Army’s Field Manual 34-52
…the “use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”
this is a clusterfuck if you’re not going to read anything anybody posts
I am glad you’re reading from a black/white army manual…The point is they have gathered useful intelligence…
don’t waste your breath, it’s obvious that some people here know better techniques for gaining intel then the CIA/FBI/NSA. Yay internet
edit: I’m shocked that so many people are in favor of it remaining open.
How are the scenarios different? You have a prisoner who is tortured for information.
Given the fact that people who have been tortured such as McCain believe it produces unrelieable results. I will take his experience on the matter over your word all day long.
They have had nearly 800 prisoners there, now there are about 250, the system they say that about 60 of those prisoners have returned to some form of terrorism, although they consider a person who talks badly about the US as part of that group as well.
The system was a cluster fuck from the start with no end in sight. All Obama wants to do is fix a system that was fucked from the get go.
Everything that Guantanimo Bay Prison stands for flies right in the face of our Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
The point is, we can set up a system to detain these people and punish them within the law.
I don’t understand why you people are against that ideology but it is very unamerican.
American ideology…Hmm I don’t see an end to this war…
Why don’t we just start nuking countries that harbor terrorists?
Like I said if anything directly effected your life im sure you wouldn’t be against it…If detaining 800 NON Americans who ARE terrorists saves 1 American life its worth it…that life could be someone you care about…
The constitution and founding fathers said nothing about protecting the rights of people attacking the US…
Fuck them… if someone getting locked up there saves the lives of some Americans who gives a shit. They are probably guilty as sin to begin with. I will say one thing, since G-Dubya started this whole thing have anymore planes flown into buildings? Has there been ANY major terrorist attack on American soil? No. FDR locked up thousands of AMERICAN CITIZENS during WWII for nothing else than they were of Japanese decent, and the majority of Americans would spit shine his asshole. This country is too soft these days, and we are going to pay for it.
Directly affected my life? I’m all about capturing and detaining terrorists, I’m not about torture and I think holding a person indefinitely is wrong, we have held these people there for years, what if they’re not all terrorists? What if they were people caught in the middle of the fighting, what if they were just “defending” themselves?
Why are you against a system that makes sure the bad guys go away and the innocent go free, why is it you believe that the government is infallible on this issue but on other issues you wouldn’t trust them with a dollar?
You keep saying I would sing a different tune if I were “directly” affected, maybe I would, but maybe that would make me less objective.
Justice is supposed to blind and that’s what I want…justice.
What you are talking about is revenge wrapped around the notion of security.
How old are you 10? You would have to be to see the world in such a simplistic view.
It was years between the first attack on the WTC and the second, should I give Clinton all the credit for not having a terrorist attack in the 90’s?
And as far as the Japanese internment camps are concerned, it is something FDR is criticized for and something the US has apologized for. What a great comparison!
The point im making is that i dont give a fuck about them. Its a war, sometimes innocent people get screwed over. Oh well. If it keeps me and my family safe, then so be it.
Do you realize they don’t just go around locking people up for “fun”
They detained every person there for a reason…
So you’re ok when we blow up a village with a missile or bomb because there are a couple terrorists meeting?
But detaining people and questioning them and getting valuable intel is a bad idea?
You won’t sway my point of view ever…so its not really worth trying…I just think your disconnected with the way the world really works…
Please find me the line in the constitution about giving rights to people attacking or plotting to attack the US, citizens, and troops…
BTW…You’re a teacher correct? Where do you teach so I can avoid sending my kids there…
.
No more cockmeat sandwich’s?
You’re kind of fighting the wrong argument. If they’re properly convicted then string them up and I don’t think strokedz28 or anyone else would argue that. But once you start putting loopholes into habeus corpus then where does it stop? Non citizens don’t get due process? OK. What about citizens identified as domestic terrorists? They don’t get it either? OK, well then obviously those who attack our government are terrorists, so what about someone who was to form an anti-government rally? Put em away without trial? Might as well ditch the first ammendment.
I understand that nothing is ever black and white, and there will be times when holding people without trial for a period of time will be ugly but necessary (see Japanese internment camps ca. WWII) but we cannot let go of the fundamental values that our way of life is built on or it will be only a matter of time before we find that our way of life looks more like a police state than a free nation.
If the inmates at Guantanimo are guilty, then convict them and string them up. If the evidence is classified then we need to develop a system that reconciles that problem with our fundamental values, not sacrifices our fundamental values.
Then why not just charge them with a crime and be done with it. Whats wrong with going through the legal process?
I would assume because some of the people they’re holding, they’re actually hiding from their [Al Qaeda] superiors?
I’m sure it’s no where near as easy/black and white as the media likes to portray. 
Having talked to people that know first hand whats going on down there, I don’t really think it’s that big of a deal… it’s all politics
Meh, there are better prisons, architecurally, but that is pretty bad ass. I do not want to visit Guantanamo some day.
These aren’t US citizens. They aren’t being held for domestic crimes (ie, breaking US laws). The people held there are POWS, suspected international terrorists. So, according to your argument, when at war we need to extend our constitutional rights to the enemy? The don’t deserve habeus corpus. Should we extend them miranda rights too? This is a war and we should treat it as such. And the enemy treated as POWs, not treat them like someone arested for having 3 beers then driving home after dinner.
POW’s aren’t held forever. If you don’t want to start dealing with them now, then when?
:word:
How many people are currently there 800?? Do you realize the amount of time interrogations and following up on international leads from the intel you get would take?
They arn’t just snatching up random innocent people and sticking them there…If whatever they were involved in was bad enough for them to get stuck there…let em stay…
If they started dragging away Americans from their home in the middle of the night…then I would care…
Close it, publicize it, ship the inmates somewhere undisclosed, charge them, and deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Have cabinet-nominated monitors sent there to keep watch on the jailers.
You would have been on the side of the Nazis in pre-WWII Germany, because it was “safe.” On the side of the British in the Revolutionary War because it was “safe.”
While you think it’s of the highest esteem to cast about with neither honor nor concern for morality, in order to keep your family safe, you’re the type who our founding fathers held in great contempt. Benjamin Franklin said that those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither. You’re willing to trade the freedom of others (without concern for the rights of the falsely accused) for the safety of your family, which makes you at least an accomplice, and thoroughly deserving of contempt.
Charging someone with a crime and holding them in the appropriate facility is hardly offering them a beer. Holding them without charge or the right to stand in court is pure evil. You’re saying “they’re terrorists, they don’t deserve rights.” If they’re not terrorists, they deserve rights; if we can’t prove they’re terrorists in court, why should we assume that they are? If we can prove it, why shouldn’t we put them to trial?
I don’t feel comfortable with the argument: “We cannot prove conclusively that this person is a terrorist, but they should be held anyway, to protect us from the terrorists.”