jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (37 posts)

What Do You Think About Closing Guantanamo Bay (GITMO)

  1. SonQuioey10 profile image87
    SonQuioey10posted 4 years ago

    President Obama is determined to close Guantanamo Bay. People were angry about it, tweeting he should've been closed it. I tweeted that the President isn't a king here, he can't decree Guantanamo Bay closed etc... He should be able make executive orders without votes but that's not our system.

    Overall, do you think all prisoners, deemed terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, should be tried in court and placed in a US prison? Do you think they'll be safe in the prisons or make them worst? Personally I think they'll be butchered, killed, or worst placed in the holes never to get out again.

    What do you think?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Personally, I'm not real concerned whether terrorists, striving to murder as many civilians as possible, are safe or not.  Just that they are kept out of society.

      That doesn't mean that they should not have a trial, however.  They should, with the only question being a civilian one or a military one.

      1. SonQuioey10 profile image87
        SonQuioey10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        That's a great point. Any man or woman wearing anything can commit an act of terrorism.

        They aren't typically dressed like soldiers, so their not on active duty, which means we wouldn't be able to allow the military to deal with them. However, their dressed like citizens, so would you say the police should deal with them?

        It looks as if our civil justice system, not military, is only fair to suffice for their punishment.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          There is precedent - how do we treat spies,  assassins or other non-uniformed people that are basically operating with the military?

          1. SonQuioey10 profile image87
            SonQuioey10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            They are usually treated like, kill on site and treat however you want, overseas.

            My international politics professor said if you're acting as a spy, assassin, or something other, in the event that you are caught, you will be abandoned. You are considered acting in your own interest, all ties to you will be severed. You actions are authorized but not authorized, so to speak.

            Interesting career choice right?

            To me, the US, does the same thing in regards to terrorists because it's such a hierarchal design. I learned from my professor in her Terrorism class that, the instigator, which was Osama Bin Laden, was the greatest threat. The one we they wanted to stop the most because he was instigating the terrorism and using religion and cultural threats to do it. So when a suicide bomber committed his act, he was considered acting independently of Osama's will but for Allah. It's authorized yet not authorized.

            This is the same design to US officials as an assassin, spy, or Black Op person even, so they're treating them as individuals who have rights to have their human needs satisfied, but never to have freedom. That's how I see GITMO.

            Any thoughts?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Not quite what I meant.  If we catch a spy on US soil, what do we do with him?  Try him in a civilian court or military?  Who locks him up (or executes him) if found guilty? 

              We can easily make the case that terrorism is a case of war, that terrorists are soldiers out of uniform and that makes a special case for them (I think, anyway).  If so, does that mean that the military has jurisdiction?

              1. SonQuioey10 profile image87
                SonQuioey10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I don't think so because they're not in uniform. Because of the definition I say try him in a civil court.

                Then again militias are considered unprofessional armed forces, and they did carry military weapons, and their cause is to overtake or break down a massive amount of people, so one would consider them tried in the hands the military based on all those factors. We would have to rewrite some definitions. Act of terrorism is very broad, too broad, a definition to say.

                Spy's caught here are probably strenuously questioned, placed in GITMO for a while, then set free and monitored here and abroad for years. Allies would know about he or she, and they would all just watch them forever. See who they talk to, where they go. That's the impression, 'impression,' I was given way back when. Just an opinion, so to speak.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Guantanamo Bay is useful just as it is.
      The main reason Obama wants it closed is so he can prove he did something that George Bush didn't get done.   Another reason is so he can treat suspected terrorists with kid gloves like he treated the Fort Hood killer.
      He's an unfit leader.   Why doesn't everyone see him for what he is?-------a biased community organizer who's in way over his head when it comes to actually being able to lead a Nation correctly.    And no one person is actually able to do that!   However, if he had any good sense, or any intention of leading this Nation correctly, he would've surounded himself with advisers and good knowledgeable people who could assist him.   But instead he chose a clown for VP, another unqualified & racist for Attorney General, an out-of-control women's libber for Secretary of State, and a whole list of undesirables for other positions.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Well, that and because he promised he would before he had any real idea of why it had not been done already.

        I don't really know why that should matter, though - he fulfilled very few of the promises he made.  I don't think he even bought that poor woman the house and car she said he promised! smile

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I know!   How awful!  lol

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I'm going to assume that a man of his stature would not renege on promises.  There was a mistake and the check is in the mail - to Wilderness! smile

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I bet that's it!
              It'll just take a while longer.
              Many Post Offices are suffering big cutbacks on manpower and hours.
              So just be paaaaaatient.....wink

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I hope it's a Ferrari!  And Bill Gates's guest house, too.  Surely he has enough of that free money to do more than a Geo or Kia...lol

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Just be careful----he's liable to say that's not really his signature on the check........
                  And make sure it don't bounce.   He could've already spent all the money on golf clubs.....or duct tape for Joe Biden's mouth..........odd, haven't seen hide nor hair of him for some time...

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    I'd be more concerned that he will repossess both to help pay for Obamacare.

                    Maintain BOTH promises that way...even if both are broken at the same time.

      2. SonQuioey10 profile image87
        SonQuioey10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        @Brenda Durham I respect your opinion and thanks for replying but I think you have your knowledge a little off. President Obama did not make any promises like that. He said he would try and do everything in his power to make these changes.

        If he said he would do it all, end of story, a lot of people would not have voted for him because in our political system make-up, he can't just do anything he wants to.

        And the only reason why President Bush didn't get Osama Bin Laden or was able to swiftly pull our troops from Iraq, prepare the people, and leave the country in their hands, was because he made decisions like an Army General instead of leaving all this to his Department of Defense.

        I guess I could feel the way you do and blame everything on President Obama if he was a King and this was a monarchy, but even then, the influence and strategies of men around him in his cabinets, would influence his decisions because of public recognition, support, and money.

        Businesses drive the economy not the President. He needs business owners to be considerate to their fellow county-men and women, and they don't like Obamacare, so they aren't hiring. At least some are hiring but on a contractor basis, with no benefits. They don't want to stop the sales of weapons so they influenced the vote on background checks through loyal senators etc...

        But as for Guantanamo Bay, it staying the way it is will cause an inhumane backlash of injustice. Something people are screaming now. The question is, what to do about that.

        Thanks for stopping by.

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Close it, it's about time.  Human rights offenses are inexcusable anywhere and all prisons funded by public money should be subject to public scrutiny and review as should all trials.

      1. IslandBites profile image88
        IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I agree 100%.

    4. IslandBites profile image88
      IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I dont think this should be a political issue, nor an Obama issue. Guantanamo should be close because it goes against everything democracy stands for.

    5. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes close it.

      As long as the prisoners are released and rehoused in the US and possibly compensated for their term there.
      Would you like to live next dooe to one?

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Many of us live close to prisons, there is a maximums security one not too far from where I live that houses a serial killer etc. there has never been an escape. It's really not an issue.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I didn't mean house them in prisons Josak. If as many people say these prisoners have done nothing why not let them go?
          Funny enough we have a prison not far from us, it also housed high security prisoners and i believe over the years its had a few escapes.
          Of course the biggest threat to peoples security are their own governments.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            No one is seriously suggesting releasing them in the US, they would be moved to other prisons and receive fair trials.

            Given the security, far reduced chances of violent death and change in life expectancy brought about in the modern age it's obvious that governments are the greatest security for people.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Fair trials? In the US, the American justice system is all about the celebrity of certain lawyers, the more they cost the more likely the criminal is to get off with.
              Some times the best justice is rough justice.

      2. Zelkiiro profile image88
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I believe George Carlin nailed this one:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aKlMr-fcnM&t=01m20s

  2. profile image0
    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago

    Oh my goodness!   I found him!
    While American lives on and off our soil are in REAL jeopardy,  guess where Joe Biden is?!

    Yep----you guessed it-----on a game show...........



    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … rdy-cameo/

  3. wmac profile image61
    wmacposted 4 years ago

    Recent Obama pronouncements have declared an end to war.  Close Guantanamo once again, limit drone strikes to surveillance and, once and for all, take America off of a “perpetual war footing”. How is this unilateral truce (surrender) going to work to our benefit?
    Before unfettered free enterprise channeled “A” types into productive challenges, war has been our major industry since two humans became aware of each other.  The Roman empire prospered from the booty of conquests until they could reach no further and the Ottoman empire reached their limit on their third unsuccessful assault on Vienna.
    The notion that if we won’t fight, they won’t attack us underpins a liberal view of the world which eschews a reading of history.  When Isreal vacated southern Lebanon unilaterally,  Yassir Arafat was heard complaining to the Isreali foreign minister that he was being pressured by Hamas to step up anti Isreali activity at this sign of weakness.  The second intifada followed within a couple of months.
    In an interview years after the Vietnam conflict ended, a North Vietnamese general said that if we had landed troops into North Vietnam, they would have needed to pull their resources out of South Vietnam to defend the homeland.  Contrast this with the Inchon landing during the Korean War which turned the entire course of the war in favor of South Korea.
    This administration perpetuates the fiction that since Al-Qaeda is defeated, the war on terror is over.  While Al-Qaeda may not be the monolith it was before Bin Laden’s demise, it has metastasized into an even greater terrorist threat.  It hardly seems the time to close Guantanamo, releasing dangerous people or to minimize the offensive threat of our drone fleet.
    This quixotic response to growing worldwide terror becomes understandable against the back drop of a white house mired in scandals brought about the excess of power wielded by this administration.  It is clearly time to gather support of the faithful who share the world view that the by-product of American progress through diligence and hard work is guilt which can be expatiated only by prostrating ourselves before the thugs of the world.

    1. SonQuioey10 profile image87
      SonQuioey10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      @wmac Sounds like you're throwing your hands up at the whole system here in the US. You don't think decades of errors can be fixed?

      1. wmac profile image61
        wmacposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        What on earth do you mean?  I want to preserve "the whole system here in the US."

        1. SonQuioey10 profile image87
          SonQuioey10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry, I didn't catch that. I apologize. And yes, I share your belief, in that allowing those people to leave GITMO can be very dangerous to us. Like catching a cobra that was trying to bite you, then you release it back into the wild, and after the next couple of mornings it's on your porch again and it's brought reinforcement, other cobras to attack you.

          1. psycheskinner profile image81
            psycheskinnerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            At the end of the day they need to be charged and sentenced, or released--no matter who they are. Indefinite detention without due process is not something the US should be doing regardless of the consequences.

  4. Seth Winter profile image80
    Seth Winterposted 4 years ago

    I'm all for closing it. If you want to keep a detention center somewhere off American fine, but don't torture the Prisoners.

    I wonder if the Jews ever went on a hunger strike against the Nazi's?

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What?

    2. SonQuioey10 profile image87
      SonQuioey10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Detention centers are very close to society and not that well guarded. But that's a pretty decent suggestion. Thanks for answering.

  5. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Yes, let's close what symbolizes dictatorship or the right to commit crimes defying international laws. Let's close the door to unlawfully call anyone based upon thin air a terrorist. Even prisoners of war had more rights than those so-called terrorists. Let's close the door of our shame. The doors that show to the world that we are torturers, that we don't give a damn about justice.
    We are Al-Qaeda, we created Al-Qaeda. We are supporting the muslim mercenaries slaughtering Syrian civilians creating Al-Nostra, a new radical branch.
    Why not start to jail real criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld instead of fantasizing on virtual ones?

    1. SonQuioey10 profile image87
      SonQuioey10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      @maxoxam41 thanks for responding. I respect your opinion, but I think making a decision based on what international countries are thinking and accusing is not a good idea.

      Also, those prisoners get exactly what they need. They themselves went on a hunger strike, they weren't starved. Again using our sympathy and consideration against us to get what they want. At least that's how I see it.

      And last, we did not create Al Quaeda, they created their own militias over there. The rich and wealthy over in other countries invest in American products, the governments move out of the way because of profit and American businesses are allowed to be established there. We can't force our businesses onto someone else's land. Their militias are against the ones there who do this not really us, and from this comes terrorists blames anyone and takes things to another level.

      You sound very radical but I respect your opinion.

  6. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    I think American prisoners should be on American soil and under a uniform system of due process.  Those who cannot be placed in that system should be tried in the country they are in and where their alleged crimes were committed. Keeping people in limbo for decades is serving no one's best interest int he long run.

 
working