4 ms·

It is WELL within his ability to, say, directly order all prisoners released Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea? If you want to release people, you need to

It is WELL within his ability to, say, directly order all prisoners released Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea? If you want to release people, you need to send them someplace. Congress has banned the government from sending them to the US. You can't send them to other countries because those countries won't take them. So...where do they go? or order all troops to leave the facility and no troops to re-enter the facility. How do the prisoners eat after the US Navy leaves?

rdtsc 13y ago
> Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea? If your father/mother/son/daughter was kidnapped when you were 5, and you didn't know where they were for years and then found out he is in Gitmo, pretty sure you'd like to see them back at your house? Why "the country/town/house" they were kidnapped from isn't even a choice on your list?
- MichaelSalib 13y ago
  Because those countries generally don't want them back. Or because they don't want to go back. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay#Asylum_in_Albania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_... for an example The US government has ruled that many Gitmo detainees are no threat and have been trying to repatriate them but their home countries (which are not always the countries they were taken from) resist. That is stupid and wrong, just like taking them in the first place. But you can't just wish that inconvenient fact away. I get that this is a nightmarish horrific injustice. But that shouldn't allow us to lose all rationality and start living in a fantasy world. Ordering the US Navy to abandon the facility won't help Gitmo detainees: they're run out of food and water and they'll still be thousands of miles from their families with no way to get home.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    Why not take them with them then?
    - MichaelSalib 13y ago
      Do you mean have the US Navy take the detainees with them? If so, then the question is: where? You can't take them into the US because Congress has made that illegal. You can't take them into other countries because those countries won't let you. So where do they go?
      - tomjen3 13y ago
        Take them to the US anyway, then by the time the Supreme court rules on the matter (and it may go either way) it will be too late - there is putting that genie back. It is hardly less legal than the spying program or plenty of other things the president has done. It is the very least the US government can do as a token of reparation for the huge injustice that was/is Guantanamo.
        krapp 13y ago
        No governor wants to be pegged with "letting a flood of foreign terrorists" settle in their state. I seem to recall there was a similar issue with Iraqi refugees during the last war. To get that to work you would have to expect far too many people to fall politically on their swords, and then the refugees have an almost impossible time actually assimilating because doubtless they'll be put onto some sort of watchlist as if they were a felon or pedophile, and employers would refuse to hire them, and no one would rent to them, and credit would be impossible to get, etc. Although I agree we should at least be trying. We seem to have given up as a nation on even accepting the possibility of a productive solution that doesn't just involve having them all die then pretending like it never happened.
  - jdp 13y ago
    If government has ruled that detainees are no threat, why are they still treated as if they are, shackled even when alone and watching television? It costs $2MM per year per detainee to keep them in Gitmo. Wouldn't it be much more cost-effective to provide some relocation assistance? I get that repatriation isn't always possible but can it really be true that less than 200 people can't get at least temporary visas somewhere else? That's less than the capacity of a single trans-oceanic flight. It seems silly (and apparently very expensive) to me to perpetuate the farce, and wringing our hands and talking about rationality while letting people rot in prison just because they can't be repatriated without exploring other options seems either equally silly, or not to be the real reason they remain there.
    - MichaelSalib 13y ago
      why are they still treated as if they are, shackled even when alone and watching television? Because the government is stupid and evil and because treating the detainees fairly is politically impossible. Everytime an idiot congressman visits Gitmo and sees humane treatment, he can pitch a fit about how the administration is soft on terror. That helps him politically because most voters hear Gitmo and think 'Osama's best buddies'. That political constraint puts a ceiling on how well the Gitmo detainees can be treated. This is obviously horribly immoral. That being said, I don't know how to fix that problem. The real problem here is that most Americans, especially most red-state Americans, believe that Gitmo detainees are dangerous monsters rather than just a bunch of guest workers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time plus a few low-ranking fighters. If you fixed this problem, Gitmo would cease to be an issue because there'd be no political benefit to opposing humane treatment or settlement in the US. Wouldn't it be much more cost-effective to provide some relocation assistance? Sure. Where would you relocate them to? I mean, the government has been trying but most countries are not interested in taking these people, even though most of them have done precisely nothing wrong. without exploring other options I'd love better options. Can you suggest any? Seriously, all the options I see suck and are unjust. If you have any suggestions I really, honestly, would love to hear them. But I haven't seen any yet.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    >Because those countries generally don't want them back. Or because they don't want to go back. Then house them at Guantanamo in homes with telephones and the internet, instead of like people who have been accused and convicted of a crime. If we don't want them, why do we hold them incommunicado in a prison? Or is that irrational fantasy world logic?
jessaustin 13y ago
Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea? Most of the men abducted to Guantanamo have been released. All of those went somewhere. Most just went home, although some went to more colorful locales like Palau and Albania, particularly if they had been abducted while abroad so their native land had some excuse not to accept their return. This isn't surprising, since the vast majority of these men were not "combatants" and had little connection to AQ or any other terrorist organization. The "recidivism" of released abductees has been calculated at 4%, which is such a mind-blowingly low number that it speaks more to the indiscriminate nature of the abductions rather than the rehabilitational effectiveness of Guantanamo. Besides, what's your brilliant solution? Maintain this obscenity until the last abductee dies of old age in about 60 years? Thanks for reminding us of the typical practicality of status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom.
- MichaelSalib 13y ago
  I think the US government should offer most of the detainees visas to come and live in the US and should offer them financial compensation for unjust imprisonment. That is politically impossible, so I think the government should continue working to repatriate them and improve living conditions in Gitmo itself. That's not a good solution. But it seems like the best feasible solution. I'd love to be proven wrong. Can you do that? Or are you going to make a big public display of your moral purity by talking down on pragmatism?
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask the question, "Into the sea?" as if that's what anyone wants, as if a rational being could ever commit that misunderstanding, and then get all butt-hurt when someone points out that the vast majority of abductees have been released with no problems. Aren't you the ass who came up with "green lanternism"? I actually googled it: the first usage was Brad DeLong pulling heroic pundit duty on the Fed Chair campaign of Larry Summers. Just as I said: status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom. Do I have a sixth sense about this shit or something? Now you want "to be proven [sic] wrong"? Please. If anyone has a burden of proof, it's whoever who describes Guantanamo as "pragmatic". Good grief. If the commander-in-chief wanted prisoners in any USA military facility in the world transferred to any other USA military facility in the world, he could send an email and have wheels up within an hour. Of course, keeping a campaign promise might have consequences for him. He might have to send a Joint Chief to testify to Congress or something. I'm not sure how he'd recover from that harrowing ordeal, but I still think he should keep his promise.
tomjen3 13y ago
Yes into Cuba. The US commander in chief orders the soldiers to withdraw and vacates the base then lets the Cubans get it. Now all the prisoners are in Cuban and they can return them (which they will because it is a huge propaganda coup).
- MichaelSalib 13y ago
  If the detainees home countries refuse to take them now, why would they suddenly agree when Cuba offers? I mean, at least the US can do some horsetrading on this issue (which it seems to have), but Cuba is much poorer and has a lot less to offer. It seems like the most likely outcome is that the detainees end up as Cuban prisoners.
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    They likely stay in Cuba, yes, but at least they are semi-free (and will be completely free once Cuba gets rid of the commies). Castros government will treat them well because it is a huge propaganda victory for them.
  - VLM 13y ago
    "If the detainees home countries refuse to take them now, why would they suddenly agree when Cuba offers?" I find this rather unlikely. The enemy of my enemy is my friend so anyone not willing to deal with the USA because we're, well, the USA, would bend over backwards to cooperate with Cuba. Cuba has a moderately good international rep. They don't get involved in too much international empire building once the Soviets broke up, and they export good doctors to the 3rd world. And they're an enemy of the greatest current Imperial power. I think they'd do pretty well..

rdtsc 13y ago

> Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea? If your father/mother/son/daughter was kidnapped when you were 5, and you didn't know where they were for years and then found out he is in Gitmo, pretty sure you'd like to see them back at your house? Why "the country/town/house" they were kidnapped from isn't even a choice on your list?

MichaelSalib 13y ago
Because those countries generally don't want them back. Or because they don't want to go back. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay#Asylum_in_Albania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_... for an example The US government has ruled that many Gitmo detainees are no threat and have been trying to repatriate them but their home countries (which are not always the countries they were taken from) resist. That is stupid and wrong, just like taking them in the first place. But you can't just wish that inconvenient fact away. I get that this is a nightmarish horrific injustice. But that shouldn't allow us to lose all rationality and start living in a fantasy world. Ordering the US Navy to abandon the facility won't help Gitmo detainees: they're run out of food and water and they'll still be thousands of miles from their families with no way to get home.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  Why not take them with them then?
  - MichaelSalib 13y ago
    Do you mean have the US Navy take the detainees with them? If so, then the question is: where? You can't take them into the US because Congress has made that illegal. You can't take them into other countries because those countries won't let you. So where do they go?
    - tomjen3 13y ago
      Take them to the US anyway, then by the time the Supreme court rules on the matter (and it may go either way) it will be too late - there is putting that genie back. It is hardly less legal than the spying program or plenty of other things the president has done. It is the very least the US government can do as a token of reparation for the huge injustice that was/is Guantanamo.
      - krapp 13y ago
        No governor wants to be pegged with "letting a flood of foreign terrorists" settle in their state. I seem to recall there was a similar issue with Iraqi refugees during the last war. To get that to work you would have to expect far too many people to fall politically on their swords, and then the refugees have an almost impossible time actually assimilating because doubtless they'll be put onto some sort of watchlist as if they were a felon or pedophile, and employers would refuse to hire them, and no one would rent to them, and credit would be impossible to get, etc. Although I agree we should at least be trying. We seem to have given up as a nation on even accepting the possibility of a productive solution that doesn't just involve having them all die then pretending like it never happened.
- jdp 13y ago
  If government has ruled that detainees are no threat, why are they still treated as if they are, shackled even when alone and watching television? It costs $2MM per year per detainee to keep them in Gitmo. Wouldn't it be much more cost-effective to provide some relocation assistance? I get that repatriation isn't always possible but can it really be true that less than 200 people can't get at least temporary visas somewhere else? That's less than the capacity of a single trans-oceanic flight. It seems silly (and apparently very expensive) to me to perpetuate the farce, and wringing our hands and talking about rationality while letting people rot in prison just because they can't be repatriated without exploring other options seems either equally silly, or not to be the real reason they remain there.
  - MichaelSalib 13y ago
    why are they still treated as if they are, shackled even when alone and watching television? Because the government is stupid and evil and because treating the detainees fairly is politically impossible. Everytime an idiot congressman visits Gitmo and sees humane treatment, he can pitch a fit about how the administration is soft on terror. That helps him politically because most voters hear Gitmo and think 'Osama's best buddies'. That political constraint puts a ceiling on how well the Gitmo detainees can be treated. This is obviously horribly immoral. That being said, I don't know how to fix that problem. The real problem here is that most Americans, especially most red-state Americans, believe that Gitmo detainees are dangerous monsters rather than just a bunch of guest workers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time plus a few low-ranking fighters. If you fixed this problem, Gitmo would cease to be an issue because there'd be no political benefit to opposing humane treatment or settlement in the US. Wouldn't it be much more cost-effective to provide some relocation assistance? Sure. Where would you relocate them to? I mean, the government has been trying but most countries are not interested in taking these people, even though most of them have done precisely nothing wrong. without exploring other options I'd love better options. Can you suggest any? Seriously, all the options I see suck and are unjust. If you have any suggestions I really, honestly, would love to hear them. But I haven't seen any yet.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >Because those countries generally don't want them back. Or because they don't want to go back. Then house them at Guantanamo in homes with telephones and the internet, instead of like people who have been accused and convicted of a crime. If we don't want them, why do we hold them incommunicado in a prison? Or is that irrational fantasy world logic?

jessaustin 13y ago

Released where? To Cuba? Into the sea? Most of the men abducted to Guantanamo have been released. All of those went somewhere. Most just went home, although some went to more colorful locales like Palau and Albania, particularly if they had been abducted while abroad so their native land had some excuse not to accept their return. This isn't surprising, since the vast majority of these men were not "combatants" and had little connection to AQ or any other terrorist organization. The "recidivism" of released abductees has been calculated at 4%, which is such a mind-blowingly low number that it speaks more to the indiscriminate nature of the abductions rather than the rehabilitational effectiveness of Guantanamo. Besides, what's your brilliant solution? Maintain this obscenity until the last abductee dies of old age in about 60 years? Thanks for reminding us of the typical practicality of status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom.

MichaelSalib 13y ago
I think the US government should offer most of the detainees visas to come and live in the US and should offer them financial compensation for unjust imprisonment. That is politically impossible, so I think the government should continue working to repatriate them and improve living conditions in Gitmo itself. That's not a good solution. But it seems like the best feasible solution. I'd love to be proven wrong. Can you do that? Or are you going to make a big public display of your moral purity by talking down on pragmatism?
- jessaustin 13y ago
  It takes a lot of chutzpah to ask the question, "Into the sea?" as if that's what anyone wants, as if a rational being could ever commit that misunderstanding, and then get all butt-hurt when someone points out that the vast majority of abductees have been released with no problems. Aren't you the ass who came up with "green lanternism"? I actually googled it: the first usage was Brad DeLong pulling heroic pundit duty on the Fed Chair campaign of Larry Summers. Just as I said: status quo Beltway-insider conventional wisdom. Do I have a sixth sense about this shit or something? Now you want "to be proven [sic] wrong"? Please. If anyone has a burden of proof, it's whoever who describes Guantanamo as "pragmatic". Good grief. If the commander-in-chief wanted prisoners in any USA military facility in the world transferred to any other USA military facility in the world, he could send an email and have wheels up within an hour. Of course, keeping a campaign promise might have consequences for him. He might have to send a Joint Chief to testify to Congress or something. I'm not sure how he'd recover from that harrowing ordeal, but I still think he should keep his promise.

tomjen3 13y ago

Yes into Cuba. The US commander in chief orders the soldiers to withdraw and vacates the base then lets the Cubans get it. Now all the prisoners are in Cuban and they can return them (which they will because it is a huge propaganda coup).

MichaelSalib 13y ago
If the detainees home countries refuse to take them now, why would they suddenly agree when Cuba offers? I mean, at least the US can do some horsetrading on this issue (which it seems to have), but Cuba is much poorer and has a lot less to offer. It seems like the most likely outcome is that the detainees end up as Cuban prisoners.
- tomjen3 13y ago
  They likely stay in Cuba, yes, but at least they are semi-free (and will be completely free once Cuba gets rid of the commies). Castros government will treat them well because it is a huge propaganda victory for them.
- VLM 13y ago
  "If the detainees home countries refuse to take them now, why would they suddenly agree when Cuba offers?" I find this rather unlikely. The enemy of my enemy is my friend so anyone not willing to deal with the USA because we're, well, the USA, would bend over backwards to cooperate with Cuba. Cuba has a moderately good international rep. They don't get involved in too much international empire building once the Soviets broke up, and they export good doctors to the 3rd world. And they're an enemy of the greatest current Imperial power. I think they'd do pretty well..