Many decades ago, my father was stationed at Guantanomo Bay, Cuba, at a time when Cuba revelled in being the “Riviera of the Caribbean”. Today, after nearly a half century under a Communist dictator, the island is a shell of its former beauty. Sitting at one end, the United States continues to maintain its military base.
So as we began to enter the war on terror, seeking out Osama bin Laden, the enemy combattants that the United States was able to identify and capture were brought to GITMO while it was determined how to proceed legally against these enemy combattants.
GITMO became a campaign topic, as Barack Obama vowed to close the detention center at GITMO, sending detainees back to their homeland or bringing them to the US for trial, where the ACLU would jump at the opportunity to defend those who were a part of the 9-11 terrorist attack on US soil.
Having been elected President, and having received his national security briefings (remember, as President, Obama does NOT have to pass the security clearances that the rest of us would have to go through for a job in any of the governmental departments), Obama has begun to reconsider his position on GITMO. Adding to his dilemna is the fact that several of the detainees want to plead guilty to their role in terrorists attacks, to be sentenced to death, and to be a martyr for their cause.
Thoughts on the pros and cons of Guantanomo Bay??
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 20, 2008 at 8:39 am
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
Thanks for posting this thread.
I have some very strong feelings about this place, and prisoner of war camps in general.
I’d like to know who in this world, would not agree with “influencing” people to talk, if they knew that it would save someone in their family?
Say a family member is kidnapped, maybe your youngest child, and the police catch one of the people who they suspect did it. To what means would you think the police should go, to find out where the hideout is, and how far would you allow the police to go, to ensure the safe release of your loved one?
I believe that this should be the standard you should set for the “detainees” at GITMO.
But we as a society have become so “politically correct” that we have gone as far as to afford these “detainees” the same rights as citizens of the United States.
First, they are not citizens, they are suspected criminals that were caught on the battlefield, and they had every intention, in most cases, to bring about as much harm to our troops as they possibly could. Talk to the guards of GITMO and listen to the stories they tell about these “detainees” making statements to the effect of they can’t wait to get back on the battlefield so they can kill more Americans.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, admitted that he was one of the masterminds of 9-11. He is one of only a handful of “detainees” that were waterboarded. KSM has been a wealth of information, according to the intelligence community. KSM has given up some information that has saved hundreds and possibly thousands of lives, both civilian, and military. I have heard reported that KSM even said that he was guilty of so much more than what he is charged, and that he would hate to be his own defense attorney.
Now, the Supreme Court has ruled that these “men” are entitled to the same rights as Americans. Obama wants them tried in a US court, instead of the Military Court in which I believe they should be tried. This is one of the points that really gets my ire up. These folks are NOT American citizens for one thing, and in my opinion, we should have a trial, under the laws of the country in which they were caught, not under the laws of the country who caught them. We are too “civil” to do this however.
I have also heard reports that American lawyers are lining up to defend these men. We have become so warped as to think that it is “American” to stand up for those who want to bring harm and chaos to our country. If I were a lawyer, you couldn’t pay me enough money to defend these criminals. I would like to think that the only lawyer that they could get would be the bottom of the barrel. But I am hearing that big named attorneys want to defend them. They are going to have their own “dream team”. I think most of these cases should have been taken to trial way before now. The reason they haven’t been, is all of the litigation brought by lawyers questioning how they should be handled.
Now some of these men are stating they want to plead guilty so the can become martyrs. They WANT to be executed, so they can be billed as “heroes”.
I say lets give them what they want. I say hang them at noon on Friday on the Washington Mall, so the whole world can see how we handle those who want to bring harm to us.
I say harsh punishment for those who want to bring harm to us. Not this legal posturing that does NO ONE any good. These men should be tried before a Military Tribunal, and if found guilty, sentenced to the proper punishment. They should not be allowed to the same “justice” as an American citizen.
December 20, 2008 at 8:52 am
JAMES
The lawyers lining up are looking at the book deals and speaking engagements! The idea of making these criminals martyrs for their cause irritates me. The statistics on the detainees who have been returned to their homeland shows that they go right back to fighting a jihad against us.
December 20, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
It is my understanding that there are 60 “detainees” who we would let go, but there isn’t any country that wants them.
What do we do with these folks? Should we turn them loose in say……….New York City?
How about making them the next door neighbor of the lawyers who have been defending their “right” to be tried in a US court of law? That would show them. I suspect that these lawyers wouldn’t want them as their neighbor, but have no problem making them yours or my neighbor.
As the Guns and Roses song asks, “What’s so civil about war anyway?” War is a necessary evil in this world. I believe there isn’t anyone who thinks that war is a good thing. Innocent people are hurt and killed. However the possibility of War has to be on the table. We would like “talks” to be the end all. It is not. History shows us that talking does not find the solution one hundred percent of the time.
“Influencing” POW’s to talk, has to be a tool used to get information. People are different. Some of them, “influence” does not work. Others, it’s the only thing they understand. We have to have faith in our Military to figure out where each “detainee” falls. They are the experts in figuring this out.
Let’s not tie their hands by not allowing them every tool to get the information out of these “detainees”.