Petraeus Backs Closing Gitmo

[Redskins Diehard]

Dunno. Good question. I wonder if he will be discussing that in the longer interview that is about to be released?

Yes, it did. I do not pretend that Gitmo is even close to the biggest recruiting tool against us. However, it IS one that is totally within our control. We can't just abandon Israel (nor should we), and we can't go back and undo our invasion of Iraq that happened 7 years ago, and we can't stop being a very powerful and wealthy primarily Christian nation that dominates the world militarily.

But we can close Gitmo. That is an option easily available to us that might help a little.

That is the real question here. What does he mean by responsible. With that caveat out there and no further explanation I think this is pretty useless exercise to debate what his words mean.

Until we take a stance that is perceived to be even handed in that dispute in the middle east then all those other measure you mention are moving deck chairs on the Titanic in my opinion. It might help a little, so it might be worth doing. There is also a difference in my opinion between "abandoning Israel" and taking a "even handed approach"...that discussion of course falls way outside the scope of this thread.

[Predicto]

Until we take a stance that is perceived to be even handed in that dispute in the middle east then all those other measure you mention are moving deck chairs on the Titanic in my opinion. It might help a little, so it might be worth doing. There is also a difference in my opinion between "abandoning Israel" and taking a "even handed approach"...that discussion of course falls way outside the scope of this thread.

Oh absolutely. Let's not go there.

[BigMike619]

do you think he felt cornered so he threw the word "responsible" in there to take a stand without really having to?

he isnt putting a timetable on it but he is saying sure he would like to see it closed.

[Redskins Diehard]

Really? I stand corrected. I thought I read on this board that over 2000 people had gone through Gitmo.

So we have kept 240 or so and released 530 or so without charges.

Perhaps I was remembering people that we captured and held in places other than Gitmo? Otherwise, I have no idea where I got the ideat that we had 2000 detainees. My error.

My battalion took about 100 people into custody in Afghanistan between Jun and Dec 2002. I think 1 or 2 actually made it to Gitmo. Gitmo is not typically the first stop for these guys. We have certainly had well over 2000 "detainees". I am not sure but I do not think that Iraqi prisoners were moved there...but I could be wrong on that.

The "without" charges bit is a pretty interesting take. Not surprising from a lawyer;). Not all of those guys were taken into custody for the purposes of prosecution. Sometimes people who have done nothing "illegal" are taken into custody because we think they have information that we want.

[Redskins Diehard]

do you think he felt cornered so he threw the word "responsible" in there to take a stand without really having to?

he isnt putting a timetable on it but he is saying sure he would like to see it closed.

I do not think he felt cornered. I think any "responsible" person would say exactly what he said. Most of the arguments I have heard against closing Gitmo revolve around "what do we do with the people there".

[Predicto]

My battalion took about 100 people into custody in Afghanistan between Jun and Dec 2002. I think 1 or 2 actually made it to Gitmo. Gitmo is not typically the first stop for these guys. We have certainly had well over 2000 "detainees". I am not sure but I do not think that Iraqi prisoners were moved there...but I could be wrong on that.

The "without" charges bit is a pretty interesting take. Not surprising from a lawyer;). Not all of those guys were taken into custody for the purposes of prosecution. Sometimes people who have done nothing "illegal" are taken into custody because we think they have information that we want.

Oh, absolutely we do. Sometimes we have to.

But of course people don't usually like it when things like that happen to them or to their countrymen. It pisses them off - it would piss you or me off too if it happened to us.

Somehow, Gitmo has replaced Abu Ghirab as the major symbol for that "pissed-offedness" that much of the world is currently feeling toward us and their perceptions of our arrogance and heavy-handedness. Doesn't matter if it is fair or not, it just is.

Which is why I think we should close it. Give them one less symbol to seethe about day by day.

[Predicto]

I do not think he felt cornered. I think any "responsible" person would say exactly what he said. Most of the arguments I have heard against closing Gitmo revolve around "what do we do with the people there".

I can't imagine that is really a problem. They are not supermen. They are not going to suddenly teleport out of custody into downtown Des Moines. Just bring them to the US and put them in a secure, remote base or prison here. Get on with trying the ones that you are going to try. Close Gitmo and let it return to being a military base.

[Larry]

Not all of those guys were taken into custody for the purposes of prosecution. Sometimes people who have done nothing "illegal" are taken into custody because we think they have information that we want.

Deleting the much longer post I had written, and observing that it's been obvious from here that that was the criteria being used.

[NavyDave]

Yeah symbolism has really improved our lives instead of action and things of substance.

I'm thinking laundry duty with the result being multiple Oz like consequences and the mean patriotic inmates losing 2 weeks of NFL Hard knocks and toothbrush privileges

[Predicto]

Yeah symbolism has really improved our lives instead of action and things of substance.

I'm thinking laundry duty with the result being multiple Oz like consequences and the mean patriotic inmates losing 2 weeks of NFL Hard knocks and toothbrush privileges

Um, ok. That didn't make much sense or have much to do with this discussion, but I'm sure you felt good getting off your chest.

Do you think that Petraeus is worth listening to on the subject of how to reduce resistance in Iraq and Afganistan?

[Ax]

That's the potential upside of closing Gitmo. Helping with that effort. What is the downside again?

Predicto, you're in law, right? Your wife is a lawyer, yes?

So, make believe you've been hired as a team, to answer your own question, and defend that answer, in a courtroom. My guess is you could come up with numerous, plausible answers. Full of stats and quotes, and references. Especially if being paid to do so. As any good lawyer can come up with, something, as long as they're being paid to do so.

And none would be a "lie" either, would they?

[Redskins Diehard]

I can't imagine that is really a problem. They are not supermen. They are not going to suddenly teleport out of custody into downtown Des Moines. Just bring them to the US and put them in a secure, remote base or prison here. Get on with trying the ones that you are going to try. Close Gitmo and let it return to being a military base.

I don't think the real concern is them escaping. No doubt that has been used to get the public fired up about the issue. Bring them to a US prison and how soon until they are treated like "criminals"? Put them on trial, or release them. And we don't ever plan on putting at least some of the ones there on trial. They were never meant to be part of the judicial system.

[Thiebear]

(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?

Based on regular prison releases its not bad actually.

If there is an EMPTY prison in Montana or some such they built put them there. That way the weather is worse and the conditions are much darker.

(Everyone wants the Gitmo stigma gone) Except the countries that would have to take them back. Thats the ENTIRE problem here.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Oh no! The terrorists are REALLY winning now!

[Larry]

Predicto, you're in law, right? Your wife is a lawyer, yes?

So, make believe you've been hired as a team, to answer your own question, and defend that answer, in a courtroom. My guess is you could come up with numerous, plausible answers. Full of stats and quotes, and references. Especially if being paid to do so. As any good lawyer can come up with, something, as long as they're being paid to do so.

And none would be a "lie" either, would they?

And your point is "our side is right, because I'm certain that if I paid a lawyer, he could come up with something that would look impressive, and wouldn't technically be a lie, but I'm too lazy or honest to come up with my own reasons"?

[Burgold]

You know... that prison they built in Lincoln Financial Stadium where the Eagles' play. They're used to dealing with the lowlife scum and pretty bad apples. Might not be a bad place to put the transplants. I mean how big an evolutionary step is it from Eagles' fan to enemy of the United States?

[Larry]

You know... that prison they built in Lincoln Financial Stadium where the Eagles' play. They're used to dealing with the lowlife scum and pretty bad apples. Might not be a bad place to put the transplants. I mean how big an evolutionary step is it from Eagles' fan to enemy of the United States?

But wouldn't that mean letting Eagles fans loose?

[Ax]

And your point is "our side is right, because I'm certain that if I paid a lawyer, he could come up with something that would look impressive, and wouldn't technically be a lie, but I'm too lazy or honest to come up with my own reasons"?

No sir. But I'm thrilled you responded to this. You, are one of the best on this site, of taking a response, putting your own spin on it, then crediting it to the OP. All the while, condescendingly accusing everybody else of doing exactly, that. Priceless. It's why I find you more entertaining than most, around here.

My point was, if you agree with something, or are being paid to, and you are good at spinning an argument, which you are, and so are lawyers, then damn near any opinion can be argued, if debating is what you enjoy.

The reference to "lying" had to do with Predicto saying he didn't think Petraeus would lie. Misinformation, or exaggerations, are used by many people, for many reasons. I know you're smart enough to know this. All "lies" aren't the same.

And I know, you could make a case for either side, of any argument. But that doesn't mean the one you happen to agree with is right.

Can't wait for you to inform me what I really mean.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

Ok close GITMO. where do the prisoners go? You want them to be afforded all the rights as US Citizens? **** NO! They are prisons of war. Combatants. They should not be brought here and given any rights. I don't claim to know the answer of where they should go but i am certain it should not be here.

[BigMike619]

very nice post ax.

[Larry]

No sir. But I'm thrilled you responded to this. You, are one of the best on this site, of taking a response, putting your own spin on it, then crediting it to the OP. All the while, condescendingly accusing everybody else of doing exactly, that. Priceless. It's why I find you more entertaining than most, around here.

If you look closely, you'll observe, at the end of my post, a curious symbol. I've magnified it, below, for illustrative purposes:

?

This symbol is called a "question mark".

It's on the end of my post, because I was asking you what your point was.

(The reason I was asking you what your point was, was because, at least as near as I can tell, you didn't actually make one, in your post (which I quoted).)

You see, that funny symbol at the end is the reason why my post wasn't "taking a response, putting your own spin on it, then crediting it to the OP". My post, (because of that funny symbol at the end) was a request for you to actually state your point. (As opposed to what appeared, to me, to be a demand that Burgold invent arguments for you.)

And I observe that it appears that you actually comprehended this request, since you apparently chose to answer my question, below:

My point was, if you agree with something, or are being paid to, and you are good at spinning an argument, which you are, and so are lawyers, then damn near any opinion can be argued, if debating is what you enjoy.

The reference to "lying" had to do with Predicto saying he didn't think Petraeus would lie. Misinformation, or exaggerations, are used by many people, for many reasons. I know you're smart enough to know this. All "lies" aren't the same.

And I know, you could make a case for either side, of any argument. But that doesn't mean the one you happen to agree with is right.

For which I thank you, because I now think that I comprehend your point. (It's amazing how much easier it is to comprehend people's points when they actually say what they are.)

Although, the above-quoted response, which appears, to me, to at least suggest that you did grasp the fact that my post was a request for you to actually state your point, does cause me to wonder as to why you chose to open your post by claiming that I was doing something which you actually knew was neither what I said nor my motive.

I suppose that, if I were inclined to attempt to assign motives to other people, I would wonder why a person would open a post by claiming that someone was saying one thing, and then, in the next paragraph, revealing that they actually knew that the person said something else.

Fortunately, I'm above such things. :halo:

Can't wait for you to inform me what I really mean.

Get used to disappointment. [/movie reference]

[Predicto]

Ok close GITMO. where do the prisoners go? You want them to be afforded all the rights as US Citizens? **** NO! They are prisons of war. Combatants. They should not be brought here and given any rights. I don't claim to know the answer of where they should go but i am certain it should not be here.

Why does closing Gitmo make any of those other things happen?

[Larry]

Ok close GITMO. where do the prisoners go? You want them to be afforded all the rights as US Citizens? **** NO! They are prisons of war. Combatants. They should not be brought here and given any rights. I don't claim to know the answer of where they should go but i am certain it should not be here.

1) There are no rights of US Citizens.

(Well, OK. I suppose the right to vote in US elections counts. But I can't think of another. And so far, I haven't seen anybody accuse ACORN of trying to register detainees to vote. (But I'm certain that the accusation will be coming soon.))

2) You also appear to be suffering from the delusion that "rights" somehow depend on a person's location. This is also untrue.

[Predicto]

Predicto, you're in law, right? Your wife is a lawyer, yes?

So, make believe you've been hired as a team, to answer your own question, and defend that answer, in a courtroom. My guess is you could come up with numerous, plausible answers. Full of stats and quotes, and references. Especially if being paid to do so. As any good lawyer can come up with, something, as long as they're being paid to do so.

And none would be a "lie" either, would they?

No, but they would not be very persuasive.

I am convinced that closing Gitmo would be a net gain for our security interests. General Petraeus apparently agrees. Arguments have been made for the other point of view, but I do not find them to be very compelling or well thought out.

What else am I supposed to say? That all arguments are equal? They aren't - not even to a lawyer.

[SkinsNumberOne]

Because the previous one had such a reputation for never, ever, demanding total obedience from all subordinates (meaning, everybody) on all political issues (meaning, all issues)?

Larry, coming from someone who doesn't ally themselves with either side, Obama has had a pretty close hold over the words of his people as well.

Both Obama and Bush have attempted to have a fair amount of control over the press / information. Every political leader wants a unified front when it comes to policy enactment / direction. That is to be expected in this day and age, but it's not always ideal from our perspective.

Basically, an intelligent dissent or intelligent agreement is more valuable than simply hearing someone is for/against an issue. The reason is because there's always the potential for some political motivation as the main foundation of the stance given (and, more often than not, one or the other political side is always ready to supply bias as the reason for a stance whenever it suits them).