DVD Talk
Joint Chiefs chairman: Close Guantanamo [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Joint Chiefs chairman: Close Guantanamo


VinVega
01-14-08, 07:53 AM
Yahoo Story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080114/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_joint_chiefs)

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 1 hour, 29 minutes ago

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - The chief of the U.S. military said he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been "pretty damaging" to the image of the United States.

"I'd like to see it shut down," Adm. Mike Mullen said Sunday in an interview with three reporters who toured the detention center with him on his first visit since becoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last October.

His visit came two days after the sixth anniversary of the prison's opening in January 2002. He stressed that a closure decision was not his to make and that he understands there are numerous complex legal questions the administration believes would have to be settled first, such as where to move prisoners.

The admiral also noted that some of Guantanamo Bay's prisoners are deemed high security threats. During a tour of Camp Six, which is a high-security facility holding about 100 prisoners, Mullen got a firsthand look at some of the cells; one prisoner glared at Mullen through his narrow cell window as U.S. officers explained to the Joint Chiefs chairman how they maintain almost-constant watch over each prisoner.

Mullen, whose previous visit was in December 2005 as head of the U.S. Navy, noted that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates also have spoken publicly in favor of closing the prison. But Mullen said he is unaware of any active discussion in the administration about how to do it.

"I'm not aware that there is any immediate consideration to closing Guantanamo Bay," Mullen said.

Asked why he thinks Guantanamo Bay, commonly dubbed Gitmo, should be closed, and the prisoners perhaps moved to U.S. soil, Mullen said, "More than anything else it's been the image how Gitmo has become around the world, in terms of representing the United States."

Critics have charged that detainees have been mistreated in some cases and that the legal conditions of their detentions are not consistent with the rule of law.

"I believe that from the standpoint of how it reflects on us that it's been pretty damaging," Mullen said, speaking in a small boat that ferried him to and from the detention facilities across a glistening bay.

He said he was encouraged to hear from U.S. officers here that the prison population has shrunk by about 100 over the past year, to 277. At one time the population exceeded 600. Hundreds have been returned to their home countries but U.S. officials say some are such serious security threats that they cannot be released for the foreseeable future. Only four are currently facing military trials after being formally charged with crimes.

Mullen also walked through an almost-completed top-security courtroom where the military expects to hold trials beginning this spring for the 14 "high-value" terror suspects who had previously been held at secret CIA prisons abroad. He was told that audio of the proceedings might be piped to locations in the United States where families of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and perhaps others, could hear them.

Mullen's predecessor, retired Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, is a defendant in a lawsuit by four British men who allege they were systematically tortured throughout their two years of detention at this remote outpost. On Friday a federal appeals court in Washington ruled against the four men.

It was six years ago that Guantanamo Bay received its first prisoners, suspected terrorists picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan as the Taliban government was being ousted from power.

The facility is on land leased from the Cuban government under terms of a long-term deal that predates the rule of President Fidel Castro. It is commanded by Navy Rear Adm. Mark Buzby.

Gates, at a Dec. 21 news conference at the Pentagon, noted the administration's failure to settle the closure debate.

"I think that the principal obstacle has been resolving a lot of the legal issues associated with closing Guantanamo and what you do with the prisoners when they come back (to the United States)," Gates said.

"Because of some of these legal concerns some of which are shared by people in both parties on Capitol Hill there has not been much progress in this respect," he added.

After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration considered Guantanamo Bay a suitable place to hold men suspected of links to the Taliban and al-Qaida, contending that U.S. laws do not apply there because Guantanamo is not part of the United States. Lawyers for the detainees have challenged that interpretation ever since.

Before he finished his Guantanmo Bay visit and flew to Key West, Fla., Mullen got a look at a site on the eastern shore of Guantanamo Bay opposite the terrorist detention center where the U.S. military is building a new refugee camp that would be used in the event of a sudden, major influx of refugees in the area. Initially the camp will be designed to hold 10,000 refugees and is scheduled to be finished by June.
Now that even military people are saying to close Gitmo...this is news.

Venusian
01-14-08, 08:12 AM
Doesn't Romney want to increase its size or was that someone else?

DVD Josh
01-14-08, 08:40 AM
Now that even military people are saying to close Gitmo...this is news.

They seem to be saying it because of it's negative publicity, not it's effectiveness.

A dangerous premise indeed.

NCMojo
01-14-08, 08:41 AM
Please correct me if I'm wrong... but the whole appeal of Guantanamo is that it's technically not part of the US, right? But it's also not part of any other country. So we can engage in acts that would be considered illegal here, and would be violations of international treaty anywhere else. True?

NCMojo
01-14-08, 08:43 AM
Yes he said he wanted to double Guantanamo. That was step 1 in my gradual removal from supporting him in any way.
Step 2 (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/romney-favors-hubbard-novel/).

Red Dog
01-14-08, 08:48 AM
He quite obviously hates America.

classicman2
01-14-08, 08:55 AM
If we close it down - where are we going to practice waterboarding and other forms of torture. I say '- 'Guantanamo must be kept open. We've got to keep in practice'.

General Zod
01-14-08, 08:57 AM
Government should get a clue from successful American big business and instead of closing Gitmo they should re-brand it with a spiffy new name, jingle and logo.

bhk
01-14-08, 09:56 AM
I agree. Shoot all of the freedom fighters held there and leave. Under no circumstances should the terrorists that are held there come to the US court system. Better to let them go free and tell them to swim home.

What is wrong with this guy? Is he aware that the "critics" of Gitmo are all the America-hating leftists around the world who are more concerned with the cult-of-death terrorists than they are their victims?

Is he aware that many among the hundreds who have been released already have been recaptured trying to kill more innocents?

He sounds like the wrong man for the job.

VinVega
01-14-08, 10:00 AM
It seems bhk and Red Dog are in agreement. :eek:

NCMojo
01-14-08, 10:10 AM
It seems bhk and Red Dog are in agreement. :eek:
For some reason, the comparison reminds me of the scene from As Good As It Gets:

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I just think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

kvrdave
01-14-08, 10:39 AM
Supporting the closing of Gitmo and releasing the suspects are two different things. I didn't see where he supports the latter. So he is really just thinking of image and wants them somewhere else. My guess is we could hand them over to the Saudis. The Gitmo prisoners probably would prefer to stay in Cuba, though.

The Bus
01-14-08, 10:45 AM
If we close Gitmo they'll just be sent to whatever top-secret prison they were sent to before Guantanamo. And I don't mean a prison we know about.

NCMojo
01-14-08, 10:46 AM
Supporting the closing of Gitmo and releasing the suspects are two different things. I didn't see where he supports the latter. So he is really just thinking of image and wants them somewhere else. My guess is we could hand them over to the Saudis. The Gitmo prisoners probably would prefer to stay in Cuba, though.
I have no problem with detaining the actual terrorists, although I'd rather see them imprisoned here in the US (http://www.supermaxed.com/Federal-SM-Page.htm) than in a camp whose very name is now synonymous with US imperialism. But there are a lot of other people in Guantanamo who were just picked up in sweeps in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people need to be given a fair trial and either sentenced or released -- in the case of many of the "enemy combatants" (i.e. the members of the Taliban picked up off the battlefield) I think they should either be detained as POWs or let go, not subjected to 24 hour a day incarceration and "hard interrogation".

The whole operation just stinks.

cinten
01-14-08, 10:53 AM
Is he aware that the "critics" of Gitmo are all the America-hating leftists around the world who are more concerned with the cult-of-death terrorists than they are their victims?



:rolleyes:

While the chicken hawks (who have no idea what America stand for and what it means to be an American and are more loyal to one man than America) would love to make it out to be that those who want gitmo closed are for the terrorists, anyone with above a 5th grade education would know that is pure crap.

bhk
01-14-08, 10:53 AM
For some reason, the comparison reminds me of the scene from As Good As It Gets:

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I just think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.

You shouldn't insult Red Dog like that.

bhk
01-14-08, 11:00 AM
I have no problem with detaining the actual terrorists, although I'd rather see them imprisoned here in the US than in a camp whose very name is now synonymous with US imperialism.
People who believe that Guantanamo represents US imperalism are stupid and should be discounted completely. No need to bother about what they think.

These people need to be given a fair trial and either sentenced or released -- in the case of many of the "enemy combatants" (i.e. the members of the Taliban picked up off the battlefield) I think they should either be detained as POWs or let go, not subjected to 24 hour a day incarceration and "hard interrogation".

The ACLU and the other liberal groups have put up roadblock after roadblock in doing just this via military courts.

While the chicken hawks (who have no idea what America stand for and what it means to be an American and are more loyal to one man than America) would love to make it out to be that those who want gitmo closed are for the terrorists, anyone with above a 5th grade education would know that is pure crap.

When one wants a little R&R from the trials of jihad......

http://www.bellevegas.com/bellevegas/pics/bigphotos/gitmologo.jpg

classicman2
01-14-08, 11:07 AM
I agree. Shoot all of the freedom fighters held there and leave. Under no circumstances should the terrorists that are held there come to the US court system. Better to let them go free and tell them to swim home.

What is wrong with this guy? Is he aware that the "critics" of Gitmo are all the America-hating leftists around the world who are more concerned with the cult-of-death terrorists than they are their victims?

Is he aware that many among the hundreds who have been released already have been recaptured trying to kill more innocents?

He sounds like the wrong man for the job.

I see! Everyone who is opposed to torture or feels like habeas corpus is somewhat important is an American-hating leftist.

Oh, my God! :rolleyes:

bhk
01-14-08, 11:11 AM
That's why I love that Guantanamo isn't actually in the US. Oh and c-man, don't cry about habeus corpus. If you cared about it, you would never ever have voted for dems. After all, hasn't Bush incarcerated thousands of innocent US citizens? Wait no that was a dem president.
And anyways, it wouldn't apply. These terrorists were captured overseas by soldiers and not US policemen. Furthermore, they aren't in this country.
And I would tell this general that he shouldn't worry about the image of the USA. If the image survived dropping 2 atomic bombs on civilians and firebombing Dresden, it'll survive Guantanamo.

Red Dog
01-14-08, 11:17 AM
Ah - another WWII parallel. That never gets old.

NCMojo
01-14-08, 11:18 AM
It is somewhat ironic that the more bhk defends his POV, the more converts he almost certainly gets for the other side.

bhk
01-14-08, 11:23 AM
Doesn't bother me at all. Anyone on this board is like a eunuch in a harem as far as their ability to actually shut down Guantanamo.

kvrdave
01-14-08, 12:03 PM
:rolleyes:

While the chicken hawks (who have no idea what America stand for and what it means to be an American and are more loyal to one man than America)

rotfl

At least you set the stage for your post nicely.

classicman2
02-11-08, 07:47 AM
The New York Times is reporting that the U.S. is planning to bring 6 gitmo prisoners to trial. The government will seek the death penalty.

These 6 supposedly have signficant ties to 9/11.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sept_11_trial_5;_ylt=AlRX4thx5Qez3FLkkcEiv2QE1vAI

RoyalTea
01-11-12, 09:58 AM
I read today that there are currently 171 detainees. Of those, 170 have yet to be formally charged.

mosquitobite
01-11-12, 10:07 AM
I read today that there are currently 171 detainees. Of those, 170 have yet to be formally charged.

Doesn't matter about Guantanamo at this point. The entire US was made a Guantanamo by the NDAA bill.

RoyalTea
01-11-12, 10:23 AM
True.

Funny how the original post was abut the negative publicity about detaining people at Guantanamo. Even funnier that NOTHING CHANGED, but the publicity went from negative to non-existent on around January 20, 2009.

CRM114
01-11-12, 11:01 AM
Actually, Obama made a strong push to move those detainees onto US soil and got massive opposition by both Repubs and Democrats alike (NIMBY opposition) and he said fuck it. I'm not sure what else you'd like him to do.

JasonF
01-11-12, 11:07 AM
Doesn't matter about Guantanamo at this point. The entire US was made a Guantanamo by the NDAA bill.

That's silly and untrue.

orangecrush
01-11-12, 11:11 AM
I'm not sure what else you'd like him to do.What he said he would do would work for me here.

Ky-Fi
01-11-12, 11:14 AM
True.

Funny how the original post was abut the negative publicity about detaining people at Guantanamo. Even funnier that NOTHING CHANGED, but the publicity went from negative to non-existent on around January 20, 2009.

Also, Bush was worse than Hitler and Sauron combined for detaining Taliban at Guantanamo, but Obama gets very little foreign criticism despite the fact that, rather than detaining people at Guantanamo, he's instead vastly expanded the scope and number of drone strikes to kill suspected Taliban outright, without any attempt at detaining them.

CRM114
01-11-12, 11:15 AM
What he said he would do would work for me here.

Then petition your Congress and let's move forward. I'm sure Obama would be on board. Everyone cried NIMBY the last time around.

Th0r S1mpson
01-11-12, 11:18 AM
That's silly and untrue.

I'm not sure where you're posting from, but my dirt cell smells bad.

RoyalTea
01-11-12, 11:47 AM
Actually, Obama made a strong push to move those detainees onto US soil and got massive opposition by both Repubs and Democrats alike (NIMBY opposition) and he said fuck it. I'm not sure what else you'd like him to do.

Funny how he respected Congress' opinion then, when it gave him a convenient excuse to not follow through on one of his campaign promises, but when he wants to start a war with Libya, Congress' opinion suddenly doesn't matter.

RoyalTea
01-11-12, 12:05 PM
Organizers in DC say there are about 500 people protesting the anniversary of detaining prisoners at Gitmo. Assume that they have reason to overestimate the crowd size and it's really 300 or so.

Would there be more than that if McCain was president? What if he was president, "tried" to close it down and also said "fuck it." Would it also be a relatively sparse crowd?

orangecrush
01-11-12, 12:11 PM
Then petition your Congress and let's move forward. I'm sure Obama would be on board. Everyone cried NIMBY the last time around.My congressmen aren't going to be swayed on this issue. :(

Dean Kousoulas
01-12-12, 01:32 AM
Organizers in DC say there are about 500 people protesting the anniversary of detaining prisoners at Gitmo. Assume that they have reason to overestimate the crowd size and it's really 300 or so.

Would there be more than that if McCain was president? What if he was president, "tried" to close it down and also said "fuck it." Would it also be a relatively sparse crowd?

:clap:

VinVega
01-12-12, 07:10 AM
Nice thread resurrection. Wow look at some of the old-time names of people who don't post here anymore. Myself included sadly.

Ranger
05-01-13, 12:21 PM
Speaks for itself.
UN calls force-feeding at Guantanamo 'torture'

Wednesday, May 01, 2013 1:40 PM

The UN human rights office has condemned force-feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay, calling it ‘torture’ and a breach of international law. At least 21 inmates out of the 100 officially on strike are being force-fed through nasal tubes.

http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-prison-torture-un-677/

CRM114
05-01-13, 12:37 PM
If a person in a US prison goes on a hunger strike, do they force feed them or let them die? Seems to be a personal choice. But Gitmo changes everything as a lot of these people were never charged with anything.

Supermallet
05-01-13, 12:45 PM
The AMA has said that force feeding someone who willfully has decided to not eat is unethical behavior for doctors.

Closing Gitmo is the best way to save face at this point. Actually charge these people or let them go.

CRM114
05-01-13, 12:48 PM
Reading about Guantanamo is alarming. We basically took the land in a Treaty as an open ended "lease." The treaty says that it shall be used ONLY for purposes of coaling and running a naval base. The prison should not be allowed according to the lease. And doesn't the word "lease" imply that the owner of the property controls the lease? We paid Cuba $4,000 for Gitmo in 1974 and the same payment in 2006.

aintnosin
05-01-13, 05:00 PM
The treaty says that it shall be used ONLY for purposes of coaling and running a naval base. The prison should not be allowed according to the lease.
I'm sure that the administration position is that the prison is part of the naval base.

dork
05-01-13, 06:04 PM
If a person in a US prison goes on a hunger strike, do they force feed them or let them die?
I believe that they have been force fed in the past, at least in some cases. The UN itself seems to have changed its mind (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/12/07/serb_should_be_force_fed_tribunal_says/) about this issue...

Ranger
05-02-13, 01:00 PM
Legal options Obama has. Short version: Congress keeps adding restrictions on releases and it's not a priority for Obama now - no one has been released this year. However, there were 254 inmates when he took office in 2009 and now there's 166, so that's progress. Still a chance Obama could close it before his second term ends.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/02/us-usa-guantanamo-idUSBRE94106020130502

Ky-Fi
05-02-13, 01:41 PM
Legal options Obama has. Short version: Congress keeps adding restrictions on releases and it's not a priority for Obama now - no one has been released this year. However, there were 254 inmates when he took office in 2009 and now there's 166, so that's progress.

While I'm not a big supporter of the Guantanimo situation, I'm not sure that releasing them necessarily qualifies as progress:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/06/160678301/percent-of-detainees-who-return-to-terrorism-after-release-edges-up

Mabuse
05-02-13, 04:08 PM
On the news last night they said that under the terms of war we can jail them indeffinately in a federal prison here in the United States. I think that's what we should do. The word "Guantanamo" has become to politial. Just spread these guys around in several different super-max federal prisons. Congress pushes back with a lot of "not in my backyard", they don't want the prisoners in their state. But I don't see the problem. I wouldn't feel less safe if these guys were in my state. Has anyone ever escaped from a supermax prison?

Supermallet
05-02-13, 04:43 PM
Why not try them? Why is that so difficult?

Nausicaa
05-02-13, 05:07 PM
Why not try them? Why is that so difficult?

Probably because for a lot of them, there is no evidence other than the 'evidence' obtained under duress. I admit I haven't followed this much over the last few years though. If we have solid evidence, try them. If not, deport them and be done with it. At this point the whole thing is beyond shameful, especially the legacy it has come to represent.

While I'm not a big supporter of the Guantanimo situation, I'm not sure that releasing them necessarily qualifies as progress:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/06/160678301/percent-of-detainees-who-return-to-terrorism-after-release-edges-up

What did we expect? They would become American citizens and open a car dealership in Des Moines? You lock someone away and isolate them from the world for a decade, not only are they likely to despise us, any trace of their former lives is likely gone. What else are they going to do?

Ranger
06-14-13, 10:34 PM
House blocks bill to close prison.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/guantanamo-bay-close_n_3438347.html

Mabuse
06-17-13, 02:39 PM
From the article: "Who are these detainees? They are not innocent goat herders swept up by marauding United States military, of which I was a part, and of which I detained numerous potential terrorists," said Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), referring to his service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) argued that moving the prisoners to the United States would paint targets for terrorists "on every elementary school, every shopping mall, every small business" in the area where they end up being housed.

"It's important that we come together, unified, and send a message to the president," Forbes said. "We may not be able to stop every terrorist from coming to U.S. soil, but we can stop these terrorists."

I don't understand this argument. As I asked before, has anyone ever escaped from a super-max prison? Why are so many people afraid to simply lock these guys up indefinately in one of our own federal prisons?

classicman2
06-18-13, 11:06 AM
From the article: I don't understand this argument. As I asked before, has anyone ever escaped from a super-max prison? Why are so many people afraid to simply lock these guys up indefinately in one of our own federal prisons?

How many federal super-max prisons are available?

Mabuse
06-18-13, 12:54 PM
I don't know. I'm sure there's enough to house the...what is the total again?...50? 60? Prisoners at Guantanamo that we've said we will hold indefinately.

What does the number of federal super-max prisons have to do with my question anyway? No one ever escapes these things. We are as safe from these pieces of shit weather they be here or on the island.

CRM114
06-18-13, 01:47 PM
I think he's saying other terrorists (booga booga!) would go to the towns where their prisons stood and blow up elementary children.

Mabuse
06-18-13, 03:20 PM
I think he's saying other terrorists (booga booga!) would go to the towns where their prisons stood and blow up elementary children.

Yeah, but that's a dumb arguement. As it stands today a terrorist could blow up an elementary school in Miami and leave a note behind saying "I do this as a martyr to the cause of closing Guantanamo Prison." Yet that hasn't happened.

RoyalTea
06-18-13, 03:22 PM
I love that Obama hides behind Congress when he says he wants to close Guantanamo but can't. He sure as hell doesn't give a shit what Congress thinks when he decides to go to war with Libya or Syria.

CRM114
06-19-13, 08:29 AM
Time to hop aboard that wacky, nutty, wayback machine all the way to 2010....

Congress Bars Gitmo Transfers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576036520690885858.html)

RoyalTea
06-19-13, 11:36 AM
Time to hop aboard that wacky, nutty, wayback machine all the way to 2010....

Congress Bars Gitmo Transfers (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576036520690885858.html)

My point is ... this is when he says Congress has checks and balances over him. But if he wants to go to war with Libya or Syria, he finds a way around those checks and balances.

If he really wanted to close Gitmo, he'd find a way around the checks and balances.

CRM114
06-19-13, 12:59 PM
As has every President since FDR.

Obama is hardly going to use his political capital for the rest of his term forcing a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists on states with SuperMax prisons. The Congress could make it easier.

classicman2
06-19-13, 01:54 PM
Obama is appealing to a significant portion of his base by the talk about closing Guantanamo. He's not about to close the facility.

VinVega
06-19-13, 02:50 PM
Obama is appealing to a significant portion of his base by the talk about closing Guantanamo. He's not about to close the facility.
Yes. His policy RE: Gitmo is nearly the same as GWB. There's really no defending him on this.

And I created this thread? 5 years ago???

CRM114
06-19-13, 02:53 PM
5 years. Is there really a need for the "Holy crap, I'm old" thread in Other? :lol:

I think he'd love to close Gitmo but isn't about to expend the energy required to fight the NIMBY "please re-elect me" Congress people.

BearFan
06-19-13, 03:26 PM
As has every President since FDR.

Obama is hardly going to use his political capital for the rest of his term forcing a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists on states with SuperMax prisons. The Congress could make it easier.

Yeah, I remember the GOPers (and a decent amount of Dems) running on closing Guantanamo like Obama did ....

Mabuse
06-19-13, 04:57 PM
Here's a theory: He doesn't want to rush to close Gitmo, because another future democratic candidate could use "I will close Gitmo" as a campaign promise. It worked once. And it is a strong campaign promise.

JasonF
06-19-13, 05:26 PM
Here's a theory: Overwhelming majorities in Congress want to keep Guantanamo open, while overhwelming majorities in Congress did not oppose our actions in Libya (except to the extent they could be used to score political points, i.e. retrospective recriminations about Benghazi).

DVD Polizei
06-19-13, 08:18 PM
Promise and Compromise...are the same thing when it come to politics.

VinVega
06-19-13, 10:49 PM
Look, I'm not going to argue that Congress isn't broken on this one, but I'm not going to say poor Obama, look at what that nasty Congress is doing to him either.

BearFan
06-19-13, 11:45 PM
If only Obama had more power ... the world would be just a better place if he did not have all those pesky checks and balances .. .the seas would be lower, we would all be holding hands singing a song.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0