Predicto Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 In light of our recent numerous of threads about whether our security would be improved or harmed by closing Gitmo, I thought this was interesting. Petraeus Backs Closing Gitmo Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty PRAGUE -- The head of U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus, has told RFE/RL he thinks that "on balance" the expected closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and abandonment of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques will "help" U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the struggle against transnational extremist violence. In an exclusive interview in Prague that will be published in its entirety later today, Petraeus also talks about U.S. strategies in Afghanistan and the need to keep civilian casualties there "to an absolute minimum." Petraeus says that closing Guantanamo "in a responsible manner...sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees." http://www.military.com/news/article/petraeus-backs-closing-gitmo.html?col=1186032310810 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I think its a good idea to close GITMO as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 GitMo is being used more as a scapegoat than anything else. Closing it is a PC move and nothing more. If the base gets closed, where do the detainees go? It's called Supermax lockdown and segregation. They are much better off enjoying the Cuban weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I call his closing Gitmo and raise him to putting all of the terrorists in General Population , Hagerstown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 well I support closing Patraeus! wassup now?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 GitMo is being used more as a scapegoat than anything else. Closing it is a PC move and nothing more. If the base gets closed, where do the detainees go? It's called Supermax lockdown and segregation. They are much better off enjoying the Cuban weather. Sometimes symbolic actions are very important when we are trying to pacify angry insurgents, boost moderates and improve our standing in the world. Or at least General Petraeus seems to think so. Not that he would have any idea about such subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I call his closing Gitmo and raise him to putting all of the terrorists in General Population , Hagerstown. Among the general population of Hagerstown? You cruel ****. Oh, you mean inside Hagerstown prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 well I support closing Patraeus!wassup now?!! I vote to close Gitmo and let the terrorist move in with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Sometimes symbolic actions are very important when we are trying to pacify angry insurgents, boost moderates and improve our standing in the world. Or at least General Petraeus seems to think so. Not that he would have any idea about such subjects. I can see Petraeus' point and I understand it. However, you are also talking about a symbolic gesture to appease a group of people who are pissed that we even exist. It's a lose/lose proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Among the general population of Hagerstown? You cruel ****. Oh, you mean inside Hagerstown prison. Exactly, or BigMikes house. In all fairness to Hagerstown, it is cleaning up very nicely, The Derick Trucks band is playing downtown in the streets on Saturday night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 yall dont want them there at my house. if these idiots will strap themselves with bombs sober you dont wanna know what theyll do once i get a few PBRs in them!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 I can see Petraeus' point and I understand it. However, you are also talking about a symbolic gesture to appease a group of people who are pissed that we even exist.It's a lose/lose proposition. Some of them are pissed that we even exist. Many others don't feel that way. Our job is to try to make sure that the haters don't grow in numbers, and don't take over their countries (especially since one of them has nukes). That's the potential upside of closing Gitmo. Helping with that effort. What is the downside again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 GitMo is being used more as a scapegoat than anything else. I pretty much agree. I think it was a rash decision. They were trying to cure a symptom and not the disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 did anyone see the report tha t14% of those released from Gitmo have rejoined or joined up with a terror group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 That's the potential upside of closing Gitmo. Helping with that effort. What is the downside again? Even harsher treatment of the detainees. GitMo is club med compared to US Supermax prisons. Lets not forget they will be in isolation. Isn't that going to piss these people off as well? Like I said, its a no win situation. Once you start doing things that are illogical simply in the hopes of trying to persuade a group with an irrational mindset to begin with, you have lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 did anyone see the report tha t14% of those released from Gitmo have rejoined or joined up with a terror group? I'm surprised it's that low. Some of them probably were terrorists, and others who were borderline likely became more radicalized by their confinement (which they would view as unfair and arbitrary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 Even harsher treatment of the detainees. GitMo is club med compared to US Supermax prisons. Lets not forget they will be in isolation. Isn't that going to piss these people off as well?Like I said, its a no win situation. Once you start doing things that are illogical simply in the hopes of trying to persuade a group with an irrational mindset to begin with, you have lost. So you are suggesting that General David Petraeus is being illogical when he suggests closing Gitmo would help our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan? Or are you suggesting that every human being in the Middle East has an irrational mindset, and it doesn't matter what we do because none of them can be persuaded? Or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I would expect any good soldier to say so. It's symbolism, nothing else. But, if some of you think it will help quell the myth that our standing in the world is diminished simply because of it's existence, then go ahead and pee your pants over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 did anyone see the report tha t14% of those released from Gitmo have rejoined or joined up with a terror group? (Assuming your stat is correct) And therefore . . . ? According to a lot of people in Tailgate, 100% of them were terrorists when they went in. Is the official position, now, that the US Government is 100% accurate when they put people in GTMO, but that they're only 86% correct when they let them out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 So you are suggesting that General David Petraeus is being illogical when he suggests closing Gitmo would help our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan?Or are you suggesting that every human being in the Middle East has an irrational mindset, and it doesn't matter what we do because none of them can be persuaded? Or both? Considering we haven't read HOW he feels it's going to help our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think we can tell if it's logical OR illogical at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I will be interested to see if he expounds on the "responsible manner" portion of the statement. What does responsible manner mean? GEN Petraeus is an awesome military officer. I wonder if Sec State Clinton thinks "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."? I also find it interesting that in that article Petraeus made it clear that his division followed Geneva. I know my division followed Geneva. Is it possible that all the "Systemic abuse" :pooh: is exactly that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (Assuming your stat is correct)And therefore . . . ? According to a lot of people in Tailgate, 100% of them were terrorists when they went in. Is the official position, now, that the US Government is 100% accurate when they put people in GTMO, but that they're only 86% correct when they let them out? This argument makes no sense. The stat says that 14% resume terrorist activities...how does that indicate that only 14% were in the first place? Are we to assume that anyone that isn't a "repeat offender" was never an offender in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (Assuming your stat is correct)And therefore . . . ? According to a lot of people in Tailgate, 100% of them were terrorists when they went in. Is the official position, now, that the US Government is 100% accurate when they put people in GTMO, but that they're only 86% correct when they let them out? Or maybe it shows that the US Government was 86% effective at getting terrorists to stop being terrorist lol :cool:... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 (Assuming your stat is correct)And therefore . . . ? According to a lot of people in Tailgate, 100% of them were terrorists when they went in. Is the official position, now, that the US Government is 100% accurate when they put people in GTMO, but that they're only 86% correct when they let them out? Of the other 86%, some are probably dead, others found a new God. The rest haven't been caught, or killed, yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 So you are suggesting that General David Petraeus is being illogical when he suggests closing Gitmo would help our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan?Or are you suggesting that every human being in the Middle East has an irrational mindset, and it doesn't matter what we do because none of them can be persuaded? Or both? I expected you to go in this direction. Growing up the son of an attorney prepares you for things like this. I said I understand what Petraeus is saying and his hopes in closing GitMo would do. I disagree with his assessment. I did not suggest that every human being in the Middle East has an irrational mindset. What I did suggest is that this is a two part symbolic gesture. First: The closing would be aimed at the world saying we won't "torture", even after Obama said point blank that we wouldn't. We would basically be sacrificing GitMo at the altar of world opinion in hopes they will believe us. Second: It's closure is supposed to calm moderate Muslims and not turn them extremists. Not exactly sure how the mere thought of GitMo will turn you radical, but that's another topic. So closing GitMo will keep these people moderate but locking these prisoners up in SuperMax will also not inflame them? I'm lost here. So in the end we are screwing ourselves out of a perfectly good offshore facility, sending dangerous terror suspects to ConUS, housing them in overcrowded Fed SuperMax's all in the hope that the world likes us better and the hopes that the Muslim communities in Afghanistan and Iraq won't realize that these people would be better off in Cuba. Sorry this reeks of stupidity and ideology versus practicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.