He looks oddly like a wax figurine in this picture.

See, Citizen does chose unflattering pictures of people from both sides of the aisle!

I'm very happy with these orders. I don't envy Obama having to take on the bigger questions about torture and possible war crimes prosecutions but I have a feeling if he doesn't take them on, someone else in the world will.

Yay!! I'm so happy about this!

Im on the fence about Gitmo. I don't feel strongly either way.

However, I'm upset that he wants to use the Army Field manual because from what I hear that has some pretty vague language when it comes to what a terrorist's rights are, even going so far as to say that we can't make them "uncomfortable". I'll admit that I'm too lazy to look it up so if this is wrong, please tell me!

I think what bothers me most is that he said just the other day that he would launch and investigation into it for 4 months. But now on Day 2 he closes it. I think that seems pretty arrogant. To say that you know everything thre is to know about Gitmo from your one day being president and privvy to that info.

I think that comes off as a rash decision. I think he will regret that.

I've had the press conference on in the background and I don't understand how closing Gitmo will help us fight terrorism, can someone explain that to me?

And what are we going to do with all these people? If their home countries won't take them, are they going to stay here?

Maybe they could go to San Francisco and hug it out with some hippies...

Haus, maybe he just meant that we're going to fight terrorism without resorting to the kind of things that happened at Gitmo?

I'm extremely happy about this order.

Meanwhile if I was working for the CIA I'd be brushing up my resume!

We can't make them "uncomfortable"? Holy crap. That is so vague. I'm uncomfortable reading that.

Closing it will not help us fight terrorism. It will help improve our image in the world, which I think is the point. I'm sure there are other reasons but I think global perception is a huge factor. That and appeasing the hard left.

The Army Field Manual served us up until Bush.

Jude I guess I just don't get it. I don't see how this is going to make us safer. Plus we don't know for sure everything that happened at Gitmo, theres a lot of rumors but most of the info is classified. So I don't know that making a choice based on a rumors or perceptions that may not even be based on fact is a good route to go.

However, on the flip side, maybe this means he read all the info and nothing was going on there so closing it doesn't hurt anything.

Steph - I don't think it "served" us with 9/11 and the USS Cole, WTC one, etc etc...

Anyways, I'm not trying to argue. Whats done is done. I'm just trying to understand how this makes us safer. That's all.

Hey, he actually looks tired in this picture! If I had had his life from Saturday through yesterday, I'm be a complete wreck by now.

Do you think the threat of Gitmo stopped anything? Really?

Yea I really do. The same way I think jail deters criminals. The same way I think burning my hand deters me from touching fire.

I think negative effects deter bad choices.

I don't really buy into the whole "poor terrorist" thing where they just had no other choice.

'The message we are sending around the world is that the US intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly, we are going to do so effectively, and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals . . . We intend to win this fight, and we intend to win it on our terms.'

He says it best himself, we are going to fight the fight but win on our terms - we will win without torture, without injustice, and without unethical practices. I think we can do that, I think our country can meet that challenge.

the threat of gitmo means nothing to someone who is prepared to blow themsleves to bits for some holy war against the western infidels. As far as they are concerned it's a risk they are willing to take to win the war and once people understand that prison is not a deterrent to a madman then maybe the war on terror will turn around. If the death penalty doesn't stop murders and serial killers, gitmo means nothing.

I don't think the thought of going to Gitmo would deter any terrorist from carrying out their actions IMO.

"the threat of gitmo means nothing to someone who is prepared to blow themsleves to bits for some holy war against the western infidels"

OK so on that note then then how does diplomacy deter them? How do you talk sense into someone who is crazy?

At least Gitmo was a concrete example of what could happen if you did these awful things. Now what do we have? Going to a prison thats better than the life they may have had in their own countries?

The problem with Gitmo is what when on there. The tactics used where tactics that the US professes to be against. We lecture the world so ardently on human rights and then sacrifice all of our principles out of the belief that fast prosecution will lock up terrorists and interrogations would yield us more information. I'm sure there has been tons of useful information to come out of Gitmo and the importance of that cannot be understated.

The problem is that if your goal is to not only punish those responsible for 9/11 and other attacks, but to also stem the tide of terrorism and prevent terrorism the tactics used and the treatment of the prisoners plays a big role in that. Yes, many of these prisoners orchestrated horrific events, but you are just fueling the fire of the terrorists that are not locked up. Furthermore, if our goal is also to spread democracy to the regions of the world where it is lacking, we will be far more successful leading by example than leading by 'Do as we say, not as we do.'

I think I rambled, but those are my basic thoughts on Gitmo.

I am Happy! So Happy! and GAAAAAAAAY!!

I see what your saying M2 and I agree with most of it, however I think we should do everything we can diplomatically but still hold onto Gitmo as an "if all else fails" kind of strategy. What's wrong with doing both? Besides, its not as if everyone who went to Gitmo got tortured. Very few people actually did and we did get some good information that potentially saved thousands of lives.

So I guess I'm saying that I don't think an all or nothing approach is the best one to take. I don't think it should be only diplomacy. But I don't think it should be only Gitmo either.

Hence my problem with the Army Field manual part. I probably wouldn't care about the closing of Gitmo if we could still use coercive methods in extreme circumstances, but now we can't even do that. It seems like we really have nothing left.

Oh my!

Yea I really do. The same way I think jail deters criminals. The same way I think burning my hand deters me from touching fire.
I think negative effects deter bad choices.

A lot of these people are from countries that can pull out pretty frightening punishments for stealing, much less blowing up a ship. I don't think Gitmo scared anyone.

"What's wrong with doing both?"
War crimes issues. Having our military people then subject to the exact same treatment without recourse.

Well steph our military people are subjected to the same treatment and now we have no recourse.

Terrorists don't follow the geneva conventions you know.

Very well said, MM! I just want to add that Gitmo is like Abu Gharib. Maybe not everything that happened there was horrible, but it became a prison that symbolized torture and corruption. Bush decided it needed to be closed, and that showed a strong message. I think Gitmo being closed shows a strong message as well.

Fair or not, what matters is the perception. Even if 5 people were tortured out of 50,000 it does matter particularly when the Administration is not only allowing this or turning blind eye to it, but explicitly endorsing the tactics.

Any way of dealing with terrorist suspects will not go smoothly, that is a given. But my view is that the Bush Administration bungled this so terribly that their tactics did not make us safer against future attacks. That opinion is from reading information on the rise of terrorism and some of the events that have caused it to ignite.

I'm sure the President will have white hair by next week.

mydiadem, well said.

Then why is what was done there such a big deal, if it wasn't a big deal to them. The whole point of gitmo, and what many of you are failing to see, is it was a place to gather information more than anything. therefore the tactics. I don't think people were afraid to go to gitmo. But thos crazy, madmen will not just outright give information about which target they are going to hit next. Especially if they know that all they have to do is wait the 72 hours ( that was the time before bush got into office), then they would be released

'Terrorists don't follow the geneva conventions you know.'

Right, but can't we as a US government be better than terrorists? It goes back to what MM said,"if our goal is also to spread democracy to the regions of the world where it is lacking, we will be far more successful leading by example than leading by 'Do as we say, not as we do."

I don't see this is helping us fight terrorism at all. We can be as nice to them as we want and they will still hate us and want to kill us all.

How many times have Israel and Hamas had a peace treaty and what happens?

I agree that we should hold ourselves to a better, higher standard. But I think that is theoretical. In theory thats what we should be doing and that should be our Plan A but in practice, in reality, sometimes things get nasty and we need a Plan B that is reserved for dire circumstances.

AT LAST! I'm so happy for that. Guantanamo is such a shame! Prisoners need legal rights, otherwise the US just becomes another terrorist state just like the ones they claim to fight.

You can't have some 60 people with no charges at all against them tortured daily for 7 years. And if the rest of them are charged, judge them.

Thank you, Obama.

Terrorists don't follow the Geneva Conventions, but if we get away with violating the Conventions, then it's not simply terrorists that raise concerns. Any government will be able to point to our precedent setting behavior and take prisoners randomly, not allow international aid groups to see them, try our people in their courts, punish our people as they see fit...

So any soldier who guarded any of Bush's prison camps could be grabbed by any country, in any country, at any time - years from now even - and taken to prison and tried for war crimes - and we won't have a leg to stand on in front of any international court.

I guess what I want to know is if it meant that thousands of people would die but we got to say that we behaved better than terrorists, would that be an alright ouctome for those of you who support this?

And I don't mean that in an accusatory way, I'm really just trying to understand.

I don't think that is the eventual options if Gitmo is closed, haus.

You're right, haus, being nice doesn't help but it also doesn't hurt us. In fighting terrorism it will be impossible for us to win on our own, we absolutely must have the cooperation of countries like Pakistan. If they see as being worse than the terrorists (their view, obviously, will not match ours) they won't help us. There are many lines to toe and it's obviously not easy to figure it out. I do not envy anyone taking this on!

Yeah, thousands dying is not the only alternative to Gitmo.

There are actually times and places in this world where diplomacy, working together with mutual respect, does prevent terrible things from happening and actually makes things better. You cannot torture and kill all our potential enemies out of existence.

No I def. don't think being nice hurts us.

I just don't see why we can't be nice and diplomatic and make that our focus but also reserve the right to use coercive methods in special circumstances. I don't see why it has to be all or nothing.

I'm not saying its the only alternative. I'm asking a very specific question. I never once said it was the only alternative. Im trying to flesh out if that is ok with you guys if it is, thats fine, no judgement. I just want to know.

If we're not getting information from people who obviously won't give it up easily, then its a very real possibility that there could be an attack that we could have avoided by coerced interrogation.

So if we had this person but we did nothing to them as per the army field manual and as result the attack was carried out, is it going to make us feel better that we stuck to our morals but people died for it?

Because we're civilized and want our forces to be treated in a civilized manner if captured. And there's no point in pretending that we NEVER assassinate, or stir up a revolution in other countries to get what we want. But to formalize torture is a dangerous step toward the Dark Side.

Most experts say that torture does not yield usable information.

It's not as if someone like me wrote the Army Field Manual Haus. The people who wrote it were/are military experts who drew on years of experience and history.

"Because we're civilized and want our forces to be treated in a civilized manner if captured."

I don't think there is any hope of that if captured by terrorists. We can be as nice as we want and they will still not reciprocate. With a more civilized people and in a conventional war I would agree with you, but when you're fighting these small groups of terrorists there is no way they will treat our soldiers with respect so I think thats a moot point.

Ok steph re: #49, thats fair. But I feel like we should at least firm up the language of "uncomfortable"

I mean, what if its 68 degrees in the room and the suspect likes it to be 72? He is then "uncomfortable" and now thats torture?