A fair, safe way to close Guantánamo

Yeah, there's the ticket; just gettem to promise to be nice. Gee ... wunner why nobody thoughtta that before

tim, let's assume that more than half of the Gitmo prisoners were innocent. Hundreds have been released already after being mistreated for years.
.
If you were innocent and suffered for a long time in a gulag, would you thank the people who release you and go home to join a church choir?
.
If 2oo-3oo released hard-core prisoners join the army of 120 000, would that be world-shaking?
The longer Gitmo stays open, the more the world will resent the US. The whole thing smells too much of 'Gestapo'.

Between Gestapo and Pollyana lies reality.

I wish I could say that I'm disappointed to hear you say that, Timber, but the reality has been shown far too many times. You and all you profess to believe in is nothing more than a lousy charade.

If you can't find legal, moral and ethical ways to deal with this then you, as a country, are no better than the worst of the war criminals that have been tried over the last century.

That you can sit and make light of innocent people being held indefinitely speaks volumes about your character.

Reality ain't always pretty and its rarely fair. Don't hafta like it, just gotta deal with it.

How is "dealing with it" in this case ostensibly different from "ignoring it"?

A big husband beating his wife is the lowest of human beings.
.
A soldier in uniform who tortures a defenseless prisoner is worse, he is the scum of the earth. If he acts on orders from above, the scum sits in a Pentagon office changing the rules of behaviour.

Lower than:

* A serial killer?
* A woman who murders her children?
* A brother who sells his brother for a pittance?
* A group of young hoodlums who beat a gay person to death?
* A man who tortures and poisons animals for pleasure?
* A terrorist who murders 20,000 people to make a religious point?
* A child who colors outside the lines in his little sister's coloring book?
* A woman who cheats on her husband, and then murders him in his sleep so she can move on to greener pastures?
* A narcotics addict whose sells heroin to school children to support his own habit?
* A traitor to their country in time of war?
* A profit gouger who corners and sells life saving drugs at 5000% profit after a natural disaster?
* A girl who betrays a secret confided by her best friend for a malted milk?

... and the list goes on ... and on ... and on ....

It's pretty hard to define just how low a human-being can sink. Some, believe it or not, insult others for holding different political opinions while excusing the excesses of their own political friends.

BTW "War is not a tea party", Mao Tse-tung. War is inherently destructive of life and property. The "innocent" ALWAYS suffer from war. War loosens the bonds of civilization, and brutality is natural and unavoidable. War is inherently wasteful, and it is foolish to suppose that anyone can transform War into a friendly game of chess played in the soft sunshine of an afternoon in the park. War is probably the least admirable characteristic of our species, but we would be less than we are if war didn't exist.

An unexpected conclusion to a rational post.

Ash:War is probably the least admirable characteristic of our species, but we would be less than we are if war didn't exist.
.
Sounds like we have to behave like scumbags from time to time, to be what we are. Makes no sense.
.
I prefer peace.

He Wrote the Book on Torture


War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror, John Yoo, Atlantic Monthly Press, 224 pages
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_10_09/review.html

Life is what comes along and bites you in the ass while you're busy making plans to the contrary.
John Lennon

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf
George Orwell.

Of course, we all prefer peace to war. No one hates war so much as those who know it. The better you know war, the more you hate it.

Children hate the taste of medicine, but never the less it is from time to time necessary. Few students love the years of discipline and study necessary to become highly skilled within their specialty. When a leg becomes infected with gangrene, it must be cut off though few relish the idea of amputation. We teach our children that fighting is wrong, but avoiding the school yard bully serves neither the victim, nor the petite tyrant.

"It takes two to make a fight", we are told. A truism, and the pacifist's prescription for peace. When confronted with a threat, just step aside. Of course, this usually requires surrender of something. Sometimes the loss may be only a bit of one's pride and self-esteem, but often peace is purchased by loss of territory, resources, and capability. As one retreats before threats, the person/group making that threat becomes stronger, and more determined to push for ever greater concessions. One side continually grows weaker while the other grows stronger and more insistent upon having its way. Some pursue "peace" so ardently that one morning they awaken to find themselves with a single choice: slavery or extinction.

One has to weigh the risks of war and peace without full understanding of where either course may eventually lead. Those who are responsible for making policy decisions that weigh lives against anticipated future conditions are in an unenviable position.

A few years ago President Clinton called off at the last moment a military strike on the nuclear weapons program of the DPRK. He recognized that there was a high probability that the result might be a renewal of active combat on the Korean Peninsula. However, it was also clear that left unchecked that the DPRK would have nuclear warheads to threaten its neighbors within a reasonably short time. War or Peace? President Clinton weighed the alternatives, and chose to make a deal with North Korea. The DPRK would halt their nuclear program in exchange for food and other necessities critically needed to avoid a major famine. The U.S., Japan and ROK lived up to their end of the bargain, but most of the foreign aid went directly to the military and political elite. Far worse, and as predicted by Old Asian Hands, the DPRK lied about curtailing their nuclear weapons program. Secret laboratories and facilities actually benefited by having resources available that would otherwise have had to be consumed to keep the State afloat. Less than a decade later, the DPRK has nuclear weapons and developed longer range missiles. The North Koreans in that time forged closer links with Iran and Yemen, and shared with them their arms and nuclear expertise. Now the contagion has spread from an isolated North Asian dictatorship to South Asia, an area already near the boiling point.

Would the United States, and the world, be better off today if President Clinton had ordered the strike and accepted the consequences of war on the Korean Peninsula? Who can say for sure, but many within the military and intelligence community believe we should have taken out those facilities long, long ago. Clinton did what he sincerely believed was the right thing to do. He avoided war, but in the process he may well have put us on the path to a far worse situation with a risk of a larger and more destructive conflict.

One last example, would the world have been better off if Britain had thrown in the towel in 1936 and made "peace" with the Axis rather than engage in a lengthy and destructive war?

Wars do solve diplomatic problems, even as the create new ones. There is no diplomacy without the sword.

Fear will trump civilization every time....

To recognize an enemy and understand his capabilities isn't fear, it is the almost impossible task of policy makers at the highest levels of government. One only has to fear threats when unable to respond effectively to them. If one has the means of voiding any threat, especially those aimed at your destruction, then what is there to fear? War isn't so much to be feared, as respected and conducted in such a manner as to achieve the diplomatic end that best serves one's nation. Another truism is, "A stitch in time, saves nine". Dealing with threats while they are "small" and "distant" involves less risk to the nation, than waiting until those threats are great and immanent.

The trick is separating real threats from imagined threats.

Protecting oneself from real threats is prudence.

Protecting oneself from imagined threats is paranoia.



I shall put you down with Okie as one of those that is so concerned for his own safety that he doesn't care who gets trampled during his rush for the door.

So Drew,

You don't believe that the United States is threatened today by any foreign State, or by radical Islamic terrorists operating without State sanction? You don't regard the unambiguous words of Al Quida and the President of Iran as a threat to the United States and Western Civilization? Attacks upon American interests, citizens, and military since the 1990's does not, in your opinion, constitute a threat? You see know threat to the United States, or world peace, by the spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states? What is the prudent policy for the United States to follow in light of these threats and attacks?

How are these verbal threats and attacks imaginary? Surely, you don't believe that it's all a bit of Hollywood paranoia cooked up by the Jews, Masons, and conservative Republicans leading up to a coupe en route to world dominion. Now THATS imaginary, and paranoid.

Iraq is a good example of a country attacked and destroyed for no apparent reason by a bully. A wise decision, I'm sure, following God's advice. Now we have multiplied the terrorist armies and the world is more violent than before.
.
The thousands of soldiers who lost a leg or an arm must be wondering whether it was for a good cause.
.
It must be difficult to play policeman to the world and lecture others how to behave.

I'm saying you seem to be so frightened that you say "if they might be a terrorist, then lock 'em up!"

The folks in Guantanamo can be separated into three groups: leaders, footsoldiers, and innocents.

What is the real benefit to the US of continuing to detain the latter two groups? Neither group presents a serious threat to the US or its interests at this point, other than negative propaganda.


Guantanamo has become an albatross around our necks. Let's cut it loose.