As a sidenote, I think I might puke if these countries suddenly have a change of heart and want to take their cleared citizens back after the administration shift.
As a sidenote, I think I might puke if these countries suddenly have a change of heart and want to take their cleared citizens back after the administration shift.
What difference does it make, now vs then? They've already been cleared of charges, they're only still there because their own country doesn't want them. To suddenly change their minds just because there's a different guy on the other end of that red phone in the oval office asking them if they want their people back only goes to further show the extent that a lot of other political powers went to throw as much mud onto the Bush administration as possible.
I'm not saying he wasn't without faults and I certainly didn't agree with everything he did, but I've never seen a presidency since Nixon get tagged with so much negative karma while getting zero credit for the positive changes they've made, as opposed to many who have had all of their positive exploits brought to light and their screwups seemingly brushed under the rug.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed and 43 suspected of "returning to the fight."
He said the figures, updated at the end of December, showed a higher rate of recidivism than seen in a previous report showing 37 former detainees as active militants.
He provided no details about the detainees or their countries of origin.
"The overall known terrorist re-engagement rate has increased to 11 percent" from about 7 percent, Morrell said.
The numbers were generated by the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency based on fingerprints, photographs and intelligence reports, he said.
President-elect Barack Obama, who takes office on Tuesday, is expected to issue an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, possibly within his first week in office.
About 255 men are still held at the U.S.-run naval base in Cuba, a symbol of aggressive interrogation methods that exposed the United States to allegations of torture.
Washington has cleared 50 of the detainees for release but cannot return them to their home countries because of the risk they would be tortured or persecuted there.
Around 500 others have been freed or transferred to other governments since 2002.
Pentagon officials say scores of detainees still in custody should never be released because of the potential danger they pose to U.S. interests.
The counter-argument could be made that people are willing to give the new administration a chance, but.. it'd be a glass half full/empty argument.
Not going to get into the entire Bush administration debate here, it's a huge complicated debate, one of the few things I do agree with him about, it's that History will be the judge, so let's just agree to disagree for now.
Edit:
There's also the "Closing it down"-part of the equation, as opposed to the political problems with association by just taking former prisoners thereby possibly being perceived as supportive. It's a bit of a different ballgame
The Pentagon lol.
Same way they generated hose WMDs?![]()
It's really hard to trust a structure that is involved with systems that receive tax dollars yet are not accountable by any system in the constitution. Not to mention that it is also intrinsically involved in why the executive branch has too much power.
Pro-gitmo arguments remind me how awesome my bear-repelling pebble is.
Yes its sarcasm, I don't think that closing guantanamo is the right choice. Figuring out who actually deserves to be there and preventing any human rights violations that may happen there is a better choice. Maybe my second stipulation means they have to close it, I don't know, I am pretty uninformed on obama's reasons for going for this.
Noone really deserves to be held indefinitely without legal access or due process.
Basically, they're doin' it wrong.
So, why exactly couldn't we keep Gitmo open and just give them access to lawyers and a fair judge?
Because the entire culture of Gitmo is irreparably tainted?
Or, because what's the point of Gitmo if we have to follow standard legal procedures? Gitmo's significance as a detainee center is that it's on a military base that isn't on American soil and can operate outside of traditional legal channels.
If you remove the ability to do things that you can't do in America, using Gitmo to detain people is kinda pointless. That's why you close it instead of changing it.
All the media ever reports on is the negative impact of Guantanamo. We never hear how many theoretical lives have been saved or terror plots uncovered by interrogations occurring at Guantanamo.
I don't think anyone denies that it's helped in some way. They just weigh both the pros and cons. I think it's the same feeling people have about collateral damage.
Did you just advocate that we should start torturing people to prevent thought crimes and save theoretical lives? I wonder when and why rounding people in a camp and denying them rights get such a bad name. If they are guilty of some crime against the states, charge them and argue your case in court. You can't just lock people indefinitely and deny them legal rights.
The interrogations don't work, even the military is admitting so. You get false leads and BS.
very good read
I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq - washingtonpost.com
Didnt Bush use Information gathered from torture in a Speech? Then it turned out the info was incorrect, the detainee just gave out false info to stop the torture?