11 ms·

More Than 150 Organizations Call to Close Guantánamo on 21st Anniversary

152 points by sfusato 4y ago

cactusplant7374 4y ago
How can prisoners file appeals or control their mental illness if they are isolated can't function properly? These prisons are beyond punishment and the steps Supermax takes to prevent suicide also seems inhumane considering the conditions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tiahura 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > It’s a necessary evil. No it's not. As the person you responded to pointed out it's basically torture when you're preventing suicide. If someone is such a permanent problem, execution and suicide are obviously options, but there are also many prisons that provide the isolation you want without being as bad. There's no excuse and it's far from "needed."
  - sfusato 4y ago
    > most people accept that out of 8,000,000,000 people, there are 35 that need to sent to a facility like Guantanamo. Most people do not accept that most Guantánamo detainees have been/are being held without ever being charged or tried. The terrorist in this case is the US as harsh as that sounds.
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      > Most people do not accept that most Guantánamo detainees have been/are being held without ever being charged or tried. People are right not to accept that because it isn't true. Of the 35 Guantanamo Bay detainees, 3 are being held without charge. https://www.closeguantanamo.org/Prisoners https://www.closeguantanamo.org/Prisoners
  - shrimp_emoji 4y ago
    This could be a quote about gulags or death camps. What's "necessary" is subjective, but at least we've got a fairly universal basis for "evil", as consolation.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - gizmo385 4y ago
      Didn’t expect to read someone using slurs on hacker news either
  - cies 4y ago
    >The goal is simply isolation to prevent recidivism. Simply? The goals is to have a prison outside of the US where the US (i think mainly CIA) can do things that it cannot when in the US. The goal is clearly to subvert the "rules based order" they so vocally claim to uphold.
  - jakeinspace 4y ago
    I don't think most people are fascist, at least not to this extent.
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    The goal of Guantanamo Bay was to try to evade the Constitution. It failed, however: SCOTUS still ruled that non-US citizens held by the US in non-US territory still retained certain constitutional rights with regards to criminal trials.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    You would think differently if you were one of these 35 people.
chedca21 4y ago
[dead]
asah 4y ago
As I understand it, nobody wants to keep gitmo open, the issue is that the remaining prisoners have nowhere to go. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/11/close-guantanamo-prison-wolosky-526829 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/11/close-guan...
- FpUser 4y ago
  Well they should be accepted into US then.
  - SllX 4y ago
    Back under the Obama Administration they tried exactly that. It didn't pan out as no State wanted them and no Senator wanted to be the one to tell their constituents "we'll accept terrorists in our borders" Federal prison system or not. Here's the current list if you want to dig deeper into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_detainees_at_G...
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      There is an interesting workaround in housing them at the District of Columbia Jail. The DC Jail being located outside of any state, wouldn't have the problem of the state or senators being held accountable by constituents as DC isn't a state nor does it have any senators.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - SllX 4y ago
        Technically true but you’re forgetting about the 4 Senators from Virginia and Maryland and the DC government that Congress has setup. They might not be directly answerable to DC residents but they’re sure as hell answerable to the people that live around DC and they still have to work in the same city as DC residents live. Less political power doesn’t mean zero political power.
kristopolous 4y ago
Giving the bay back to Cuba would also be a reasonable thing.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  "Reasonable" is not a term that can be associated with American politics.
- nradov 4y ago
  Reasonable in what sense? The US is still in compliance with the terms of the lease.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    That lease is illegal under international law - it has no end date and Cuba can never get it back. Go and try to lease a house forever on a fixed price - let me know how you get on
    - nradov 4y ago
      Which specific international law is that? I am not aware that the US has ratified any treaty which would outlaw perpetual leases. If Cuba is unhappy with the terms of the agreement then they are welcome to renegotiate. US real estate and contract law has zero relevance here so I don't know why you would bring that up.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        > I am not aware that the US has ratified any treaty which would outlaw perpetual leases. So if Russia did not ratify UN convention on war crimes, then their behaviour in Ukraine is okay? You seem to have no grasp of international law at all. Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force.” The Platt Amendment and accompanying Agreement could have violated this article because the leasing provision was a threatening ultimatum. The first Cuban government extended the lease with unequal bargaining power: Cuba understood that U.S. military forces would remain on the island if the leasing arrangement was not made Cuba may hold that the United States breached the lease Agreement under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention - Lease was for a naval base, not an illegal detention camp. https://www.nyujilp.org/guantanamo-bays-quasi-colonial-status-from-leasehold-to-detention-camp/ https://www.nyujilp.org/guantanamo-bays-quasi-colonial-statu...
user3939382 4y ago
It’s sad that we live in a world where politicians just blatantly lie about their campaign promises and we all accept it as normal and award them with high approval ratings.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > It’s sad that we live in a world where politicians just blatantly lie about their campaign promises and we all accept it as normal and award them with high approval ratings. Though, part of that problem is that we also live in a world where the electorate also makes unrealistic demands on politicians, and will punish them if they don't get the promises they demand. I think that's especially true in primaries when it's mainly activists that can really push for promises that are not especially popular. Which isn't to let anyone off the hook, just to note it's one of those difficult problems that's composed of interlocking problems that reinforce each other.
  - kurthr 4y ago
    I agree, but would go further and argue that the belief that "all politicians lie" is itself a problem with negative effects. Since we have a competitive system and a self described political entertainment complex, everyone running for office will be described as a liar. However, when an actual compulsive (pathological and self admitted?) liar is elected to congress, the belief that "everyone does it" serves as a justification for doing nothing. It misses the forest for the trees and provides an excuse for allowing the very problem it describes to grow and become worse.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  Politicians campaign on what they will try to do. Whether they will achieve it is another matter. Obama tried to close Guantanamo Bay. Trump tried to build that wall. https://archive.ph/2017.04.12-174418/http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo https://archive.ph/2017.04.12-174418/http://www.newyorker.co...
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
I have no idea why they even try anymore? There was an UN vote to try to stop the sanction against cuba... the result? 185 vs 2 - 185 to stop the sanctions, 2 (brazil, ukraine) abstained and 2 countries voted to continue the sanctions (israel and of course USA). Until this becomes an internal USA issue affecting the elections, and when the propaganda doesn't help anymore with that, things will change... but for now, nothing will happen, waterbordings will continue while the politicians point fingers at other countries for stuff way less sever than whan usa has done in the last few decades.
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  Isn't this because Florida is likely to make or break the US Presidential election? There are many ex-Cubans in the Miami area that despise the current Cuban government. Enough, that as a bloc they can decide the election and they will mostly vote for whoever's policy is against the Cuban government. Either party defecting from status quo to drop sanctions will just be handing the US government to the other party.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Is Florida really a swing state anymore? It seems Georgia and maybe NC are the new battlegrounds. I’ve lived in all of those states and it has been interesting to see.
    - reducesuffering 4y ago
      Well, it's currently a "must-win" for Republicans that's reasonably close, so first and foremost they won't be the ones to upset their chances at all. In the last election, it wasn't razor-thin like Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, or NC, but if the Democrats lose a few of those then they need the next runner-up like Florida. Florida was Democrat in '08, '12, and only lost by 1.29% in '16. With Republicans winning Florida by 3.36% in 2020, maybe Cuba's best chance is for Florida to actually be a lost cause to Democrats so that they go ahead with dropping the sanctions. Although, Democrats won '08 by 3% and still flipped the other way, so it's very possible to consider it fair game. If true, I've discovered why voting for your opposite choice could be a valid option if you care about a specific issue like this.
newaccount2021 4y ago
[dead]
javajosh 4y ago
It's been over 20 years. Let 'em go or kill 'em, and close the base. And never do anything like this again. There is no best outcome, only least worst outcome, at this point. EDIT: and for the downvoters, you realize that if we do nothing they will spend the rest of their lives in prison without a trial, right? And worse, the base will remain open and available for more torture.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  I assume you're being down voted for suggesting "kill 'em" is a viable option.
  - javajosh 4y ago
    My point is that "kill 'em" is exactly what we've already done to them, but we're too cowardly to admit it.
- nradov 4y ago
  Let them go to where? No US state or third country is willing to take them.
manv1 4y ago
Maybe the members of these organizations would be willing to take responsibility for the prisoners? /s Seriously, these are non-state actors who were detained for some reason or another. From a political point of view there's no real downside to keeping these people there forever, and there are no real upsides to releasing them. The various ISIS brides are in the same boat: nobody wants them back and nobody wants to re-integrate them. They've shown red by abandoning their society for the caliphate of barbarians, so that point why not just leave them to rot? Because we're nicer?
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > They've shown red by abandoning their society for the caliphate of barbarians, so that point why not just leave them to rot? Because we're nicer? Innocent untillvproven guitly. You are advocating a slippery slope to medieval justice: If you float, you're a witch; if you drown you were guilty of some other crime. Only divine intervention was evidence of "true" innocence.
- mjmsmith 4y ago
  Sounds good, as long as we can apply the same logic to insurrectionists.
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mjmsmith 4y ago
  How do you know they're some of the most dangerous criminals on the planet? Was there a trial?
  - PM_me_your_math 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Maybe 'PM_me_your_math' does know, like what if all rapists have like one big telegram channel and he is in the club? I mean, he would never engage in Libel and defamation.
    - mjmsmith 4y ago
      Would you object to countries like Iran holding US citizens indefinitely?
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        Would you? I mean, that's something that happens quite frequently. Shargi. Tahbaz. Vafadari. Levinson. But it seems like people ignore something that is a regular occurrence while exaggerating what happens at Gitmo. Why is that?
        mjmsmith 4y ago
        Perhaps because they think the US government should practice what it preaches? It remains a mystery to me why so many people aspire to be no better than their enemies.
coffeeblack 4y ago
It doesn’t look like the elected politicians have any control over that.
aj7 4y ago
[flagged]

152 points by sfusato 4y ago

How can prisoners file appeals or control their mental illness if they are isolated can't function properly? These prisons are beyond punishment and the steps Supermax takes to prevent suicide also seems inhumane considering the conditions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tiahura 4y ago
[flagged]
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > It’s a necessary evil. No it's not. As the person you responded to pointed out it's basically torture when you're preventing suicide. If someone is such a permanent problem, execution and suicide are obviously options, but there are also many prisons that provide the isolation you want without being as bad. There's no excuse and it's far from "needed."
- sfusato 4y ago
  > most people accept that out of 8,000,000,000 people, there are 35 that need to sent to a facility like Guantanamo. Most people do not accept that most Guantánamo detainees have been/are being held without ever being charged or tried. The terrorist in this case is the US as harsh as that sounds.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > Most people do not accept that most Guantánamo detainees have been/are being held without ever being charged or tried. People are right not to accept that because it isn't true. Of the 35 Guantanamo Bay detainees, 3 are being held without charge. https://www.closeguantanamo.org/Prisoners https://www.closeguantanamo.org/Prisoners
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago
  This could be a quote about gulags or death camps. What's "necessary" is subjective, but at least we've got a fairly universal basis for "evil", as consolation.
- FpUser 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - gizmo385 4y ago
    Didn’t expect to read someone using slurs on hacker news either
- cies 4y ago
  >The goal is simply isolation to prevent recidivism. Simply? The goals is to have a prison outside of the US where the US (i think mainly CIA) can do things that it cannot when in the US. The goal is clearly to subvert the "rules based order" they so vocally claim to uphold.
- jakeinspace 4y ago
  I don't think most people are fascist, at least not to this extent.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  The goal of Guantanamo Bay was to try to evade the Constitution. It failed, however: SCOTUS still ruled that non-US citizens held by the US in non-US territory still retained certain constitutional rights with regards to criminal trials.
- blueflow 4y ago
  You would think differently if you were one of these 35 people.

chedca21 4y ago

[dead]

asah 4y ago

As I understand it, nobody wants to keep gitmo open, the issue is that the remaining prisoners have nowhere to go. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/11/close-guantanamo-prison-wolosky-526829 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/11/close-guan...

FpUser 4y ago
Well they should be accepted into US then.
- SllX 4y ago
  Back under the Obama Administration they tried exactly that. It didn't pan out as no State wanted them and no Senator wanted to be the one to tell their constituents "we'll accept terrorists in our borders" Federal prison system or not. Here's the current list if you want to dig deeper into it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_detainees_at_G...
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    There is an interesting workaround in housing them at the District of Columbia Jail. The DC Jail being located outside of any state, wouldn't have the problem of the state or senators being held accountable by constituents as DC isn't a state nor does it have any senators.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - SllX 4y ago
      Technically true but you’re forgetting about the 4 Senators from Virginia and Maryland and the DC government that Congress has setup. They might not be directly answerable to DC residents but they’re sure as hell answerable to the people that live around DC and they still have to work in the same city as DC residents live. Less political power doesn’t mean zero political power.

kristopolous 4y ago

Giving the bay back to Cuba would also be a reasonable thing.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
"Reasonable" is not a term that can be associated with American politics.
nradov 4y ago
Reasonable in what sense? The US is still in compliance with the terms of the lease.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  That lease is illegal under international law - it has no end date and Cuba can never get it back. Go and try to lease a house forever on a fixed price - let me know how you get on
  - nradov 4y ago
    Which specific international law is that? I am not aware that the US has ratified any treaty which would outlaw perpetual leases. If Cuba is unhappy with the terms of the agreement then they are welcome to renegotiate. US real estate and contract law has zero relevance here so I don't know why you would bring that up.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > I am not aware that the US has ratified any treaty which would outlaw perpetual leases. So if Russia did not ratify UN convention on war crimes, then their behaviour in Ukraine is okay? You seem to have no grasp of international law at all. Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force.” The Platt Amendment and accompanying Agreement could have violated this article because the leasing provision was a threatening ultimatum. The first Cuban government extended the lease with unequal bargaining power: Cuba understood that U.S. military forces would remain on the island if the leasing arrangement was not made Cuba may hold that the United States breached the lease Agreement under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention - Lease was for a naval base, not an illegal detention camp. https://www.nyujilp.org/guantanamo-bays-quasi-colonial-status-from-leasehold-to-detention-camp/ https://www.nyujilp.org/guantanamo-bays-quasi-colonial-statu...

user3939382 4y ago

It’s sad that we live in a world where politicians just blatantly lie about their campaign promises and we all accept it as normal and award them with high approval ratings.

tablespoon 4y ago
> It’s sad that we live in a world where politicians just blatantly lie about their campaign promises and we all accept it as normal and award them with high approval ratings. Though, part of that problem is that we also live in a world where the electorate also makes unrealistic demands on politicians, and will punish them if they don't get the promises they demand. I think that's especially true in primaries when it's mainly activists that can really push for promises that are not especially popular. Which isn't to let anyone off the hook, just to note it's one of those difficult problems that's composed of interlocking problems that reinforce each other.
- kurthr 4y ago
  I agree, but would go further and argue that the belief that "all politicians lie" is itself a problem with negative effects. Since we have a competitive system and a self described political entertainment complex, everyone running for office will be described as a liar. However, when an actual compulsive (pathological and self admitted?) liar is elected to congress, the belief that "everyone does it" serves as a justification for doing nothing. It misses the forest for the trees and provides an excuse for allowing the very problem it describes to grow and become worse.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lern_too_spel 4y ago
Politicians campaign on what they will try to do. Whether they will achieve it is another matter. Obama tried to close Guantanamo Bay. Trump tried to build that wall. https://archive.ph/2017.04.12-174418/http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/01/why-obama-has-failed-to-close-guantanamo https://archive.ph/2017.04.12-174418/http://www.newyorker.co...

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

I have no idea why they even try anymore? There was an UN vote to try to stop the sanction against cuba... the result? 185 vs 2 - 185 to stop the sanctions, 2 (brazil, ukraine) abstained and 2 countries voted to continue the sanctions (israel and of course USA). Until this becomes an internal USA issue affecting the elections, and when the propaganda doesn't help anymore with that, things will change... but for now, nothing will happen, waterbordings will continue while the politicians point fingers at other countries for stuff way less sever than whan usa has done in the last few decades.

reducesuffering 4y ago
Isn't this because Florida is likely to make or break the US Presidential election? There are many ex-Cubans in the Miami area that despise the current Cuban government. Enough, that as a bloc they can decide the election and they will mostly vote for whoever's policy is against the Cuban government. Either party defecting from status quo to drop sanctions will just be handing the US government to the other party.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Is Florida really a swing state anymore? It seems Georgia and maybe NC are the new battlegrounds. I’ve lived in all of those states and it has been interesting to see.
  - reducesuffering 4y ago
    Well, it's currently a "must-win" for Republicans that's reasonably close, so first and foremost they won't be the ones to upset their chances at all. In the last election, it wasn't razor-thin like Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, or NC, but if the Democrats lose a few of those then they need the next runner-up like Florida. Florida was Democrat in '08, '12, and only lost by 1.29% in '16. With Republicans winning Florida by 3.36% in 2020, maybe Cuba's best chance is for Florida to actually be a lost cause to Democrats so that they go ahead with dropping the sanctions. Although, Democrats won '08 by 3% and still flipped the other way, so it's very possible to consider it fair game. If true, I've discovered why voting for your opposite choice could be a valid option if you care about a specific issue like this.

newaccount2021 4y ago

[dead]

javajosh 4y ago

It's been over 20 years. Let 'em go or kill 'em, and close the base. And never do anything like this again. There is no best outcome, only least worst outcome, at this point. EDIT: and for the downvoters, you realize that if we do nothing they will spend the rest of their lives in prison without a trial, right? And worse, the base will remain open and available for more torture.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
I assume you're being down voted for suggesting "kill 'em" is a viable option.
- javajosh 4y ago
  My point is that "kill 'em" is exactly what we've already done to them, but we're too cowardly to admit it.
nradov 4y ago
Let them go to where? No US state or third country is willing to take them.

manv1 4y ago

Maybe the members of these organizations would be willing to take responsibility for the prisoners? /s Seriously, these are non-state actors who were detained for some reason or another. From a political point of view there's no real downside to keeping these people there forever, and there are no real upsides to releasing them. The various ISIS brides are in the same boat: nobody wants them back and nobody wants to re-integrate them. They've shown red by abandoning their society for the caliphate of barbarians, so that point why not just leave them to rot? Because we're nicer?

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> They've shown red by abandoning their society for the caliphate of barbarians, so that point why not just leave them to rot? Because we're nicer? Innocent untillvproven guitly. You are advocating a slippery slope to medieval justice: If you float, you're a witch; if you drown you were guilty of some other crime. Only divine intervention was evidence of "true" innocence.
mjmsmith 4y ago
Sounds good, as long as we can apply the same logic to insurrectionists.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mjmsmith 4y ago
How do you know they're some of the most dangerous criminals on the planet? Was there a trial?
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Maybe 'PM_me_your_math' does know, like what if all rapists have like one big telegram channel and he is in the club? I mean, he would never engage in Libel and defamation.
  - mjmsmith 4y ago
    Would you object to countries like Iran holding US citizens indefinitely?
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      Would you? I mean, that's something that happens quite frequently. Shargi. Tahbaz. Vafadari. Levinson. But it seems like people ignore something that is a regular occurrence while exaggerating what happens at Gitmo. Why is that?
      - mjmsmith 4y ago
        Perhaps because they think the US government should practice what it preaches? It remains a mystery to me why so many people aspire to be no better than their enemies.

coffeeblack 4y ago

It doesn’t look like the elected politicians have any control over that.

aj7 4y ago

[flagged]