Comments on: The Other Guantanamo http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/ A blog about politics. Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:39:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: pintortwo http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-32048 pintortwo Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:09:35 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-32048 You either respect the rule of law or you don't. Obama has uncomfortable decisions to make- but they are not difficult ones. . The detainees need to be processed and tried if there is evidence or released if not. Of course there is the potential that released prisoners can fight our troops. Unfortunate- however, you cannot deny individuals their basic human rights due to speculation. He must also make sure that these prisons treat detainees humanely and within the confines of the law. So too must Obama appoint an independent committee to investigate violations of international law by the Bush admin. And if congressional leaders -republican and democrat (Reid, Pelosi included)- are implicated, if information comes to light that is embarrassing, if careers are ruined and people go to jail-- so be it. Obama has to clearly state what the USA stands for. Are we leaders or deceivers? Are we for civility, freedom, diplomacy, democracy, altruism? Because right now <i>no one</i>, other than a shrinking number of Americans, believes that. You either respect the rule of law or you don't. Obama has uncomfortable decisions to make- but they are not difficult ones.
.
The detainees need to be processed and tried if there is evidence or released if not. Of course there is the potential that released prisoners can fight our troops. Unfortunate- however, you cannot deny individuals their basic human rights due to speculation. He must also make sure that these prisons treat detainees humanely and within the confines of the law. So too must Obama appoint an independent committee to investigate violations of international law by the Bush admin. And if congressional leaders -republican and democrat (Reid, Pelosi included)- are implicated, if information comes to light that is embarrassing, if careers are ruined and people go to jail-- so be it. Obama has to clearly state what the USA stands for. Are we leaders or deceivers? Are we for civility, freedom, diplomacy, democracy, altruism? Because right now no one, other than a shrinking number of Americans, believes that.

]]> By: James, Los Angeles http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-32030 James, Los Angeles Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:53:25 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-32030 A feeble, incoherent attempt at trollery. It wasn't even trying to be original here; a weak slap without passion. Scherer's scribblings have never been it's best venue but this nonsensical, flailing attempt misses the target by a substantial margin with a pathetic stab at nonexistent racism. Laughable without being actually funny. Incorrect use of brackets. D- . A feeble, incoherent attempt at trollery. It wasn't even trying to be original here; a weak slap without passion. Scherer's scribblings have never been it's best venue but this nonsensical, flailing attempt misses the target by a substantial margin with a pathetic stab at nonexistent racism. Laughable without being actually funny. Incorrect use of brackets. D- .

]]> By: formerlyjames http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-31998 formerlyjames Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:23:26 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-31998 Simple solution. You got evidence to convict or you don't. Try and imprison those who you can. Release the rest. With reasonable haste. Over 1 year is unreasonable. Simple solution. You got evidence to convict or you don't. Try and imprison those who you can. Release the rest. With reasonable haste. Over 1 year is unreasonable.

]]> By: textee http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-31978 textee Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:12:27 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-31978 Time magazine: "the U.S. military is building a new prison for what it calls 'unlawful enemy combatants' at Bagram ...." - "[W]hat the [U.S. military] calls 'unlawful enemy combatants'"? Try: what Time magazine calls its "soul brothers" or what normal Americans call "Time magazine's dearest friends". Time magazine: "the U.S. military is building a new prison for what it calls 'unlawful enemy combatants' at Bagram ...."

-

"[W]hat the [U.S. military] calls 'unlawful enemy combatants'"? Try: what Time magazine calls its "soul brothers" or what normal Americans call "Time magazine's dearest friends".

]]> By: rose83 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-31958 rose83 Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:15:18 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-31958 <i>BTW, I've been working on the Virtually Speaking on ning thing. Stop by. Give me a rant to read aloud to Fallows. The link is up to listen to the live broadcast without sullying yourself by creating an SL account.</i> -- jayackroyd, I will listen in. I'm too intimidated by the idea of actually creating an SL account - Although if I could fly like Dwight Schrute that would be cool. -- I think the issue of Obama's authority in the military may be affected by technological changes in communications - some of which are still developing - and his base of committed supporters. The whole idea of military secrets has been undermined by technological developments. If Special Ops do something in a third-world country, there's a good chance that by Obama's second term a villager will be there to record it on their cellphone. Similarly if the top military officials refuse to follow Obama's orders, news of that will likely come out quite soon. Then it becomes more of a PR battle and frankly Obama has a good record of winning those. -- Anyway I don't mean to deny the power of the military or the problems Obama faces. I just think that technological developments will affect foreign and military policy, and the power of the CIC, in ways that we may not be able to predict in January 2009. BTW, I've been working on the Virtually Speaking on ning thing. Stop by. Give me a rant to read aloud to Fallows. The link is up to listen to the live broadcast without sullying yourself by creating an SL account.
--
jayackroyd, I will listen in. I'm too intimidated by the idea of actually creating an SL account - Although if I could fly like Dwight Schrute that would be cool.
--
I think the issue of Obama's authority in the military may be affected by technological changes in communications - some of which are still developing - and his base of committed supporters. The whole idea of military secrets has been undermined by technological developments. If Special Ops do something in a third-world country, there's a good chance that by Obama's second term a villager will be there to record it on their cellphone. Similarly if the top military officials refuse to follow Obama's orders, news of that will likely come out quite soon. Then it becomes more of a PR battle and frankly Obama has a good record of winning those.
--
Anyway I don't mean to deny the power of the military or the problems Obama faces. I just think that technological developments will affect foreign and military policy, and the power of the CIC, in ways that we may not be able to predict in January 2009.

]]> By: jayackroyd http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-31953 jayackroyd Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:03:05 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-31953 <i>contra Jay, the problem is the lack of a "well-defined insurgency" in Afghanistan... there is no real impediment to treating those detainees captured in Afghanistan as prisoners of war. The problem (as the link demonstrates) is that Bagram is holding people who were not captured in Afghanistan (like the Tunisian who was arrested in Pakistan, and has been sitting in Bagram for six years.) Because he wasn't captured in Afghanistan, the US has no right to detain him as a POW under the Geneva conventions. Basically, we've just kidnapped this guy and threw him down a hole.</i> . don't understand what the "contra" is. I agree they should be treated as POWs. I agree that they've just been kidnapped and thrown into holes. Where I am saying the problem lies is that there is no condition for ending the war for which they are (temporarily) imprisoned. A POW has committed no crime, done nothing wrong. Imprisonment is necessary, from the military perspective, because he is an effective resource for the other side. So the imprisonment should be as humane as possible. And the prisoner should be released, with rancor, at the end of the war. . The problem here is that there is no end to a war on "terror." These innocent people don't have a condition upon which they will be released. And that's barbaric. contra Jay, the problem is the lack of a "well-defined insurgency" in Afghanistan... there is no real impediment to treating those detainees captured in Afghanistan as prisoners of war.
The problem (as the link demonstrates) is that Bagram is holding people who were not captured in Afghanistan (like the Tunisian who was arrested in Pakistan, and has been sitting in Bagram for six years.) Because he wasn't captured in Afghanistan, the US has no right to detain him as a POW under the Geneva conventions. Basically, we've just kidnapped this guy and threw him down a hole.
.
don't understand what the "contra" is. I agree they should be treated as POWs. I agree that they've just been kidnapped and thrown into holes. Where I am saying the problem lies is that there is no condition for ending the war for which they are (temporarily) imprisoned. A POW has committed no crime, done nothing wrong. Imprisonment is necessary, from the military perspective, because he is an effective resource for the other side. So the imprisonment should be as humane as possible. And the prisoner should be released, with rancor, at the end of the war.
.
The problem here is that there is no end to a war on "terror." These innocent people don't have a condition upon which they will be released. And that's barbaric.

]]> By: Cliff http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-31948 Cliff Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:48:14 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-31948 jayack: You're right. But I'm thinking more about what the military will allow itself to do. Does the rank hypocrisy illustrated by digby extend even into the top brass, to the point of disobeying their CiC? jayack: You're right. But I'm thinking more about what the military will allow itself to do. Does the rank hypocrisy illustrated by digby extend even into the top brass, to the point of disobeying their CiC?

]]> By: sevenoaks07 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-31934 sevenoaks07 Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:25:06 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-31934 Sorry: the dude is Pres Karzai. Sorry: the dude is Pres Karzai.

]]> By: plukasiak http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-31933 plukasiak Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:24:54 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-31933 <i>Haven't followed the links yet, but can't we simply declare that a state of war exists, declare that anyone we are holding are prisoners of war and treat them as such?</i> _ contra Jay, the problem is the lack of a "well-defined insurgency" in Afghanistan... there is no real impediment to treating those detainees captured in Afghanistan as prisoners of war. The problem (as the link demonstrates) is that Bagram is holding people who were not captured in Afghanistan (like the Tunisian who was arrested in Pakistan, and has been sitting in Bagram for six years.) Because he wasn't captured in Afghanistan, the US has no right to detain him as a POW under the Geneva conventions. Basically, we've just kidnapped this guy and threw him down a hole. Haven't followed the links yet, but can't we simply declare that a state of war exists, declare that anyone we are holding are prisoners of war and treat them as such?
_
contra Jay, the problem is the lack of a "well-defined insurgency" in Afghanistan... there is no real impediment to treating those detainees captured in Afghanistan as prisoners of war.

The problem (as the link demonstrates) is that Bagram is holding people who were not captured in Afghanistan (like the Tunisian who was arrested in Pakistan, and has been sitting in Bagram for six years.) Because he wasn't captured in Afghanistan, the US has no right to detain him as a POW under the Geneva conventions. Basically, we've just kidnapped this guy and threw him down a hole.

]]> By: sevenoaks07 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/01/05/the-other-guantanamo/comment-page-1/#comment-31932 sevenoaks07 Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:24:11 +0000 http://swampland.blogs.time.com/?p=9416#comment-31932 Why do we have our own prisons in Afghanistan? What is the green robe wearing dude doing? Why do we have our own prisons in Afghanistan? What is the green robe wearing dude doing?

]]>