GITMO To Be Closed In One Year

[roadrunner]

There was a big issue about what was going to happen to the detainees once Guantanomo closed. Obama wanted to send them to Europe.

Many European countries said no.

Once they're tried (if that's the case), then what? Are they going to remain in American jails, and then be released into the American population?

Are the innocent ones going to be released into the American population, because if they go back, they'll be jailed etc?

In any case, I think the plan should be there for all to see soon.

Just so long as he doesn't send any to Europe.....

 

[blain2]

Let's not get carried away now.

It is in the US's interests to close Gitmo. It is not doing it any image favours.

Bush could have closed it - why wait for Obama to?

Let's see what Obama does about foreign policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Venezuala, Palestine, Iran, the world, basically. That is the important stuff.

RR,

In my humble opinion, its still better than not doing this. He is setting it right because at least the legal process will be within the framework of US constitution, that means that the will of the American people is behind him. Otherwise I suspect people would have been out on the streets asking for GITMO stay put. That has not happened.

So while its not all of what we in the Muslim world may want, its a start and from the looks of it, a decent one. So lets build on the positive instead of having absolutist demands.

 

[waraich66]

To civilian courts and jails. The right way to do this in my opinion.

Can you explain why US adopted illegal way for investigation ?

What are those forces who hijacked whole government machinery of super power?

 

[ajpirzada]

its a great news. really gud for US image in the world

 

[Omar1984]

The people in guantanoma bay prison should now be given a fair trial, if Obama really stands by justice.

 

[roadrunner]

It is good that it's closing, I also accept the point that GB was outside of US jurisdiction, and so now people must be tried, convicted, or released.

That is good.

I'm currently not giving too much credit until I've seen what he's really made of.

If one good thing is followed by much greater worse things, then that's no good.

That's what I believe will happen.

I realize that you are waiting to see what happens, and I'm predicting what will happen.

I just seem to have this feeling for some reason, probably because we all know who his backers and cabinet are.

 

[Beskar]

The problem Isn't only exclusive to the Main stream camps such as GITMO and GB. The real problem is that there are number of small non-mainstream camps spread out in Afganistan and Iraq. Closing down Mainstream camps might sound like a good thing to do and would definitely provide Obama with great reputation, but the SAME tactics of these "Famous" camps are being used in other small prison facilities that we don't even know about. Change the entire flawed policy about prisons or don't change anything at all.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Can you explain why US adopted illegal way for investigation ?
What are those forces who hijacked whole government machinery of super power?

The use of Guantanamo was chosen by the Bush administration primarily because they wanted to be able to interrogate the al Qaeda types that they captured or were given to them by other governments, including Pakistan. If they were given the status of "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions, then the US could not have interrogated them (they only have to give name, rank and serial number, etc.). Because they are non-State combatants, they do not fit the written rules of the Geneva Conventions. If they were taken to US jail, then they would have had to be given civilian lawyers and those lawyers would have prevented any interrogation as well. So the Bush Administration decided that they wanted the information out of these men more than they wanted to be able to just hold them as prisoners of war. As prisoners of war, they could be held until the war is over, perhaps forever for the WoT may be forever, but not questioned.

In some past wars that the US has fought, especially when hostilities occurred on American soil, the US Government has suspended constitutional rights for the enemy combatants. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during our civil war and Franklin Roosevelt had Japanese and German American citizens detained in camps during WWII.

I would ask you does Pakistan treat captured foreign "terrorists" under the rules of the Geneva Convention? Are such people "aggressively interrogated'? What do you think?

 

[PakForce Unlimited]

This one should answers the questions most guys have about closedown of Guantanamo Bay and about the prisoners.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/gitmo_final_exec_order.pdf

 

[waraich66]

The use of Guantanamo was chosen by the Bush administration primarily because they wanted to be able to interrogate the al Qaeda types that they captured or were given to them by other governments, including Pakistan. If they were given the status of "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions, then the US could not have interrogated them (they only have to give name, rank and serial number, etc.). Because they are non-State combatants, they do not fit the written rules of the Geneva Conventions. If they were taken to US jail, then they would have had to be given civilian lawyers and those lawyers would have prevented any interrogation as well. So the Bush Administration decided that they wanted the information out of these men more than they wanted to be able to just hold them as prisoners of war. As prisoners of war, they could be held until the war is over, perhaps forever for the WoT may be forever, but not questioned.

In some past wars that the US has fought, especially when hostilities occurred on American soil, the US Government has suspended constitutional rights for the enemy combatants. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during our civil war and Franklin Roosevelt had Japanese and German American citizens detained in camps during WWII.

I would ask you does Pakistan treat captured foreign "terrorists" under the rules of the Geneva Convention? Are such people "aggressively interrogated'? What do you think?

Pakistan is not developed country but our law can be easily modified with single executive order and all charges can be waved off eg president zardari.

I think if US remain under british rule world will be better place to live and atleast bristhers never did these type of crimes against humanity as US did in WW1,WW2 and WOT

What is your point of view?

 

[fatman17]

its going to take a year or so to shut gitmo down completely. what happens to the inmates is still not finalised. at this time it is a "symbolic" act to show to the rest of the world that the US president and his admn will adhere to the rule-of-law in their dealings of this type and other matters. obama wants to win back the moral high ground which the US had enjoyed in the past.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think if US remain under british rule world will be better place to live and atleast bristhers never did these type of crimes against humanity as US did in WW1,WW2 and WOT

What is your point of view?

The US has not committed any crimes against humanity in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or the WoT. You can not name a "crime against humanity" that the US has committed. The British were very brutal in many of their colonies in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

 

[Jihad]

The US has not committed any crimes against humanity in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or the WoT. You can not name a "crime against humanity" that the US has committed. The British were very brutal in many of their colonies in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

Ehm, dropping hundreds of tons of bombs on Vietnam after the U.S. realized that there was nothing to be "won" in Vietnam before they decided to pull out?
Or what about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? Don't tell me now that all those innocent japanese civilians had to die just because an American army ship along with its crew was attacked?
What happened to retaliation AGAINST Japanese military institutes instead of civilians?
I mean, if these 2 factors are no crimes against humanity, then I seriously don't know what you understand with "crimes against humanity".
But then again, those times were different back then, everything was justified right, but still, that doesn't mean we cannot call them crimes against humanity.

 

[DarkStar]

The US has not committed any crimes against humanity in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam or the WoT. You can not name a "crime against humanity" that the US has committed. The British were very brutal in many of their colonies in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

It's a new era, with the 'coronation' of Barack Hussain Obama, who has enormous political capital, and the mandate of most of the people on earth. So now would not be the ideal time to talk about US human rights abuses, but two instances I will mention.

The use of Depleted Uranium weapons during the first Gulf War and napalm bombs, agent orange during the vietnam conflict. Both have been variously described as crimes against humanity and war crimes.

 

[TruthSeeker]

dropping hundreds of tons of bombs on Vietnam
Or what about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

The use of Depleted Uranium weapons during the first Gulf War and napalm bombs, agent orange during the vietnam conflict. Both have been variously described as crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Not "crimes against humanity". Just the usual horror of war. The US has never been found guilty of "crimes against humanity" by any legal authority. The people who label US actions as such could find "comparable" actions by any nation in the world that has been at war. Just saying it doesn't make it so.