitmo detainees home countries not letting them back into their country?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well who would want them?

Again - this is seriously something that the US should have thought about before... Of course self-serving politicians probably had a shrewd idea that they'd be out of office before they'd have to deal with the practical and public consequences of those detentions.

[GaryC 7]

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

No kidding. How someone can say they embrace the priniciples that this country was founded on and think it's ok to treat non-citizens by a different standard is disturbing and sad. We don't have any idea if the remaining detainees have actually done anything against the U.S., but to some, if you're middle eastern and look suspicious, that's reason enough to assume you're guilty of terrorism.

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

I have many Vietnam vet friends. The things they told me are much worse than that. We are playing it very civilized in this war compared to Nam.

Gary, you think that behavior is acceptable to American values and principles?

That was a war and a time you could never understand Steven. Things were played "down and dirty" by both sides. Vietnam was a war that should never have been fought and the way Washington carried it out it put our men in a no win situation. It was either adapt or die for them. The fault wasn't with the troops but with the pinheads that were calling the shots. They did what they had to do to survive.

I pointed this out to show you that we haven't "lost" our moral authority because of Gitmo. We lost it a long time ago. In war morals only get you killed. War itself is an immoral act and to try to assign morals to your actions only strengthens the enemies hand.

[scandal 951]

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

No kidding. How someone can say they embrace the priniciples that this country was founded on and think it's ok to treat non-citizens by a different standard is disturbing and sad. We don't have any idea if the remaining detainees have actually done anything against the U.S., but to some, if you're middle eastern and look suspicious, that's reason enough to assume you're guilty of terrorism.

No really, what did we do? (Sorry, i'm young ) (Well, youngish...)

Yes, really. If we captured two enemy combatants we would often take them up in a helicopter and push one out. The other would then be "encouraged" to answer questions. As bad as everyone thinks Gitmo is we treat them light years better than we did in Nam.

I have many Vietnam vet friends. The things they told me are much worse than that. We are playing it very civilized in this war compared to Nam.

Gary, you think that behavior is acceptable to American values and principles?

That was a war and a time you could never understand Steven. Things were played "down and dirty" by both sides. Vietnam was a war that should never have been fought and the way Washington carried it out it put our men in a no win situation. It was either adapt or die for them. The fault wasn't with the troops but with the pinheads that were calling the shots. They did what they had to do to survive.

I pointed this out to show you that we haven't "lost" our moral authority because of Gitmo. We lost it a long time ago. In war morals only get you killed. War itself is an immoral act and to try to assign morals to your actions only strengthens the enemies hand.

You know what Gary? You don't know squat about the evidence for global warming or the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.

But on the limited area you've posted above I tend to agree with you. Vietnam was a failure by Westmoreland and the Pentagon far more than a field level failure.

And some things are done in wartime which we would not normally condone in peacetime. It's uncomfortable. But it's true.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Vietnam was a war that should never have been fought and the way Washington carried it out it put our men in a no win situation. It was either adapt or die for them. The fault wasn't with the troops but with the pinheads that were calling the shots. They did what they had to do to survive.

I pointed this out to show you that we haven't "lost" our moral authority because of Gitmo. We lost it a long time ago. In war morals only get you killed. War itself is an immoral act and to try to assign morals to your actions only strengthens the enemies hand.

Fair enough...

But couldn't the same be said about Afghanistan today? How are we going to win? And what are we going to win? The Iraq War was a debacle, but we might actually be able to "finish" that one... but Afghanistan, the War on Terror? It's like a neverending downward spiral.

[endoftheroad 1]

But there really is a very practical problem - what do you do with these guys?

Do you really want to give them constitutional protections by trying them in the US

Don't believe the scare speech, they would be tried under tribunal laws. They don't get US citizenship because they are in Gitmo. That's hogwash that conservatives are spewing.

What do we do with them? There's a brand new USA maximum security prison in Montana that wants all of them. The town even voted in favor of it. Everyone knows that no person has ever escaped a USA maximum security prison. (except in movies... and that's where the conservatives minds are at... in La-La -Land)

[peejay 327]

But there really is a very practical problem - what do you do with these guys?

Do you really want to give them constitutional protections by trying them in the US

Don't believe the scare speech, they would be tried under tribunal laws. They don't get US citizenship because they are in Gitmo. That's hogwash that conservatives are spewing.

What do we do with them? There's a brand new USA maximum security prison in Montana that wants all of them. The town even voted in favor of it. Everyone knows that no person has ever escaped a USA maximum security prison. (except in movies... and that's where the conservatives minds are at... in La-La -Land)

Let's get real here. If the goal is to lock these guys up into eternity, does it really make a rat's azz where they are locked up? They are already at Gitmo and it is already set up to house them. I have bad vibes about bringing them onto US soil, because then we are stuck with them if no other country will take them and they will eventually be released onto the streets of America. Screw dat!

[alienlovechild 75]

Don't believe the scare speech, they would be tried under tribunal laws. They don't get US citizenship because they are in Gitmo. That's hogwash that conservatives are spewing.

Nobody said they'd be granted citzenship but they would have more access to ALCU types.

What do we do with them? There's a brand new USA maximum security prison in Montana that wants all of them. The town even voted in favor of it. Everyone knows that no person has ever escaped a USA maximum security prison. (except in movies... and that's where the conservatives minds are at... in La-La -Land)

The other big fear they would radicalize other prisoners and some of those cons will be freed later. You probably don't believe there's violence and gangs in prison either. It's all made up.

[scandal 951]

But there really is a very practical problem - what do you do with these guys?

Do you really want to give them constitutional protections by trying them in the US

Don't believe the scare speech, they would be tried under tribunal laws. They don't get US citizenship because they are in Gitmo. That's hogwash that conservatives are spewing.

What do we do with them? There's a brand new USA maximum security prison in Montana that wants all of them. The town even voted in favor of it. Everyone knows that no person has ever escaped a USA maximum security prison. (except in movies... and that's where the conservatives minds are at... in La-La -Land)

Umm... perhaps you skipped over what I wrote just above, regarding tribunals. Let me requote it here:

You are saying trust the military tribunals. The old Bush tribunals were hopelessly flawed. The new Obama ones have yet to be defined.

If the intent is to hold the tribunals on US soil, they will immediately be challenged through the federal courts and there is a very high likelihood the courts will determine that the detainees are entitled to civilian trials and full Due Process under the constitution. Keep in mind not one of these guys was ever mirandized on the battlefield. They will quite likely walk. Not an acceptable outcome.

The federal courts have already asserted (Hamdi case, others) that they will assert jurisdiction if the prisoner is on US soil. No one knows how the courts may rule if they are brought here. Should the defendants be granted civil protections including Fifth Amendment rights to avoid self-incrimination, then they are entitled to Miranda. NONE of these guys were ever mirandized on the battlefield. We can't go back in history and mirandize them. That presents a serious dilemma that the ACLU is simply not addressing. I'm glad the Senate appears to be taking it into account.

Please don't confuse me with the conservatives in this battle. I'm a solid moderate liberal. On most conceivable issues they conservatives here will (correctly) identify me as a liberal. But I like to think I'm an independent thinker who decides the right and wrong of issues on their merits. Bringing the Gitmo detainees to US soil without a clear plan is a very very bad idea, imho.

[endoftheroad 1]

we are stuck with them if no other country will take them and they will eventually be released onto the streets of America.

See, scare tactics. They will be deported back to whatever country they are from, same as non-citizen. Their home country can't refuse USA deportation.

they would have more access to ALCU types.

they would radicalize other prisoners

Under military tribunal laws they would not have access to your dreaded "ACLU types", that's more of your conservative scare tactics.

What other prisoners, the prison is empty.

[endoftheroad 1]

The federal courts have already asserted (Hamdi case, others) that they will assert jurisdiction if the prisoner is on US soil

A USA military base is considered USA soil, ask John McCain.

[GaryC 7]

we are stuck with them if no other country will take them and they will eventually be released onto the streets of America.

See, scare tactics. They will be deported back to whatever country they are from, same as non-citizen. Their home country can't refuse USA deportation.

Yes they can. It has already happend. We may also not send them back for fear they would be "tourtured" in their own country.

they would have more access to ALCU types.

they would radicalize other prisoners

Under military tribunal laws they would not have access to your dreaded "ACLU types", that's more of your conservative scare tactics.

What other prisoners, the prison is empty.

Some are not getting tribunals. They just sent one to NewYork to be tried under our criminal system. The ACLU types will have full access to him. Watch the circus begin.