Then I guess I’m asking why you think it’s wise policy.
The impression I’ve had is that the decision as to who should go to Guantanamo is quite arbitrary, and fails to track threat level. As well, the impression I have is that the legal procedures at Guantanamo do not do much to protect innocent people from detention and from successful prosecution. I’d say that if I’m right about this, then it’s quintessentially unwise policy to keep the system in place. But what do you know that should change my impression? Or how do you reason that even if the impressions are right, the policy is still wise?
I would imagine that after September 11 the guy on the street illogically hates or fears Muslims just as the average guy illogically hated or feared Japanese after December 7.
Not even the US government believes almost all the detainees held there are “the bad guys”. They know that 150 of them are just random people that got rounded up or sold to the US, but they don’t seem to give a fuck.
No, no, you’re misreading. I was answering the question in the title “Why are people not up in arms over Guantanamo Bay?” by trying to put myself in the mind of the average American. Maybe I didn’t do that so well?
No, I don’t think my comparison is ridiculous or offensive. I’ve never read or heard about protests against the forced relocation of US citizens. Maybe there were, I don’t know. Japanese-Americans lost everything, why? German-Americans and Italian-Americans weren’t forced from their homes on the east coast, why? The US is still extremely Euro-centric. We don’t like to worry about the bad things that happen to dark people who speak odd sounding languages and have unfamiliar cultures.
Remember that Bush I and Clinton used Guantanamo Bay as an internment camp also. Haitian and some Cuban refugees picked up by the Coast Guard were imprisoned there expressly for the purpose of keeping them somewhere beyond the reach of American law (specifically, to prevent the detainees from petitioning for asylum or habeas corpus). Back then, some lower courts were sympathetic to allowing the detainees to have access to counsel and to hearings, but the appellate court accepted the Government’s arguments that Guantanamo was beyond the reach of the US Constitution for those purposes. The issue never reached the Supreme Court.
Apparently he does not have the power to close it if congress wants to keep it open. Many of those prisoners were guilty of wearing the wrong watch. Many turned in by neighbors for the reward. We have slowly released many of them because it was wrong to keep them in jail without any proof.
It is political calculation trumping morality.
But it doesn’t matter since we have plenty of bases around the world. And agreements with other countries to do our really dirty work. So focusing on Guantanamo, in particular, is sorta missing the point. As for the moral arguments re: state actions, well, to
I think the problem here, from Obama’s perspective, is that a “not guilty” verdict in any sort of trial is politically unacceptable, and the evidence necessary to convict in the federal courts simply does not exist. That leaves the military tribunals, where the deck will likely be stacked heavily in favor of conviction. I hope that his conscience as a lawyer won’t let him condone that kind of farce. Which leaves punting as his only viable option. Leave the mess for the next POTUS to deal with…or maybe, if he wins a second term, he could deal with it then without the concern that it could and probably would torpedo his re-election campaign.
In my opinion, GITMO is shameful. People held for years without being charged with any crime, without meaningful contact with counsel, isolated…exactly the things we are not supposed to do. We’re supposed to be better than that.
I’d invite you to research this subject a little more. I think you will find that while not in anywhere near the numbers as Japanese and Japanese-Americans, there were many interred that were of European ancestry. You might be surprised how widespread the program was, or just more saddened.
Why aren’t people up in arms that 18 people on Illinois Death Row were INNOCENT but scheduled to die. AND this is the scary part, were given jury trials and found GUILTY by due process.
Still death penalty support in Illinois is high, even though the state recently abolished it.
The long and short is people don’t care. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin, they don’t care.
I found it interesting that Mr Obama said, we’d be out of Iraq, he’d close Gtmo and all those other things, just to get elected. Yet there were protesters every weekend on Milwaukee Ave in Chicago while Bush was president. The weekend after Mr Obama won, they stopped. OK why? Why did they never come back.
Because those people DIDN’T CARE EITHER. They were using anything as a reason to get at Mr Bush.
Mr Obama could do something he is choosing not to. Why? 'Cause he’s afraid of not getting re-elected. I guess it’s nice to have principles so long as they don’t interfere with your job. Perhaps if that’s the case one shouldn’t portray yourself as such.
But in the long term, open your eyes, there’s injustice everywhere you go. I can’t go three blocks in Chicago without seeing a few. You have to know where and when to pick your battles and standing up for a bunch of people, who are probably guilty (note: probably) isn’t high up on the list. The same way we don’t care about a few innocent people who are in jail now, and may be innocent of that crime, but I bet he did something else he never got caught for, so in the end it’s even
I’m not going to take up arms against my country over Guantanamo Bay. But it is one of the things that Obama said he would correct that he has made very little effort to correct. It is one of the reasons I won’t be supporting and voting for Obama as I did in 08.
Enemies of our country who are being held prisoner need to be held on our soil and subject to our laws and customs for treatment of prisoners. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of a country of laws and principles to make such a large point of ignoring those laws and principles. But what do you expect from a country of fucking lawyers?
No, what I’m saying is the US isn’t some special super evil nation, as you appear to believe. Your delusions on the score make it hard for you to make any valid point on anything political, ever.
I meant your unending and irrational hatred of the US. Yes, there are still folks held at Gitmo. It sucks. Most that were held there have been processed and released though. Hopefully we can figure out what to do with those left.
I don’t care about the embarrassment bit, but you’re dead right about the unforgivable part.
I think Der Trihs paints with a bit of a broad brush, but his general description of Americans certainly applies to some people. I’ve had discussions with people who favour having people tortured because not doing so leads to people laughing at the US, which hurt this person’s feelings. Boo hoo to the scumbags is what I think.
More missing the point. It doesn’t matter if America is especially evil or not. America will remain as evil as it is regardless of whether or not the rest of the world is a hell or a paradise.
And why is it irrational? Conquest, economic exploitation, hypocrisy, false imprisonment, torture and all the rest; whether you like it or not there’s plenty of rational reasons to hate the US.
Yes. It’s the difference between disappointment in Obama for caving in to the right-wing pearl-clutching pseudocowards, and disgust with the scum Bush for having people kidnaped and put in legal limbo so they could be tortured, then lying about it.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
People aren’t holding Barack Obama’s feet to the fire.
[/QUOTE]
Well…wouldn’t that be torture?? :eek:
I suppose it could be because we are all just evil bastards who revel in inflicting misery and despair on everyone else, as Der Trihs says. Or, maybe the fact that two different administrations from two different parties are treating it pretty much the same says something about the realities of the situation. Basically, my take on it is that if, after saying he would do something about Gitmo, Obama basically punts on the thing, that indicates to me that simplistic answers and fervent slogans might be falling short of the realities of the actual situation there. I think that if it was something that could easily be done, the way some people seem to think, that Obama would have just done it. That he hasn’t is, again to me, telling. YMMV, and maybe Obama has just sold out to the Republicans and Big Business (or whoever it is who has an interest in profiting or whatever from this situation). I’m sure Der Trihs will be back in a few to regale us with how Obama is really just another right winger, and that the Dems are just like the Pubs, for all practical purposes, etc etc.
I don’t share your impressions. My understanding is that every detainee has had a military commission, which establishes at least a minimum level of confidence that we have evidence against each detainee.
Much of that evidence would not survive in the context of a criminal trial inside the US. But I don’t agree that the law compels us to provide that high bar of protection to persons captured on the battlefield, not covered by the Geneva POW accords.
