Why are people not up in arms over Guantanamo Bay?

[Der_Trihs]

@DirkHardly

While I have numerous problems with some of the procedures mentioned in the seizure and treatment of some of the Gitmo prisoners there are two main reasons I support the detention of terrorists and enemy combatants there.

If you support one, then you support the other. The abuse and injustice is the whole point of putting people there.

@DirkHardly

First, the Geneva Conventions came about to “civilize” warfare. One of the concerns that led to its creation was the possibility of combatants under the authority of no gov’t, outside of any recognized armed force, and absent any formal state of war. This of course leads to the possibility of atrocities outside of “civilized” warfare such as the targeting of civilians. To extend the protections of the GC to such unlawful combatants gives them its protections without any incentive to abide by its other terms.

Translation: When we conquer someone, they should act like good slaves and not raise a hand to their masters. And we’ll use terror tactics like torture, false imprisonment and indiscriminate murder to convince them to submit. All you are doing is demonstrating the truth of the saying that “terrorist is what the big army calls the little army”.

@DirkHardly

Secondly, and related, these prisoners have no constitutional rights either. They are neither citizens nor on US soil. Even our own soldiers and pow’s taken by us do not have the same rights as an average citizen. The terrorists in gitmo are not criminals, they are unlawful soldiers waging unlawful warfare under int’l law. Treating them as such is a deterrent to others who might do the same.

Hardly, it encourages attacks upon us by demonstrating how hypocritical and brutal we are, and makes enemies out of people who would otherwise not have cared.

@DirkHardly

However, some minimum standard that embodies our basic principles of law and justice is needed and imprisoning the innocent or leaving even the guilty imprisoned in perpetuity without some form of ajudication is certainly repugnant to those principles

No; our “principles” are conquest, torture and slaughter. That’s why we did just that. Noble speeches about our supposed “principles” when we don’t follow them convince no one who doesn’t want to be convinced. Ask the people we’ve falsely imprisoned for years and tortured how much dedication we have to justice. None.

[Kobal2]

@Der_Trihs

Translation: When we conquer someone, they should act like good slaves and not raise a hand to their masters.

Not quite. They have an absolute right to raise a hand BUT they must do so in orderly fashion and line up properly for us to shoot and lob missiles at from 2.000 miles away. Tactics is cheating !

Unless of course we’re the ones being hopelessly out-gunned and outnumbered. Then we have a duty to Resist by any mean necessary. WOLVERINES !

[Der_Trihs]

Yeah, that seems to be how it works.

[Shodan]

@magellan01

I think that’s a lot of it. But to be fair, I think there’s also more acceptance of Bush’s position now due to, “Well, if Obama—who wants to shut it down—knowing what he knows now as President, thinks we shouldn’t, maybe there is no better option.”

On the SDMB? I have never seen this, even once.

pkbites has it correct, AFAICT. If Bush did it, it is a horrible violation of human rights, a completely sufficient reason never to vote for him, and an impeachable offense. If Obama did it, it is not so bad, and Obama probably can’t do anything about it anyway, and let’s talk about something else and then vote for him anyway.

Regards,
Shodan

[RedFury]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I don’t get that bent out of shape over it because unlike many others, I do believe that almost all of the detainees held there are in fact “the bad guys”.

What we “believe” and objective reality are often two separate things:

The Guantanamo Papers

[Little_Nemo]

@Shodan

If Bush did it, it is a horrible violation of human rights, a completely sufficient reason never to vote for him, and an impeachable offense. If Obama did it, it is not so bad, and Obama probably can’t do anything about it anyway, and let’s talk about something else and then vote for him anyway.

There’s some truth to this. People - certainly including the posters on this board - do give Obama more slack than they gave Bush.

But it’s not a completely irrational practice. They scrutinized Bush more because he repeatedly did things that were morally and legally questionable.

So people may feel that the detention of people at Guantanamo Bay is atypical of the Obama administration and is something they can overlook. Whereas they felt that the detention of people at Guantanamo Bay is characteristic of the Bush administration and should be protested as one aspect of a larger problem.

[pkbites]

@Little_Nemo

do give Obama more slack than they gave Bush.

And then some. Where is the screaming from the left for Obama to do something about gasoline being over $4 a gallon?

[Der_Trihs]

@Little_Nemo

There’s some truth to this. People - certainly including the posters on this board - do give Obama more slack than they gave Bush.

But it’s not a completely irrational practice. They scrutinized Bush more because he repeatedly did things that were morally and legally questionable.

So people may feel that the detention of people at Guantanamo Bay is atypical of the Obama administration and is something they can overlook. Whereas they felt that the detention of people at Guantanamo Bay is characteristic of the Bush administration and should be protested as one aspect of a larger problem.

I think it has a great deal more with “we tried, we failed, there’s nothing more we can do.” After all, what’s the best case? The people who actually disapprove kick up enough of a fuss that Obama loses the next election and is replaced with another right winger who does the same exact thing, just as he replaced Bush and kept doing the same thing.

[Ograbme]

@DirkHardly

The terrorists in gitmo are not criminals, they are unlawful soldiers waging unlawful warfare under int’l law. Treating them as such is a deterrent to others who might do the same.

How do you know whether or not they are terrorists?

Also, they aren’t criminals, but they are doing “unlawful” things?

[Kobal2]

@Der_Trihs

I think it has a great deal more with “we tried, we failed, there’s nothing more we can do.” After all, what’s the best case? The people who actually disapprove kick up enough of a fuss that Obama loses the next election and is replaced with another right winger who does the same exact thing, just as he replaced Bush and kept doing the same thing.

Which is of course the worst problem. When even the most “liberal” option on the board still kicks the issue under the rug and at best tries not to do worse than that (but still very much that, oh yes, are you kidding ? That is *awesome *!), well…

[gonzomax]

http://michiganpeacenetwork.org/news/Close-Guantanamo-Protest-in-DC There are plenty of people upset by the injustice that Gitmo represents. It was not an unfair attack on Bush. But remember he started it and was proud of it and defended it over and over. Anybody who calls people “bad guys” is contemptible. They were people dragged out their homelands and put in a prison, with no proof.
Obama is not saying Gitmo is a good idea,. That distinguishes him from the previous administration that had no respect for the rule of law . When he took moves to close it, Obama took a terrible beating in the press.
Obama can’t even hold trials in the US because our rightys seized it as an opportunity to blast him. Every other admin can do it though.

[pkbites]

@Der_Trihs

I think it has a great deal more with “we tried, we failed, there’s nothing more we can do.”

I don’t buy this. In fact, I call bullshit.

One of the great strengths of the left is never giving up on an issue and fighting on and on and on. It’s something I wish the right would take a lesson from. It’s a reason I refuse to give one single inch on issues like gun control. The left just keeps gnawing away on such issues.

If Gitmo were really that important to the left in the first place they would still be bitching about it. I’ve observed that the bitching was reduced the day after Obama was elected, and died even more so the day after Bush stopped being POTUS.

[gonzomax]

There is plenty of protest but it gets no air play. That is our new reality. If it is not covered by the news, it does not exist.

[Little_Nemo]

@pkbites

I don’t buy this. In fact, I call bullshit.

One of the great strengths of the left is never giving up on an issue and fighting on and on and on. It’s something I wish the right would take a lesson from. It’s a reason I refuse to give one single inch on issues like gun control. The left just keeps gnawing away on such issues.

Perhaps the reason the left keeps protesting and the right doesn’t reflects the outcome of the causes they care about. The right doesn’t protest in pursuit of change - it donates a few million dollars to the appropriate politicians and gets laws enacted and/or repealed. The left marches in the streets and the right makes a few phone calls.

[pkbites]

@Little_Nemo

Perhaps the reason the left keeps protesting and the right doesn’t reflects the outcome of the causes they care about. The right doesn’t protest in pursuit of change - it donates a few million dollars to the appropriate politicians and gets laws enacted and/or repealed. The left marches in the streets and the right makes a few phone calls.

And the protests in the streets over Guantanamo Bay (since Obama took office) is…where?
Answer this question.
Where in “the streets” are the protests over Guantanamo Bay?

Answer the question!!!

[Little_Nemo]

@pkbites

I don’t buy this. In fact, I call bullshit.

One of the great strengths of the left is never giving up on an issue and fighting on and on and on. It’s something I wish the right would take a lesson from. It’s a reason I refuse to give one single inch on issues like gun control. The left just keeps gnawing away on such issues.

If Gitmo were really that important to the left in the first place they would still be bitching about it. I’ve observed that the bitching was reduced the day after Obama was elected, and died even more so the day after Bush stopped being POTUS.

@pkbites

And the protests in the streets over Guantanamo Bay (since Obama took office) is…where?
Answer this question.
Where in “the streets” are the protests over Guantanamo Bay?

Answer the question!!!

You’re demanding I provide cites for your post?

[Boyo_Jim]

The detainees in Guantanamo are still there for several reasons.

1. American authorities believe they are very dangerous but do not have sufficient evidence to prove they have committed any crime that can be charged and prosecuted in the Federal court system.

2. Unlike soldiers in a conventional war, they don’t have a country to be safely repatriated to. Some would probably be killed, and others simply slapped into another prison, if they are returned to their country of origin. I’m sure some of these countries do not want these guys back.

3. It has been decided for American domestic political reasons that we cannot simply release all the prisoners who cannot be convicted of a crime. And though Obama, I think, has an inherent distrust of military tribunals as a means of achieving justice, the Administration is retuning to the idea because with all its flaws it is better than nothing at all. Plus they are simply not willing to take the heat for letting them go.

I basically agree with Bricker that many on the left are giving Obama a pass on Guantanamo. Whether he deserves it is an entirely separate question. In many ways it can be argued that Obama has inherited the trainwreck of Guantanamo as he did the trainwreck of the economy. Poor oversight and lack of any rational processes created an ugly situation which has no easy solutions.

Personally, I think Obama is a political coward for continuing to hold people he knows we will never be able to charge with a crime.

I am VERY disappointed by Obama, but like many on the left, find him far less distasteful than any conceivable Republican candidate.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@spark240

If true, so? Don’t the principles of human rights and fair treatment under the law inherently require that they cover those we think are “bad guys”? Aren’t concepts like rights of the accused and right to a fair trial meaningless if they’re not upheld specifically for those we’re most sure are (almost all) guilty?

It’s like free speech; the claim to uphold free speech doesn’t count for much unless you specifically protect it for those whose speech is most objectionable.

I think they are treated humanely, and they aren’t US citizens so Constitutional rights do not apply to them. They are essentially POW’s.

[Der_Trihs]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I think they are treated humanely, and they aren’t US citizens so Constitutional rights do not apply to them. They are essentially POW’s.

Indefinite imprisonment without cause isn’t humane treatment, nor is torture. And they aren’t being treated as POWs.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Der_Trihs

Indefinite imprisonment without cause isn’t humane treatment, nor is torture. And they aren’t being treated as POWs.

Without cause? I thought that the detainees that were innocent or possibly so were all already released, and the ones that remain we have solid evidence on of their shenanigans.