We've never had any problem using findings and reports from groups like Amnesty International against other countries so of course we should pay attention to anything they have to say about us. Unless we're hypocrites.

I second Stephley.

Yes stephley the Bush administration has got into the game of the pot calling the kettle black.

We have become so intoxicated with power that we're blind to our own misdeeds. We need to learn to put our selves in check and not get so wrapped up in pride and nationalism lest we forget the cares of the rest of humanity.

I guarantee that if we wield justice upon our selves the international community will find the respect for us that they once lost.

"I guarantee that if we wield justice upon our selves the international community will find the respect for us that they once lost."

I agree. You have to be like Baby's father in Dirty Dancing...

"When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong."

Sorry but it's not WE. It's HE and his paranoid cronies. This is so un-American.

We should be ashamed. Not of America, but of our (un)elected leaders who put us in a position to be embarrassed by Amnesty.

But its up to Us to stop them.

Does anyone know of a good reason not to close Gitmo?

I have never heard a good argument against closing it, but there must be one out there... does anyone know what it is??

Not that it's a good reason not to close it, but closing it won't solve the problem. It would just be a bandaid on a tumor.

i agree with kim, there is no point in closing gitmo unless we stop the practices that we use inside it. that being said, it irritates me the human rights violations that we commit, mainly on terrorists and those we feel are a threat to our national security, are being lumped in with the human rights violations that china and russia commit, mainly on those who have the audacity to dissent from their oppressive laws. i feel that doing so takes away from the violations that china and russia are committing upon there own citizens. violations that are completely legal. history will look down upon the us for gitmo and the iraq war but the violations that china and russia commit will most likely continue on if groups like amnesty international take their attention away from them.

flutterpie!!!!!! "it irritates me the human rights violations that we commit, mainly on terrorists and those we feel are a threat to our national security, are being lumped in with the human rights violations that china and russia commit..."

THANK YOU for mentioning that. Hubby and I were discussing it but I couldn't word it well enough to post here, mainly because I was letting my emotions get in the way.

But the people at Gitmo have not been tried and found guilty of anything. They are "alleged" to be involved in terrorism, right?

These "oversight" groups will always target the US, probably because investigating China and the former Soviet Union is difficult and ineffective. Therefore, I would take their comments with a spoonful of salt. However, I'm not too thrilled with the way things have been done at Gitmo.

My understanding (IIRC) is that these prisoners were considered too much of a risk to house within US territory. However, even the worst offender should receive to a trial within a reasonable amount of time. Indefinite imprisonment without charges is a violation of everything in which most Americans believe.

IMO the best way to disprove criticism is fair, speedy and transparent processing of suspects. If we can't come up with reasonably solid charges, consider extradition to another country that can. Otherwise, release them with some kind of compensation/restitution for the time they were held.

cabaker,

The reason I've heard not to close Gitmo is that we simply have nowhere else these people can go. Many of their home countries will refuse to accept them back.

A couple weeks ago a Kuwaiti man who had been deemed "not a terrorist threat" and released from Gitmo blew himself up along with many women and children. It could be argued that he was radicalized during his imprisonment, but the fact that he was there in the first place makes me think that might not be the case.

The problem with giving them a trial and charging them with something (from what I'm told by friends in the military who would know better than me) is that many of the men are taken in the midst of engagements against coalition forces. It can be blatantly obvious that they are insurgents or Taleban, but you can't possibly expect an infantry unit in the middle or direct aftermath of battle to gather evidence against the men that would hold up in court.

I think it's horrible, but I can't think of any other option at this point.

This administration disrespects each and every man and woman who gave their life fighting for a nation that prides itself on freedom. When I think of the veterans who died so that we can enjoy our beliefs and then have a few miserable, dried up old men desecrate that sacrifice without pause, and then attempt to justify it with patriotism, I truly understand what the word "perversion" means.

And for anyone who believes that extinguishing our rights without question - the right of free press, free assembly and habeus corpus - has no pride or sense of duty to this nation.

I thank you.

"These "oversight" groups will always target the US, probably because investigating China and the former Soviet Union is difficult and ineffective. Therefore, I would take their comments with a spoonful of salt"
Amnesty International is nearly 50 years old and has been honored throughout the world for its work on behalf of prisoners of conscience-it's had plenty to say and do in Russia and China. Its made up of nearly 2,000 groups in 33 countries. The organization was awarded the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize for its "campaign against torture" and the UN Human Rights Prize in 1978.
EU nations, the Organization of American States and Human Rights Watch also have protested Guantanamo.
It's an affront to everything this country stands for and lame claims that the prisoners have no where else to go or were taken in the midst of engagements with 'coalition' forces are insults to the intelligence and conscience of Americans.

"lame claims that the prisoners have no where else to go or were taken in the midst of engagements with 'coalition' forces are insults to the intelligence and conscience of Americans."

Why? Do you think those are false claims?

The claims must be questioned if not totally discounted, because the detainee review process has been so flawed and so closed to public or legal scrutiny. Most reports say there are some cleared detainees that haven't been able to leave Guantanamo because they have no where to go - that number tends to hover around 100. But officials admit that private negotiations between the U.S. and the detainees' home countries often play a more important part than detainee hearings in determining when and if a detainee is released. We're not running a home for stateless men down at Guantanamo; at least one case has been dropped because the defendant was tortured before 'confessing' and there's no doubt we've violated what we would consider the detainees' basic human rights. If we can't charge someone with gathering evidence that would hold up in court and won't designate these detainees as prisoners of war and adhere to international rules regarding their treatment then we have no business keeping them in our custody.

"If we can't charge someone with gathering evidence that would hold up in court and won't designate these detainees as prisoners of war and adhere to international rules regarding their treatment then we have no business keeping them in our custody."

The POW issue is an interesting one...

The Geneva Convention's criteria for POW status are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Al Qaeda does not satisfy these conditions. Perhaps Osama bin Laden could be considered "a person responsible for his subordinates," although the cell structure of al Qaeda belies the notion of a chain of command. But in any event, al Qaeda members openly flout the remaining three conditions.

Al Qaeda members deliberately attempt to blend into the civilian population - violating the requirement of having a "fixed distinctive sign" and "carrying arms openly." Moreover, they target civilians, which violates the "laws and customs of war."

Nevertheless, treating the al Qaeda and Taliban captives as prisoners of war, whether or not they are legally entitled to the status, would be less risky than it may at first appear. So long as al Qaeda and its deadly ideology exists, we cannot say that there has been, in the words of the Geneva Convention, a "cessation of active hostilities," which would entitle the captives to be released.

Given the above, the only reason I can think that they haven't been classified as POW's is because prisoners of war are not obligated to provide information beyond their "name, rank and
serial number."

Sorry. It's late and I only addressed the POW issue in my last post...

As for the gathering evidence, war simply does not fit that mold. The normal investigative processes used in U.S. criminal trials – Miranda rights, chain of custody of evidence, etc. is simply impossible when applied to a combat situation (Ross Kemp is a journalist who did an amazing series on the front lines with British soldiers that really helps to demonstrate what goes on. Here's a link to a clip if anyone's interested: http://youtube.com/watch?v=4aMZVPDuBnI&feature=related)
Crime is from Mars, warfare is from Venus – the two simply don’t mate. Those who cry for criminal prosecution under the U.S. justice system should read about the nature of war and how justice has been applied over the years – the two systems are simply designed for entirely different scenarios.

I think something needs to be done, but I don't have a solution. But if one exists, I doubt that it is as black and white as simply mustering up some charges or releasing the detainees. Just as we aren't running a home for stateless men, we aren't exactly running a home for the harmless dissident or falsely accused.

My grammar and typing errors are increasing as the night wears on... see you in the morning.

Are all the detainees members of Al Queda or the Taliban? As we know little about most of the people who have been detained, and only a handful have been charged, it's speculation to say they're members of anything. There is reason to believe that many of them are nothing more than unfortunate men who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they haven't been classified as POW's because prisoners of war are not obligated to provide information beyond their "name, rank and serial number" then at least that designation would keep us from trying to torture more out of them - that only seems to end in death and dropped charges any way.
I worry far less about al Queda's 'deadly ideology' than I do about an Administration that violates American laws and values in it's pursuit of phantom terrorists.

Alright, I'll bite.

I don't know if all the detainees are members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban. They probably all aren't, but it doesn't bring them any closer to fulfilling the requirements to be classified as a POW.

"There is reason to believe that many of them are nothing more than unfortunate men who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Where is the reason to believe all this? You just said yourself that we know very little about the detainees. Is it just that you would rather believe they are benign victims of circumstance or is there actual evidence to justify this statement?

I'm curious as to what you meant by your last sentence. By using the term 'phantom terrorists' do you mean that you believe there is no terrorist threat to America? Or did you simply mean that you feel more threatened by this administration than you do by any foreign terror activity?

There is no reason to close Gitmo. The problem isn't with the base, it's with the people contained in the base. The people who we have detained are suspected terrorists, so releasing them isn't an option. IMO, we should provid sensitivity training for those who have been trying to kill us, and once they've passed, send them home.

great discussion ladies and gents

War crimes trials have handled the issues involving the special circumstances of war - and they resoundingly say there are ways to behave within legal boundaries during wartime and if you stray beyond the boundries you should and will be punished.

There was a study in 2006, using the government’s own documents – 517 Unclassified Summaries of Evidence from the Combatant Status Review Tribunals – which concluded that, according to the government, "86 percent of the detainees were not captured on the battlefield by US forces, but were captured by the Northern Alliance or Pakistani forces, 55 percent were not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the US or its allies, and only 8 percent were alleged to have had any kind of affiliation with al-Qaeda."
Let's be generous to the government and say the report overstated-even if you cut the 55% to 28% - that's a lot of people picked up and held for doing nothing.

I feel much more afraid of this government than I do of foreign terrorism, yes. A terrorist wants to kill me, I get it. The Bush Administration says it's protecting me yet it lies about getting into war, violates the rights of Americans and others around the world, builds secrety prisons, outsources torture and even death - creating more terrorists.

In war, we need to take extreme measures. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. During both World Wars there were sedition acts passed of varying degrees. Some were rather shameful (the Japanese in camps, for instance), but I believe they were necessary on the whole. I'm sorry that maybe innocent people are being detained. I truly am. But I am also sorry that 3,000 innocent people were murdered on 9/11. This is what happens during war on both sides of the trenches.

I think the rest of the world is very aware of what extreme measures are required during war - and yet, nations still sign on to treaties regarding conduct of the war, treatment of combatants, treatment of non-combatants, treatment of civilians... and when leaders, officers, soldiers are tried for their actions after the war, many are severely punished despite their claims that they were only doing what was necessary or following orders.

"If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison.
They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."
Dwight Eisenhower and he made it abundantly clear that he meant our government as well as any foreign power.

As a country, we should not engage in practices against citizens of other countries that we would be against if those countries did it to our citizens. I'm not against the idea of the prison there, i just think that if the US is going to accuse others of human rights abuses and hold itself up as a moral leader, they need to hold themselves accountable. Standards and rules need to be set and followed, with appropriate punishments for not following them.

detaining someone because we have to investigate to see if they are involved with terrorist activity is not engaging in any illegal practices. How they were treating some of those detainees, absolutely was. I agree with stiletta, I'm sorry that there might be some innocent people in Guantanamo, but we have to keep them somewhere during the investigation process. And yes that process can be improved I'm sure.

I do see your point’s stiletta true President Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm) however that was during a civil war in the mid later half of the 19th century. As for the sedition act of 1918 it was clearly unconstitutional and no high court in the land today would support that act today.

The U.S. can not move forward while holding onto 19th century world views nor can it afford to move forward while repeating the same mistakes that history has clearly illustrated are the wrong paths to choose.

There was a reason why we participated and signed humanitarian treaties post WWII and I highly suggest we revisit those reasons before history records that we had the chance to take a different path but chose to travel down the same road.

Why do 'we' have to investigate random people? Who gave us that authority? If Iran decided it needed to investigate possible terrorists and started picking up people at airports in certain countries, would that be okay with you? Which countries are allowed to do this and which are not? If France pulled you in until they could determine you weren't a terrorist, would that be okay with you?

ok isn't Guantanamo owned by the US? So isn't that why "we" are putting people there, and gosh I don't know this thing that happened on 9/11 that prompted alot of this detaining and investigating.

As far as me going to another country and being detained. First of all, I wouldn't be doing anything suspicious to warrant them to question me, however, if for the sake of argument I was detained and had to be investigated, would I like it? No. but I would completely understand it especially if their country had been attacked by terrorists. It's not like the people who are in Guantanamo are there arbitrarily, it's not like authorities prowl around looking for someone who looks like they need to be in Guantanamo. The military go on missions and when they find insurgents or possible terrorists during these missions shouldn't they be detained and questioned?

So we own a place, how does that give us permission to detain people there? We're detaining people in a number of other countries as well. Just because 9/11 happened here doesn't give us permission to do as we please worldwide. If you would understand completely if their country had been attacked by terrorists would you be okay with Iraqis randomly detaining people? Their country has been attacked and thousands of civilians killed - I'm sure we fit the definition of terrorists to many of them.

We've outsourced detaining people (86 percent of the detainees were not captured on the battlefield by US forces, but were captured by the Northern Alliance or Pakistani)so we're not sure that they were doing anything that warranted suspicion or whether they were picked up for some in-country political purpose. We've held a number of people for several years without charging them with anything or giving them access to lawyers so that they could contact family members to vouch for them.

I said the investigation process needed to change, and the way the detainees were being treated should be changed as well. I simply don't think closing Guantanamo is the answer.

I was disagreeing with your "random people" comment. I don't know what else to say on this.

While I agree that all detainees need to be treated with the utmost respect, I am saddened that there is not outcry for the injustices done to the American detainees in Iraq or Afghanistan. I have a hard time comparing sleep deprivation to murder.

I think we should absolutely listen to Amnesty International. The United States should be setting an example for other countries to follow.

Dave, please tell us more about that.

I'm referring to the Daniel Pearl (et al), who are "kidnapped" and killed. American workers in Iraq, who are just there (besides making a great wage) to rebuild the infrastructure are routinely targeted. Why is there no outrage about the atrocities that the enemy is doing to our people?

Dave, that's a good point.

There has been plenty of outrage over Daniel Pearl and the victims of 9/11. But even many Americans think by this point, the Administration has over-reacted and allowed the U.S. to sink to behavior that we cannot support.
The American workers in Iraq willingly place themselves in a war situation. A great deal of that destroyed infrastructure was destroyed by us and therefore, our workers are seen by some as the enemy. It's tragic for their families when they are killed, just as it is tragic for all those Iraqi civilians who have been killed by all sides in this war.
But that's different from the U.S. having Pakistani forces arrest a taxi driver and sending him to Guantanamo.
What has happened does not justify our setting ourselves up as posse, judge, jury and executioner of anyone we think might intend to do us harm.

Here's a reason to close Gitmo: you claim that trade is illegal with Cuba, yet you're leasing land on their island from their government, and have been doing so since 1902.

Sounds hella hypocritical. Its either that or drop the embargo.