Obama and Terrorist Rights

[Kiwon]

Hope and Change? - Strike 1. Improving America's image in the world? - Strike 2.

The Bush Administration had the War on Terror all wrong according to Obama and crew.

Therefore, Obama's first executive order was the closing of Gitmo in preparing to move the detainees ("enemy combatants") to the United States to ensure that they will enjoy the legal protections afforded to U.S. citizens and get a fair trial. This move outraged some 9/11 family members who have been waiting over 7 years for justice, especially since several of the 9/11 plotters have admitted their role and want to be executed.

The message: Terrorist rights trump the rights of American citizens for justice?

That same day, and then yesterday, Obama apparently okayed drone strikes on targets in Pakistan.

18 people were killed.... without a trial. Were they terrorists? We can't know for sure because they never had a trial. Their crimes were never proved in a court of law. Where was their due process?

The confessed 9/11 plotters could be found innocent in the U.S. courts while possibly innocent muslims are being wantonly killed on President Obama's orders.

And what about the death of innocent bystanders? What harm had villagers done to the U.S.?

("The first attack Friday took place in the village of Zharki in North Waziristan, when a single drone fired three missiles in the space of 10 minutes, the security officials said. The missiles destroyed two buildings, killing 10 people, at least five of whom were foreign militants, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. Hours later, a second missile struck a house in South Waziristan, killing eight people, the officials said, giving no more details." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090123/D95T436O0.html)

Wouldn't Senator Obama have opposed such military tactics just a short time ago if carried out under President Bush? How does killing muslim innocents improve America's image in the world?

The Pakistanis aren't too thrilled. They responded with protests. Hope and Change? What Hope? What Change? http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/thumbnails//Pakistan_.sff_JEM107_20090123084125.jpg

Obama has criticized Israel for the death of civilians in Gaza. Is it okay now for the Israelis to criticize President Obama for the death of innocents in Pakistan?

[SkinBasket]

Looks kind of like a return to the good ol' Clinton days of fighting terrorists by blowing up milk warehouses with cruise missiles based on months old, poorly collected intelligence. Take that Usama!

[Kiwon]

Make that 21 shamelessly murdered by President Bush, er....President Obama, without a trial.

CodePink is not going to be happy!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.f0535773d1a3f8152cda2b8c05239f0 6.571&show_article=1

It's ironic that those in Gitmo who have confessed and want to die are forced to undergo an unwanted elongated trial process courtesy of Obama and the ACLU.

Obama protects their rights at all costs while arbitrarily blowing others to smithereens.

[texaspackerbacker]

I hope you guys are being sarcastic--if so, it wasn't obvious.

Damn Obama is screwed up enough on so many things--like terrorist "rights"--which I will get to in a minute. When he does something right, give the man some credit. These aren't just blind missile strikes. They are precision guided, possibly with eyes on the ground, certainly with eyes in the sky, on good intelligence that terrorist targets are being hit. If there is collateral damage, you can chalk that up to the fact that these enemies, like every enemy we and the Israelis have fought for several generations now, exhibit the pure dastardly evil and gall to locate high value targets as close as possible to civilians--hiding like the dirty little cowards they are behind women and children, just daring us to risk blowing away a few innocents to get to the bad guys. To his credit, Obama did what needed to be done--either that, or he just hasn't gotten around to changing the good and effective Bush policy on this yet.

Now for the title of the thread, clearly, these God damned evil beings held at Guantanamo and elsewhere do NOT have the rights we, as Americans, have. Habeus Corpus, due process in general, counsel, discovery, speedy trial, ALL of these things do NOT apply--even if some of those "rights" have been given to the terrorists. Similarly, they do not apply to illegal aliens and probably not even to legal aliens in this country on non-terrorist matters. Just because we are magnanimous enough to afford those "rights" to non-terrorist aliens does NOT mean we are Constitutionally required to do so. The Constitution clearly applies those rights only to American citizens. Therefore, it absolutely is not legally necessary to apply any of that to the terrorists. Is there any moral or public relations reason to give that scum any "rights"? I would say a resounding HELL NO!

The bigger question is: Why are some Americans--mainly the leftist base of Obama and probably Obama himself--so obsessed with handicapping ourselves in this area by UNNECESSARILY taking these terrorists out of the military tribunals or no trials at all, and placing them in OUR judicial system? Doing so gives these vile killers of Americans a public forum--bad enough, a slim chance of getting off on a technicality--bad, but not very likely, but worst of all IMO, the right of discovery. This means that the defense gets to see the details of our intelligence on them, the identities of people who informed on them, etc.--all things which severely undermine our ability to catch or kill other terrorists and stop terrorist plots.

You add this crap to the stopping of harsh interrogation, and you make the job of our people who have successfully stifled terrorist hits since 9/11 a whole lot more difficult.

[bobblehead]

Yes, give him a little credit. The man is dead wrong on closing Gitmo, but he has to pay back the political backers who put him there and that is a big part of it.

Just today there was an article in the paper about a former Gitmo prisoner heading the yemen branch of al qaida. This is a bad move that he owes to some america haters.

But the missile strike....that is just fine. We have been knocking off al qaida and taliban in pakistan for months now, this is nothing new. He has a goal, which might be right or wrong, of getting away from Iraq and finishing what we started in Afghanistan. We have sunk a lot of money in Iraq and I have always felt that nation building wasn't a wise idea. Time to finish Afghan and go from there.

Lets criticize him where its deserved, but not get carried away.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama is dead right to close Gitmo...just like Mac wanted as well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama is dead right to close Gitmo...just like Mac wanted as well.

In theory, we are getting some positive PR benefits out of this around the world. I hope it works out that way.

[Kiwon]

Lets criticize him where its deserved, but not get carried away.

And it's perfectly deserved right now.

You guys have memory loss, I guess. Do you remember how Nobama was elected, the darling of CodePink, the Daily Kos, and MoveOn, etc.? Do you remember the endless criticism of Bush and the War on Terror? Do you remember the "No" vote on Iraq, the "Yes" votes on defunding troops in the field?

I guess who've forgotten that Obama was THE most liberal senator in the whole Senate. His main campaign plank WAS basically anti-war at the beginning. The success of the Surge forced him to change.

According to him, America was engaging in "torture" and had brought unprecedented shame on the country. He promised that Gitmo would be closed, secret prisons and third country renditions ended and the War on Terror would be waged with diplomacy and international cooperation. The U.S. had to clean up it's own house first and earn the respect of the world before we would have any credibility.

Well, he was good to his word on Gitmo. His FIRST move as president was to protect the rights of the worst of the worst of those still remaining in Gitmo, including those who confessed to 9/11, because he has to ensure that they receive fair trials (which is something that the Bush Administration painstakingly already had done). Only the "fair trial" won't be in a military court, it will be in the American justice system.

Do you get it? Once the enemy combatants set foot on U.S. soil, they AUTOMATICALLY are afforded the same rights as U.S. citizens and the rules of evidence and disclosure are completely different. It's the first time in history that enemy combatants, even those not recognized by the Geneva Convention, are given this level of protection. Bend over backwards to protect the rights of terrorists just as the ACLU demands.

Oh, but wait, on the other hand, Mr. "America Sucks and I have to Fix It" Obama then continues the same strategy that he criticized Bush for employing in Afghanistan. Why shouldn't President Obama be criticized for blowing "suspected terrorists" to Hell, killing innocent muslim civilians thereby prompting protests in Pakistan and ruining America's image in the world?

Senator Obama used these instances to build his campaign so why should I praise President Obama now? I'm not going to praise him because he stumbled into the right decision. He's a hypocrite and doing the very same thing that Bush was doing.

Closing Gitmo is a ridiculous decision on so many levels. Forget this nonsense about repaying his supporters. A president should lead and make decisions because they are correct, not whether they are popular or not. National security trumps politics as usual. Bush kept Gitmo open for serious and legitimate reasons.

Think guys. Learn to argue from principles.

[Kiwon]

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2009/01/24/Pakistanmissilex.jpg

Tsk, tsk. tsk. Civilians being killed. Where's the anti-war "Hope and Change" campaign now?

"Obama has not commented on the missile strikes." - Big surprise.

.................................................. ..............

Pakistan urges Obama to halt suspected missile attacks

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan has urged Barack Obama to halt U.S. missile strikes on al-Qaeda strongholds near the Afghan border, saying civilians have been killed in attacks since the new American president's inauguration.

Pakistani security officials said eight suspected foreign militants, including an Egyptian al-Qaeda operative, were among 22 people killed in Friday's twin strikes in the Waziristan region.

But the Foreign Ministry said Saturday that the attacks by unmanned aircraft also killed an unspecified number of civilians and that it had informed U.S. officials of its "great concern."

"With the advent of the new U.S. administration, it is Pakistan's sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism," the ministry said in a statement.

The United States does not directly acknowledge firing the missiles, which are believed to be mostly fired from drones operated by the CIA and launched from neighboring Afghanistan.

Obama has not commented on the missile strikes.

However, he has made the war in Afghanistan and the intertwined al-Qaeda fight in Pakistan a foreign policy priority. Few observers expect him to ditch a tactic that U.S. officials say has killed a string of militant leaders behind the insurgency in Afghanistan — and who had perhaps been plotting terrorist attacks in the West.

Pakistani leaders complain that the more than 30 missile strikes since August have fanned anti-American sentiment and undermined the government's own efforts to counter Islamic militants.

But their protests have had few practical consequences, fueling speculation that Islamabad's cash-strapped, pro-U.S. government has given tacit approval in return for political and financial support from Washington.

Pakistan's government has little control over the border region, which is considered a likely hiding place for al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.

Three intelligence officials told The Associated Press that funerals were held Saturday for nine Pakistanis killed a day earlier in Zharki, a village in North Waziristan.

The officials, citing reports from field agents and residents, said Taliban fighters had removed the bodies of five suspected foreign militants who also died in the first missile strike. Initial reports put the death toll from that attack at 10.

A senior security official in the capital, Islamabad, identified one of the slain men as Mustafa al-Misri, a suspected al-Qaeda operative. He said it was unclear if the man was a significant figure.

The second strike hit a house in South Waziristan. Residents and security officials say eight people died in the village of Gangi Khel.

The security officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-01-23-pakistan_N.htm

[mraynrand]

Obama is dead right to close Gitmo...just like Mac wanted as well.

Why?

[Kiwon]

Close Gitmo. Yeah, great idea.


Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video - http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20090124/capt.photo_1232822993788-1-0.jpghttp://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090124/capt.e76490f375b24b72bea028c1a9c59247.guantanamo_a l_qaida_ny127.jpg

[digitaldean]

What are you worried about?? Our friends in the EU will take them off our hands, right?? :roll:

Oh, I forgot, one Irish official said the EU would only take the non-combatants, people who "clearly have no terrorist history".

Thanks, guys, thanks a lot! Proof again, that a lot of countries, ESPECIALLY those in the EU aren't really serious about dealng with terrorism.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-01-23-gitmo-EU_N.htm

[texaspackerbacker]

Obama is dead right to close Gitmo...just like Mac wanted as well.

Invoking McCain is just ludicrous. He was the Dem/libs' best friend among Republicans before taking a brief hiatus to lose the election. Now, "Mac" is back--cozying up to the leftists like he never left.

It is dangerous leftist idiocy to close Guantanamo--at best, Obama giving in to the most extremist America-haters among his base, at worst, Obama's true nature coming to the surface--exposing him as an America-hater--would that raally surprise anybody considering his political roots with the weather underground leadership, his mentoring by Jeremiah Wright, virtually all of his votes and public statements before running for president?

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20090124/capt.photo_1232822993788-1-0.jpghttp://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090124/capt.e76490f375b24b72bea028c1a9c59247.guantanamo_a l_qaida_ny127.jpg

It's the new Cheech and Chong!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Thanks, guys, thanks a lot! Proof again, that a lot of countries, ESPECIALLY those in the EU aren't really serious about dealng with terrorism.

They are for fighting terrorism. They have been at it longer and more energetically than the U.S. But they also are for letting the U.S. carry the load when possible. And they are always for criticizing the U.S.

Our relations with the Europeans and other countries do matter a great deal. Iraq was so miserably difficult precisely because much of the world wanted us to fail out of spite. Bush was terrible at diplomacy. Maybe Obama can be better.

[Freak Out]

Close Gitmo. Yeah, great idea.


Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video - http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20090124/capt.photo_1232822993788-1-0.jpghttp://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20090124/capt.e76490f375b24b72bea028c1a9c59247.guantanamo_a l_qaida_ny127.jpg

What you meant to say was don't turn them over to Saudi the country who supports them in the first place. They were probably run through one of the countries rehab centers and released.

[bobblehead]

Obama is dead right to close Gitmo...just like Mac wanted as well.

Yes...McCain. This is probably the first time you have cited him as the authority on anything.

My only question is this. What do you want to do with a bunch of guys on a jihad to destroy america once we close Gitmo??

This is so ludicrous that the result of the lefts outcry in the beginning was that we simply started killing them on the battlefield instead of letting them surrender.

"I surrender" BANG!!! "We have no where to put you if you do that"

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Obama is dead right to close Gitmo...just like Mac wanted as well.

Yes...McCain. This is probably the first time you have cited him as the authority on anything.

My only question is this. What do you want to do with a bunch of guys on a jihad to destroy america once we close Gitmo??

This is so ludicrous that the result of the lefts outcry in the beginning was that we simply started killing them on the battlefield instead of letting them surrender.

"I surrender" BANG!!! "We have no where to put you if you do that"

The point of mentioning Mac wasn't him as an authority..simply that closing Gitmo isn't a dem/liberal thing. You can be a repub or conser and be for it.

What to do? Well, who said we are going to release them.

The real issue for me is that we are holding people (some definitely bad) who have no rights and haven't even been proven to have done anything. When military lawyers are arguing that they can't do their job, not allowed to do their job, etc..then something is wrong.

Perhaps you need to read about Charles Swift and neal katyal. They won their case about the military-tribunal system in the supreme court, yet the repub congress overrode it.

The whole purpose of setting up Guantánamo Bay is for torture. Why do this? Because you want to escape the rule of law. There is only one thing that you want to escape the rule of law to do, and that is to question people coercively—what some people call torture. Guantánamo and the military commissions are implements for breaking the law. Why build a prison here when there are plenty of prisons in Nebraska?

[texaspackerbacker]

True, you can be Republican/conservative--well, Republican, anyway, and be for closing Guantanamo, just as you can in a few rare cases, be Democrat/liberal--on other issues, anyway, and still be pro-American and common sensical to NOT want it closed--along with all the other CIA secret prisons, along with NOT wanting to end harsh interrogation and NOT wanting to provide these terrorist enemies with OUR rights and procedures of due process.

What to do with them? Bobblehead, I'm really getting psyched up to the idea of simply putting them in the general population of our maximum security prisons. I'm not kidding about trusting the prisoners to be pro-American enough to do the right thing.

Even if putting bounties on the terrorist scum is considered too over-the-top, the word should be put out that anybody offing a terrorist would get a jury trial in the state of their choice.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The real issue for me is that we are holding people (some definitely bad) who have no rights and haven't even been proven to have done anything. When military lawyers are arguing that they can't do their job, not allowed to do their job, etc..then something is wrong.

What rights do POWs have?

I'd really like to know SPECIFICALLY what needs to be done legally or physically for these prisoners. And then I'd like to know why it is necessary to close Guantanamo to make these changes.


The whole purpose of setting up Guantánamo Bay is for torture.

That may have been part of the original intention. Is torture continuing there today?


Why build a prison here when there are plenty of prisons in Nebraska?

It is a bad idea have POW's mixed-in with the regular prison system.

The alternative would be to setup GITMO-like facilities in the U.S. I really don't understand the problem with housing them at the Cuban base.
And I don't understand why it would be legally easier to torture in a base in Cuba rather than a base in Alabama. Do you?

[SkinBasket]

The whole purpose of setting up Guantánamo Bay is for torture.

That may have been part of the original intention. Is torture continuing there today?

I think it's much more about the ramifications in their entirety of what bringing them onto American soil means - not just the torture aspect.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The whole purpose of setting up Guantánamo Bay is for torture.

That may have been part of the original intention. Is torture continuing there today?

I think it's much more about the ramifications in their entirety of what bringing them onto American soil means - not just the torture aspect.


ya, I've heard references to that, I wonder what it means specifically.

And why would we WANT to give them more legal rights? Seems like wharehousing them in Cuba is perfectly reasonable. Are there standards of evidence for holding a POW if they are brought on U.S. soil? That seems crazy.

[SkinBasket]

The whole purpose of setting up Guantánamo Bay is for torture.

That may have been part of the original intention. Is torture continuing there today?

I think it's much more about the ramifications in their entirety of what bringing them onto American soil means - not just the torture aspect.


ya, I've heard references to that, I wonder what it means specifically.

And why would we WANT to give them more legal rights? Seems like wharehousing them in Cuba is perfectly reasonable. Are there standards of evidence for holding a POW if they are brought on U.S. soil? That seems crazy.

From what I understand, the problem is that there really is no legal way to deal with them once you give them those rights. We would have to let them go based on how they were detained and how whatever evidence the government has was collected. Of course, "letting them go" is problematic since even the most liberal fool realizes you can't just drop them off on a street corner in Jersey and for the most part their countries of origin refuse to let them back into their country - and those who would take them back will simply let them go anyway to continue their jihad.

[texaspackerbacker]

If this is a REALITY-BASED discussion, then the terrorists would have no rights whatsoever in American, just as they have no rights whatsoever at Guantanamo or other overseas locations.

If, however, this is a politically based discussion, then there is no doubt that the scum would be provided with rights and procedures of due process in this country. Why? Because the president and the majority party in Congress wants it that way. Why in the hell they want it that way--when it is so blatantly BAD for this country and all Americans, and when it is so clearly unnecessary in a Constitutional sense, is beyond me. Perhaps some of you forum leftists--who are so like-minded with our seemingly anti-American president and Congressional majority--can shed some light on why they want that.

Locking them away at Guantanamo and elsewhere simply keeps them out of the headlines--to as limited an extent as the leftist mainstream media can be overcome--and allows the American forces trying to defeat our enemies to do their jobs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

In World War II we had German prisoners working on farms in the United States. I hardly think they were given trials.

Maybe our laws have changed. Or maybe those fellas are not legally POW's because we have not declared war on another nation.

It's a messed up situation. There are two sides to the story. I imagine that there were a number of people swept-up and sent to Gitmo who didn't deserve to be there. Perhaps there was a problem determining the (relative) innocents. But since the number of prisoners has been reduced drastically, I assume that has occurred by now.

[texaspackerbacker]

There is a recognized international standard for being considered a prisoner of war. These terrorists don't meet that standard; The WW2 captured Germans did. The modern equivalent to them were Saddam's troops captured in the Gulf War.

Are you really so naive as to fail to see the anti-civilian aspect of the 9/11 terrorists and others of their kind? Similar Germans were tried at Nuremburg.

[mraynrand]

It seems there are three important issues

1.) Separating goat herders from terrorists/un-uniformed fighters. We don't want to off the goat herders - but Harlan makes the point that probably goat herders have already been released. I doubt there are many mistaken identities

2.) Due process. Well, we've been through this. The scum we picked up don't have Geneva convention rights, but that doesn't mean we can't deal with them in an equitable manner. Military tribunals seem reasonable. Putting them in America or in the American legal system seems absolutely absurd (many couldn't be effectively tried due to secret info, others don't qualify for even POW rights. Giving them ideologically motivated lawyers also provides a means to use insanity pleas, etc.). Releasing them into the U.S. population or even overseas seems to be a disaster too. Perhaps those who are released (to Saudi Jihadi twelve step programs) could be fitted with GPS tracking devices, surgically implanted, so we can keep tabs.

3.) Torture. It's been said that the reason they are at Gitmo in the first place is so that they can be tortured out of the public eye. Well, if that was the reason, it didn't work all that well now did it? Gitmo has been under a microscope, deliberately made that why by ----, for PR and political purposes. But why would anyone assume that U.S. prisons would be any better - unless the prisoners were now given the same treatment as serial killers or other U.S. criminals - and then you are back to #2. It's clear that the stated U.S. policy should be that we do not use torture (whatever that means) - and then we use those techniques when it is absolutely necessary without admitting it. Torture should be safe, illegal, and rare.

[Freak Out]

When Gitmo Was (Relatively) Good

By Karen J. Greenberg
Sunday, January 25, 2009; B01

In his first week in office, President Obama signed an executive order that would shut down the notorious U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year. But as the United States moves to end this shameful episode, it's worth reflecting on the untold story of the very beginnings of Guantanamo.

The following account, which draws on dozens of interviews I conducted over the past few years, tells the startling tale of a period shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, when military officers on the ground tried to do the right thing with the recently captured detainees but were ultimately defeated by civilian officials back in Washington. Those early days -- back before Gitmo became Gitmo -- strongly suggest that the damage the prison inflicted on America's honor and security could have been avoided if policymakers had been willing to follow the uniformed military's basic instincts. It may be too late for these revelations to help redeem Guantanamo in its waning days. But those crafting U.S. detention policy in the years ahead could still benefit from learning about these small initial efforts at decency.

The story begins in the first week of January 2002, when Joint Task Force 160, led by Marine Brig. Gen. Michael Lehnert, dutifully landed at Guantanamo Bay. Lehnert's approximately 2,000 troops were fired up about their mission: building the first detention facility for prisoners taken from the Afghan battlefield. The unit had a 96-hour deadline, according to Lehnert, and they were told that about 300 detainees were already en route to Cuba. As Col. William Meier, Lehnert's chief of staff, explained it, the task force had to scavenge materials from existing structures on the base to help build hundreds of cells and the massive tent city needed to house the U.S. troops coming in to guard them. One commander working on the construction mission, Lou V. Corielo, told a Marine Corps interviewer at the time that he found himself lamenting the absence of a Home Depot.

But it wasn't the logistics that most worried Lehnert. It was the policy vacuum into which he and his troops had been thrown. "We are writing the book as we go," one officer said at the time. Lehnert said he had been told by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the Geneva Conventions would not technically apply to his mission: He was to act in a manner "consistent with" the conventions (as the mantra went) but not to feel bound by them. The Joint Task Force, advised by U.S. Southern Command, was essentially left on its own to improvise a regime of care and custody for the allegedly hardened al-Qaeda terrorists -- whom the Bush administration famously called "the worst of the worst" -- who would be coming their way. The idea, as Lehnert told me he understood it, was to detain them and wait for a legal process to begin.

In the absence of new policy guidance about how to treat the detainees, Lehnert told me that he felt he had no choice but to rely on the regulations already in place, ones in which the military was well schooled: the Uniform Code of Military Justice, other U.S. laws and, above all, the Geneva Conventions. The detainees, no matter what their official status, were essentially to be considered enemy prisoners of war, a status that mandated basic standards of humane treatment. One lawyer for the Judge Advocate General Corps, Lt. Col. Tim Miller, told me that he used the enemy-POW guidelines as his "working manual." A corrections specialist, Staff Sgt. Anthony Gallegos, called Washington's orders "shady," which he told me gave his colleagues no choice but to "go with the Geneva Conventions."

The task force set to work around the clock, processing the detainees upon arrival, administering medical treatment and providing general care in the cells of the newly built Camp X-Ray. Lehnert's lawyers studied the 143 articles of the Geneva Conventions, paying particular attention to Common Article 3, which prohibits "humiliating and degrading treatment." The head of the operation's detention unit, Col. Terry Carrico, summed up the situation to a team of Marine Corps interviewers several weeks into the mission: "The Geneva Conventions don't officially apply, but they do apply."

But there were early signs of trouble. Lehnert told me that his request to bring representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to Guantanamo -- something international law requires for all prisoners being held in war-related situations -- was, as he heard it, shunted aside somewhere up the chain of command. "The initial request," he recalled, "was turned down." He persisted. Even if he obviously could not implement some of the Geneva Conventions requirements -- the right to musical instruments, for instance, or the right to work for payment -- he wanted advice from ICRC professionals to help him ensure the prisoners' safety and dignity.

Exasperated by repeated attempts to find out which guidelines to apply to the detainees, Col. Manuel Supervielle, the head JAG at Southern Command, picked up the phone and called the ICRC's headquarters in Geneva. As one member of the Southern Command staff remembers the episode, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had warned the Gitmo task force that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office opposed getting involved with the ICRC. But now, according to Supervielle, a U.S. officer was asking the ICRC to help out at Guantanamo. The ICRC answered with an immediate "Yes."

It was a pivotal moment in the history of Guantanamo. Once Supervielle's call had been made, the civilian policymakers around Rumsfeld could not undo what the uniformed military had done -- although, according to Supervielle, an irritated team of lawyers, including Pentagon general counsel William J. "Jim" Haynes II, asked the Southern Command lawyer days later whether there was "a way to back out of it now."

The ICRC arrived at Guantanamo on Jan. 17, 2002 -- six days after the detainees did. Thus began what amounted to a period of subtle defiance of Washington's lack of direction. The ICRC worked with Joint Task Force 160 to create a rational, legal detention operation. ICRC representatives immediately began to help Lehnert's troops improve the grim physical situation of the hastily constructed camp: the open-air cages in which prisoners were held, the cells without toilets, the constant exposure to heat and rain.

To intensify his efforts, Lehnert told me, he requested a Muslim chaplain, Navy Lt. Abuhena M. Saifulislam. "Saif," as the Bangladeshi American imam was known throughout the camp, became a fixture inside the blocs of cages at Camp X-Ray. Task force members recall him strolling daily through the camp, sometimes accompanied by Lehnert, and conversing with the detainees -- some of whom were in no mood to chat, some of whom had stories to tell. Lehnert tried to assure them that some form of legal remedy or transfer home was in the works, as one former detainee, British citizen Shafiq Rasul, told me.

Brig. Gen. Lehnert had built his own Guantanamo, one with ICRC oversight, a Muslim chaplain and an overriding ethos that stressed codified law and the unwritten rules of human decency. Lehnert's team let the detainees talk among themselves; it provided halal food, an additional washing bucket inside cells that lacked toilet facilities, a Koran for each detainee, skullcaps and prayer beads for those who wanted them, and undergarments for the prisoners to wear at shower time, in accordance with Islamic laws that proscribe public nakedness.

Perhaps Lehnert's Guantanamo could have been sustained. But Rumsfeld wanted something else: He expected to get valuable, actionable intelligence from the detainees. By late January 2002, according to Brig. Gen. Galen B. Jackman, Lehnert's chief contact at Southern Command, the defense secretary told officers on a video conference call with Southern Command that he was frustrated by the absence of such information.

A displeased Rumsfeld seems to have decided to create a second command, one that would exist side by side with Lehnert's. It would be devoted solely to gathering intelligence and would be headed by a reservist major general, a former U.S. Army interrogator during the Vietnam War named Michael Dunlavey. Jackman told me that he considered the idea of two parallel commands a "recipe for disaster." At the same time, Navy Capt. Robert Buehn, the commander of the naval base at Guantanamo, recalled, the Gitmo task force's initial expectations of orders to build a courtroom began to fade.

As Dunlavey's command took shape in late February and early March, the fabric of prisoner's rights that Lehnert had woven was beginning to unravel. By the end of February, nearly 200 detainees had mounted a hunger strike to protest their treatment. Interrogations, not trials, had become the future of Guantanamo.

But Lehnert did not concede defeat. In later accounts, several detainees described the surprise they felt watching the general walk through the camp in response to the hunger strike. As these prisoners remembered it, Lehnert would sit on the ground outside the wire-mesh cells, hat in hand, and make promises to prisoners in exchange for their agreement to eat. According to these detainees, he promised to remove a guard who they said had kicked a copy of the Koran and to find a way to reduce the chafing of the ankle shackles they wore during transport. One German detainee, Murat Kurnaz, was among the detainees who watched Lehnert negotiate with the prisoners. "Was he trying to signal that . . . he wanted to speak to the prisoner as a human being?" Kurnaz wondered. Lehnert admitted to me that, with the help of Saif, the chaplain, he even put in a call to a detainee's wife to find out whether she had safely delivered the baby they were expecting -- a boy, it turned out. Above all, the U.S. general hoped to avoid having to feed the prisoners by force.

Thanks in large part to Lehnert's efforts, the hunger strike dwindled to a couple of dozen fasters by the first week of March. But as much as he might have championed the need to respect the detainees as individuals -- albeit allegedly dangerous terrorists -- Guantanamo's future had been decided. As the hunger strike wound down, Lehnert said, he and his unit were given notice that they would soon be leaving.

Once Lehnert's troops departed, a new Guantanamo took shape -- the Guantanamo that an appalled world has come to know over the past seven years. Inmates were kept in isolation, interrogation became the core mission, hunger strikers were regularly force-fed, and above all, the promise of a legal resolution to the detainees' cases has eluded hundreds of prisoners.

As Obama moves to close Guantanamo down, the story of Joint Task Force 160 takes on new significance. Had the United States been willing to trust in the professionalism of its superb military, it could have avoided one of the most shameful passages in its history. Lehnert still regrets the legal limbo that Guantanamo became -- and the damage that did to America's "stature in the world." As he put it, "the juice wasn't worth the squeeze."

And there is a final irony on the horizon.

One of the places now being considered as a new U.S.-based destination for the remaining Gitmo detainees is Camp Pendleton, a Marine Corps base in Southern California. The base's commanding general is none other than Michael Lehnert, now a major general. The detainees might well be returned to his custody. In several senses, we could wind up right back where we started. This time, however, we should have the law on our side -- not to mention a conscience.

kjg550@gmail.com

[mraynrand]

Once Lehnert's troops departed, a new Guantanamo took shape -- the Guantanamo that an appalled world has come to know over the past seven years. Inmates were kept in isolation, interrogation became the core mission, hunger strikers were regularly force-fed, and above all, the promise of a legal resolution to the detainees' cases has eluded hundreds of prisoners.


I didn't see the support for this view in this article. The article focused on the outgoing commanders' view. And, even if somewhat true, it doesn't tell the whole story, and it doesn't sound all that appalling - at least no where near as appalling as snuff videos taken while slaughtering Jewish reporters and others with a machetes, watching as the arterial blood spurts in a fountain several feet above their cleaved necks, with their partially severed head hanging off the side of their torso, eyes still blinking, still aware.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the notorious U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year. But as the United States moves to end this shameful episode,

"notorious", "shameful" - what is the point of continuing to read the article?

I'm looking for some thoughtful analysis, not a repetition of propoganda.

[Freak Out]

the notorious U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year. But as the United States moves to end this shameful episode,

"notorious", "shameful" - what is the point of continuing to read the article?

I'm looking for some thoughtful analysis, not a repetition of propoganda.

:lol: I had to laugh but posted it for the comments of some of the military brass involved. That's all.

Who is not appalled at the things you described ayn?

[mraynrand]

Who is not appalled at the things you described ayn?

Al Quaeda. I included that description to add perspective. I think it's easy to get detached from the reality of what kind of people we are dealing with here. There are very few innocent goat herders in Gitmo, methinks.

[Freak Out]

Who is not appalled at the things you described ayn?

Al Quaeda. I included that description to add perspective. I think it's easy to get detached from the reality of what kind of people we are dealing with here. There are very few innocent goat herders in Gitmo, methinks.

The US has said that 50-60 of the detainees do not pose a risk and they want to release them...but either the EU nations where they have lived are balking at taking them or their home countries have serious human rights violations so the US will not send them back. What do we do with this group?

[mraynrand]

Who is not appalled at the things you described ayn?

Al Quaeda. I included that description to add perspective. I think it's easy to get detached from the reality of what kind of people we are dealing with here. There are very few innocent goat herders in Gitmo, methinks.

The US has said that 50-60 of the detainees do not pose a risk and they want to release them...but either the EU nations where they have lived are balking at taking them or their home countries have serious human rights violations so the US will not send them back. What do we do with this group?

That's a good question.

[swede]

Who is not appalled at the things you described ayn?

Al Quaeda. I included that description to add perspective. I think it's easy to get detached from the reality of what kind of people we are dealing with here. There are very few innocent goat herders in Gitmo, methinks.

The US has said that 50-60 of the detainees do not pose a risk and they want to release them...but either the EU nations where they have lived are balking at taking them or their home countries have serious human rights violations so the US will not send them back. What do we do with this group?

That's a good question.

The International Space Station could use a new custodial staff. Empty the vacuum toilets and whatnot.

[texaspackerbacker]

Force-feeding hunger strikers? That's a BAD thing? Well, yeah, I guess from MY side's point of view, it is bad. But to libs and coddlers and Euro-wimps, how is keeping the bastards alive considered bad?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Two Prisons, Similar Issues for President
WASHINGTON — For months, a national debate has raged over the fate of the 245 detainees at the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But what may be an equally difficult problem now confronts the Obama administration in the 600 prisoners packed into a cavernous, makeshift prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan.

Military personnel who know Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site as tougher and more spartan. The prisoners have fewer privileges and virtually no access to lawyers. Many are still held communally in big cages. The Bush administration never allowed journalists or human rights advocates inside.

Problems have also developed with efforts to rehabilitate former jihadists, some of whom had been imprisoned at Guantánamo. Nine graduates of a Saudi program have been arrested for rejoining terrorist groups, Saudi officials said Monday

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/washington/27bagram.html

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think the world gives a flying fuck about the prisoners in Afghanistan.

Gitmo anger was all about anti-Americanism, and even more so hatred of Bush.

Bush did not do a good job in International relationships. That's just a fact. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld refused to play the games.

It is good for our country that we have a new party in power.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't think the world would have given a flying fuck about Bush in general--if not for the constant Bush-hate and America-hate spewed by our own leftist mainstream media--which in turn, infected media perspective worldwide. And I KNOW I don't give a flying fuck about the world--which let's face it, is just a bunch of meaningless trash foreigners--thinks anyway.

Can anybody honestly make the claim that having damn foreigners--and Americans for that matter--love and respect an asshole like Clinton (and now Obama) and hate Bush, was anything other than a product of blatant and sick media bias in favor of leftists and against anything pro-American or conservative?

[texaspackerbacker]

Two Prisons, Similar Issues for President
WASHINGTON — For months, a national debate has raged over the fate of the 245 detainees at the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But what may be an equally difficult problem now confronts the Obama administration in the 600 prisoners packed into a cavernous, makeshift prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan.

Military personnel who know Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site as tougher and more spartan. The prisoners have fewer privileges and virtually no access to lawyers. Many are still held communally in big cages. The Bush administration never allowed journalists or human rights advocates inside.

Problems have also developed with efforts to rehabilitate former jihadists, some of whom had been imprisoned at Guantánamo. Nine graduates of a Saudi program have been arrested for rejoining terrorist groups, Saudi officials said Monday

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/washington/27bagram.html

So send the pieces of terrorist shit to Bagram. The only downside is that there actually was a terrorist orchestrated prison break there once, and theoretically, it could happen again. MAYBE we LET that break happen, then gun down all 245 of them--thereby solving the problem--you know, kinda like in old cowboy movies where the sheriff opens the jail door and gives the prisoner a two second head start.

If we still had Bush instead of a spineless Erkel like Obama, I'd actually have some hope for this.

[Harlan Huckleby]

was a terrorist orchestrated prison break there once, and theoretically, it could happen again. MAYBE we LET that break happen, then gun down all 245 of them--thereby solving the problem

you definitely get points for thinking outside the box.

come to think of it, the OBVIOUS solution to GITMO is to ship the bastards to Afghanistan for a more rustic internment experience. But that won't happen, it would draw too much attention to the far worse condition there.

I don't like the willfull dishonesty of this cave-in to world-wide opinion. The pretending to be chastened. But we need to be a little humble and wonder if it won't work out to be a smart choice that brings benefits.

World-wide opinion matters a great deal. Gulf War I went smoothly because we had amazing international cooperation. In Gulf War II, MANY Iraqi and American lives were lost because of the long-term consequences of our ally Turkey working against us. The U.S. needs allies.

[mraynrand]

World-wide opinion matters a great deal. Gulf War I went smoothly because we had amazing international cooperation. In Gulf War II, MANY Iraqi and American lives were lost because of the long-term consequences of our ally Turkey working against us. The U.S. needs allies.

I agree. But sometimes you have to go on even in the face of negative worldwide opinion, because you know the world's opinion is wrong. In the cases of Abu Grahib and Gitmo, the word on the street was far more damaging. At Abu Grahib, the people held there were released and told their stories to their friends and neighbors - that was probably the single most damaging event, PR-wise. Not because of the bad press, but because of the actual experiences being told friend to friend. Michael Yon reported on this and a buddy of mine who was in the military hospital there, said the same thing - many of the Iraqis they operated on and saved were shocked at the great treatment they received because they thought they would be treated like the prisoners at Abu. I suspect there is a similar effect from Gitmo - but to a lesser extent. It's a dicey situation, because you know you have the worst of the worst side by side with innocents.

[texaspackerbacker]

was a terrorist orchestrated prison break there once, and theoretically, it could happen again. MAYBE we LET that break happen, then gun down all 245 of them--thereby solving the problem

you definitely get points for thinking outside the box.

come to think of it, the OBVIOUS solution to GITMO is to ship the bastards to Afghanistan for a more rustic internment experience. But that won't happen, it would draw too much attention to the far worse condition there.

I don't like the willfull dishonesty of this cave-in to world-wide opinion. The pretending to be chastened. But we need to be a little humble and wonder if it won't work out to be a smart choice that brings benefits.

World-wide opinion matters a great deal. Gulf War I went smoothly because we had amazing international cooperation. In Gulf War II, MANY Iraqi and American lives were lost because of the long-term consequences of our ally Turkey working against us. The U.S. needs allies.

Harlan, what you see as thinking outside the box I see as merely reflecting the normal viewpoints of normal people.

It could and should be done--the shipping off to Afghanistan--without public knowledge. There again, that would be the Bush way--Obama has his damn transparency thing--SELECTIVE transparency, only when it harms America.

I HATE the idea of caving to world opinion a thousand times as much as you. We are the United States of America, the dominant military force in the world, and the ONLY force for good in the world--and WE should care what the assholic cowards of Europe or the embracers of EVIL in the Muslim world or the just plain irrelevant third worlders think? Give me a break!

As for your little flawed comparison of the Gulf Wars, the military portion in BOTH cases went incredibly smooth--perhaps you recall the smooth sailing to and through the fall of Baghdad, even well after--the capture of Saddam, etc. Things only turned to shit when al Qaeda made a supreme effort to stir up sectarian violence--starting with bombing that Shi'ite mosque--and as I have stated repeatedly, doing that probably diminished al Qaeda's ability to hit us at home. Perhaps you also recall after the first Gulf War the ill-fated UN mission in Iraq--what happens when we leave things to shitheads from foreign countries to manage. Perhaps you also recall that Afghanistan was just fine for years until we turned over a lot of the responsibility to NATO--the worthless Euro-trash. Then things deteriorated to the point where now 20,000 additional Americans are going back to set things right.

Time was lost, not lives due to the treachery of the Turks in the second Gulf War. The 82nd Airborne secured the northern oil facilities and the al Qaeda training camp early on--the main mission the troops coming in from Turkey would have had.

We need allies? Bullshit! The trash "allies" need us!

Without the protection of America, the whole civilized world would have fallen prey to the forces of evil a long time ago--Nazism, Communism, radical Islam--tell me that isn't 100% true.

[mraynrand]

We need allies? Bullshit! The trash "allies" need us!

Without the protection of America, the whole civilized world would have fallen prey to the forces of evil a long time ago--Nazism, Communism, radical Islam--tell me that isn't 100% true.

That's dead-on balls right.

[Freak Out]

We need allies? Bullshit! The trash "allies" need us!

Without the protection of America, the whole civilized world would have fallen prey to the forces of evil a long time ago--Nazism, Communism, radical Islam--tell me that isn't 100% true.

That's dead-on balls right.

We need each other.

[arcilite]

To say we don't need allies is foolish. Of course we need allies.

It is a global economy and we depend on other countries and can not afford to be isolationists.

[mraynrand]

To say we don't need allies is foolish. Of course we need allies.

It is a global economy and we depend on other countries and can not afford to be isolationists.

If we were isolationists, they wouldn't exist as they are today. In some ways, you could make the argument that it's a bad thing - for example, old Europe doesn't protect itself much anymore.

[bobblehead]

We need allies? Bullshit! The trash "allies" need us!

Without the protection of America, the whole civilized world would have fallen prey to the forces of evil a long time ago--Nazism, Communism, radical Islam--tell me that isn't 100% true.

That's dead-on balls right.

We need each other.

Yes, if they didn't steal our medical advances and technologies they couldn't put up a National Health Care program that libs here could use to prove how terrible it is in america.

[texaspackerbacker]

And What exactly do we need from THEM--whoever the hell THEM might be--that we couldn't just take, if we were of a mind to? But no, for better or worse, we handicap ourselves in dealing with THEM--whether the THEM is enemies or "allies".

I have spoken in the past of nuclear intimidation. Sure, it won't ever happen, because we are GOOD--the GOOD that America-hating leftists deny exists--along with the other half of GOOD VERSUS EVIL. If we were--as I said--of a mind to, we could dominate as no empire in human history ever has. For whatever reason, God has seen fit not to empower those of us in this country who would exercise our power. Oh well, it's the world's loss that America doesn't dominate and rid the world of evil. I guess God reserves that for Himself.

You know what I don't understand? How could atheists--which I would assume statistically, the great majority of America-hating leftists are--not insist that America use its might to dominate the world? Why? Either to do good--because God doesn't exist for us to count on Him, or because without God, there is no good and evil, only possess or not possess--take your pick.

[Kiwon]

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/012709_returnedtoterror.JPGhttp://www.foxnews.com/images/496681/0_61_012709_martyr_tape.jpg

Apparently, Mr. al-Ajmi was not "tortured" enough with rice pilaf and glazed chicken at Gitmo to change his worldview.

.................................................. .................................

As President Obama pushes for the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison, the debate over where to house the terror detainees being held there is heating up.

An exclusive video of a former Gitmo detainee's martyrdom tape, obtained by FOX News, is a reminder of the concerns that terror suspects — who have been held but released from Guantanamo Bay — are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies.

Abdallah Ali al-Ajmi was transferred back to his home country of Kuwait after his release from Guantanamo in 2005. Last April he blew himself up in a homicide attack that killed 12 people in Mosul, Iraq.

Al-Ajmi, known in Guantanamo as Detainee 220, made his martyrdom tape before the attack.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483764,00.html

[Freak Out]

No quarter.