Home › Blogs › LowDownCentral's blog ›

Close GITMO, Open Amchitka

Submitted by LowDownCentral on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 12:24
in

 

 

by Lance Thompson

 

The new occupant of the cornerless office wants to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay. At last, here is an issue I agree with him on.

Guantanamo Bay is a terrible place to imprison terrorists who want to kill Americans. It’s a tropical paradise with great food, comfortable accommodations and culturally sensitive religious services. It’s cleaner and more pleasant than the countries of origin of any of the inmates, and is far too good for them.

If we’re really looking for an appropriate place to house terrorists, I nominate Amchitka. This Aleutian island in the ice-dotted Bering Sea is United States territory, but less temperate than the Caribbean paradise that is Guantanamo. There are 100-mph winds called williwaws that blow from every direction and were strong enough to bend steel runway mats into pretzel-like modern art during World War II. When the wind dies down, the rocky, treeless volcanic island is shrouded in freezing fog or pelted by rain or hail. There are American military bases nearby, but escapees are not a concern. Even if an enterprising fence-hopper could swim ten miles through the frigid waters of the Bering Sea to the nearest land, it would simply reach aptly-named Rat Island where unchecked rodents have devoured the sea birds that once nested there. Amchitka has already served the United States as a military base and a location for underground nuclear tests, so it would be the perfect home away from home for unrepentant jihadists.

If the island of the midnight sun sounds too chilly for our sensitive prisoners of the terror war, sun-baked California and Nevada deserts also offer perfect locations for detention. Both states have large desolate regions designated as military test ranges, where our armed services practice firing their precision munitions. A sturdy dormitory in the center of one of these bombing ranges would offer a warmer climate, if somewhat noisier than Amchitka. Our military pilots and air controllers would be able to sharpen their skills by obliterating targets all around the facility, thus making escape a “you-bet-your-life” proposition. Of course, if the inmates’ housing facility were inadvertently leveled by a miscalculation, then obviously that soldier, sailor or Marine would require further training.

The tourist attraction of the abandoned federal prison on Alcatraz Island has also been mentioned as a possible Gitmo stand-in. It already has prison buildings and infrastructure, though it is cold and drafty, and I personally wouldn’t want to drink any water provided by the century-and-a-half-old plumbing. The facility is famously escape-proof, although I believe Clint Eastwood pulled it off once in the late 70's. A devout Islamic terrorist would never dare escape from the island to the city of San Francisco, lest that city’s well-known tolerance of sexual deviants precipitate an encounter that would disqualify him from his eternal reward.

I also understand that Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona volunteered to take the Gitmo homeless terrorists. But putting prisoners in tents, issuing them pink underwear, denying them cable television and internet connections, and forcing them to eat pbj sandwiches and apples for lunch like common criminals would probably be considered torture under the new rules, so I assume that possibility has been shelved.

Nonetheless, 250 terrorist prisoners, properly employed, could be a real boost to our economy. There are many worthwhile projects that have incredibly not been included in the stimulus bill that are awaiting manpower. For example, the Grand Canyon is inconveniently located in Arizona, favoring residents of the West. Gitmo grads could be put to work installing a new, man-made Grand Canyon at a more convenient site–perhaps in the featureless plains of the Midwest. With government-provided shovels and supervision, I’m sure the prisoners could make a good start long before their indefinite sentences expired.

Likewise, we are almost certain to experience another brutal hurricane season on the Gulf Coast. The Gitmo guys could be put to work building a levee from Texas to Florida, again with proper supervision. As an alternate, they could use their inherent familiarity with the desert to perform a related function–filling sand bags. Both of these projects would provide fresh air, exercise and also serve to make the prisoners too weary to escape.

So I join the President in looking forward to the closing of Guantanamo Bay. It is time we stopped coddling the enemies of this country, call off their government-subsidized vacations, and put them in facilities that properly reward their efforts. At least until their rooms are ready in the infernal regions.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2009/2/2/close-gitmo-open-amchitka.html

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

US GI POW's get similar?

Submitted by artigiano on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 16:52.

I assume that you also favor other countries holding US GI's under similar conditions to the ones you advocate for the men in GITMO?

To me, an enemy met in combat can be slaughtered without mercy. But once taken prisoner, any enemy should be treated with the same respect you would show to one of your own comrades in arms.

Not because he deserves it or has any human rights. He may or may not. Not because he is also a fellow soldier. He may not be a soldier, but a mercenary or terrorist. Not because he might be innocent of any crimes and ignorant of critical military information. He may or may not be. His treatment is not conditional upon any aspect of who or what he is.

His treatment is 100% dictated by one thing. The singular fact that he has been taken prisoner by the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We hold ourselves to the highest possible standards. Far higher than any that prisoner has ever been exposed to or can even imagine. We live under a system of laws and rights strong enough to bring down the mightiest among us and protect the weakest. When a prisoner is taken under custody of this nation he should know by our conduct, from the first moment and everyday until his release, that he is being held by the most moral, ethical, and compassionate people ever to gather under one flag. His captivity should be the singular most enlightening experience of his miserable life. He should finally know, for the first time, the very best that men are capable of summoning from their character.

GITMO is an insult to me and you, and all the men who fought and died for this country, but most especially to the men who survived imprisonment associated with their service. Worse than that, it is a blasphemous curse to brave men in the future who will surely have to follow their lonely footsteps into isolation and darkness.

Blah blah blah.

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 19:02.

More moral preening from a liberal on the issue of torture.  Look it sounds all warm and fuzzy to stand foursquare against torture.  And at the end of the day you can pat yourself on the back having nobly, bravely and patriotically dissented from the evil Bushitler regime.  Good for you!  Congratulations on a bold and courageous position - you're against torture!

But after the sanctimony has died down, you're left with the nagging conundrum that has existed throughout time when it comes to issues of war and peace: How does a moral people prosecute a war that BOTH (a) leads to victory, AND (b) is broadly consistent with its values?  Guess what, these two requirements are at times contradictory.  IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO SIMPLY STATE YOU ARE AGAINST TORTURE.  Responsible leaders have to be willing to make the difficult tradeoffs necessary to meet both criteria as best as possible.  This absolutely means sometimes sacrificing elements of requirement (b) if it means helping to satisfy elements of requirement (a), and vice-versa.  So, do we nuke Tehran?  No.  But, do we engage in "enhanced interrogation techniques" if, by doing so, we have good reason to suspect that the cause of victory may be furthered?  Yes.  Is there a limit to the "enhancement" that we should tolerate?  Sure.  But let's not delude ourselves that the ethical rules that apply in peacetime should apply exactly the same in wartime.  They don't apply PRECISELY because in wartime there is this tradeoff between victory and values that needs to be made.

So, I applaud your soaring moral rhetoric.  But it is insufficient.

I don't accept the tradeoff.

Submitted by artigiano on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 08:35.

chemjeff-The crux of your argument seems to be there is a pragmatic balance between victory and values. I can not argue against history and say no US leaders share your view. I'm sure Truman had to choose between four or five bad choices before finally deciding that dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the least odious and most effective. Or at least, that he could live with the balance.

But I think our own history shows that many poor decisions made during wartime live on and on as failures to live up to our values. Lincoln and FDR are revered. But both are still stained by their failures during war of (respectively) suspending habeus corpus rights and intering Japanese Americans in detention camps. I don't think either decision, not taken, would have cost us victory.

The best example I can come up with for why it is important to stick to your morals and ethics is John Adams. The simplified history of our country's birth as taught to our kids is usually a triumvirate of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, with a supporting cast of "founding fathers." David McCullough's biography and the HBO miniseries starring Paul Giamatti have recently elevated John Adams to his rightful place among "the big three." But why did it take nearly 250 years to rehabilitate this great man's public image?

I think it solely rests upon the Alien and Sedition act. Adams knew it was a selling out of his and his country's morals when he did it. His writing shows that. But he took the pragmatic view you advance, and did it anyway, because he feared the Republic would be destroyed if he did not. Was he right? Who can say what would have been?

But I do think that one mistake kept him from being a revered figure with his face on our currency and an impressive marble monument in DC. Of course Adams would tell me that his image in posterity was small potatoes, and entered into his decision not at all. Probably. But his diminished image in history shows that the Alien and Sedition Act was at the least choosing shame to get security.

I see Bush 43 alongside Adams 2 in history as men who have the courage of their convictions to wash down the bitter pill of public approbation. Their choices were their's to make. I would have chosen differently. But no one elected me.

Great Adams quote.

Submitted by artigiano on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 10:07.

"Upon the stage of life, if my conscience claps, let all the world hiss and jeer."

-John Adams

victory-values tradeoff

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 13:15.

Well of course there's a tradeoff, so saying you don't recognize it is a bit silly.  Simple example: The military is a hierarchical, authoritarian structure.  We tolerate such a thing in a free democratic society because this structure for the military is most effective in achieving victory in war.  But there is only a certain level of authoritarianism that we are willing to tolerate even in the military: privates are not the personal slaves of generals, and we require that even the military follow formal judicial procedures for soldiers accused of crimes, instead of, say, beatings or summary executions or whatever arbitrary punishment the commander desired.  And this tradeoff changes with time, as a society's peacetime values change with time.  So in the past summary executions in the military were perfectly acceptable, as the society's values were, shall we say, much coarser.  So there is of course a substantial grey area over which people of good will can respectfully disagree.  Unsurprisingly, those on the left tend to err on the side of "values" while those on the right tend to err on the side of "victory".  But it's unfair to accuse Republicans of "supporting torture" just as it is unfair to accuse Democrats of "supporting defeat".

And it's the failure to recognize this tradeoff that has me profoundly upset with the Democrats over the issue of torture.  They have completely demagogued the issue by standing completely on the "values" end of the tradeoff.  This, supposedly from the party of 'nuance' and the party that purportedly respects enlightened thought.  It helped them win elections but it did nothing to advance the overall discussion.

only in a symmetric war.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 13:18.

in an asymmetric war, I think the authoritarian structure of the military is much more questionable in efficacy.

ymmv.

100% agreed chemjeff

Submitted by artigiano on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 15:56.

You knew it had to happen eventually if I hung around here long enough. There is not one thing in your last post that I do not think rings true. And I agreed before that many effective US leaders adopt your victory/values balance. I was just saying I would not if elected. But then again, those type choices are why I probably never will be.

rejecting the tradeoff

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 12:45.

And I agreed before that many effective US leaders adopt your victory/values balance. I was just saying I would not if elected.

Does that mean that if you were in charge, you would transform the military into an open, democratic institution?  I don't quite understand how you would go about rejecting this balance.

Baby with the bathwater.

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 16:50.

The history of warfare has numerous examples of people rejecting the very values they are seeking to defend, in order to prosecute the war. It's a completely illogical circle. You lose before you even get to the battlefield. Values and victory can not be seperated, they are inextricably intertwined.

Example: The US Civil War. The North was telling the South, no more slaves, there is a better way to power your economy and commerce. Namely, our way.

The South was saying, we like our agrarian (slave) based economy. If we gave it up freely we would have to build a bunch of industrialised factories like you have up North where all classes of men are forced to work side-by-side in a common effort to produce durable goods. How detestable!

So in order to defend our beloved agrarian based economy we will immediately open thousands of new industrialized factories to spit out all the tons and tons of durable goods we need to equip an army from scratch. Because we obviously won't be able to buy anything from your factories once we declare war on you.

So I guess we'll also need to immediately open thousands of more factories just to produce the basic consumer goods you used to sell us. And since all the men who aren't working in the factories will be in the new army, where gosh darnit I supposed the upper middle and lower classes will all have to work and live together, all the women folk, whose lives of leisure we are going to damn well protect, will have to keep the farms running, maintain the homes, churches, and schools, and work in the hospitals. I suppose the kids won't run too wild if Mommy takes on a wee bit more resonsibility.

Because, I'll be damned if you are going to force us to reject our values and change our cherished way of life. Sic semper tyrannis!

mommy never taught her kids nothing

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 17:10.

there's a reason why well educated women in the south sounded black.

I don't believe that torture increases our odds of victory.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 10:19.

I do believe that if it is done, the president or whomsoever is in charge should be prepared to resign if it is ever exposed.

We hire evil men for a reason -- let them do their job, and if it's ever exposed, hang 'em high.

Here, neatly encapsulated in

Submitted by centerfire on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 19:58.

Here, neatly encapsulated in a few sentences, is a perfect demonstration of why liberals should never be taken seriously on matters of national security.

According to liberals, the purpose that should animate our treatment of a captured enemy combatant is spreading enlightenment.  Liberals want us to move any mountain and bear any burden to show enemy combatants -- not legitimate POWs, but individuals who as recently as the early twentieth century would have been summarily shot as pirates, spies, or assassins had they been captured on a battlefield -- that we're a good and ethical people.  This despite the fact that the objects of these lessons demonstrably couldn't care less whether or not we're a good and ethical people, else they wouldn't be engaged in the very behavior that resulted in us capturing them.  Liberals are so riven with guilt and so bereft of civilizational confidence that they feel a burning need to prove themselves to, and seek the approbation of, people who would murder them in their sleep given the chance.

Normal people, on the other hand, believe that the national security apparatus of the country should be directed towards such pedestrian goals such as, say, defending the country -- and they possess enough civilizational confidence to grasp that you don't bring a knife to a gunfight and expect to win.

 

The problem is

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 08:35.

That we are not fighting a 'normal' war. The only way to win the war will be to win the 'hearts and minds' of the people we're occupying. This will never be accomplished though if we are shown to be torturing innocent people, which is what people are without effective trials to determine guilt.

As far as the 'knife to a gunfight' comment... I see of no other war where we were forced to lower our morals/standards to compete with a foreign enemy. Why should this one be different?

 

Thank you...

Submitted by centerfire on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 15:04.

for bringing up Stale Lefty Talking Point #2394, and demonstrating your utter ignorance of history.

As for the talking point: There's nothing so abnormal or unique about the war we're fighting that it's not susceptible to the basic principle that wars end when the enemy's will is broken to the point that he quits the battlefield and sues for peace -- and not a moment sooner.  The people trying to kill us, as I have pointed out before, demonstrably do not give a single shit whether we're a good and ethical people; in fact they're explicitly trained to take advantage of any demonstration of goodness and ethics on our part in order to secure propaganda victories and/or kill more of us.  Trying to win their hearts and minds is a fool's errand.  They will not be persuaded by affording them good food and comfortable clothing and procedural protections in court.  They will only be persuaded when enough of them are mouldering corpses that those still alive appreciate the futility of continuing to fight, and lay down their arms.

As to your ignorance: confining ourselves to just the last 100 years, do a little reading about Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki before you run off at the mouth about how the United States hasn't gotten dirty, when necessary, to win.  The breast-beating and hair-tearing about the propriety of fighting to win, as opposed to fighting with one hand tied behind our back to satisfy our moral vanity by showing what wonderful human beings we are, is a relatively recent development.

you ain't so used to war, kiddo.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 15:18.

wars end when the other side is dead. civilized wars end when someone cries uncle, but that ain't standard practice.

breaking people is done with harry potter books, not by bleeding them half to death. I know of what I speak. you don't.

Oh, please.

Submitted by centerfire on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 15:34.

I've served, and led men in combat.  Have you?

Then shut the fuck up, you ignorant cunt.

 

you ain't done no metaanalysis of how cunts lead men.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 15:52.

here's a hint: women-led tribes were exterminated because they were fucking psychotic, killing everything nearby. they were so dangerous that the male-led tribes banded together to exterminate them. women as sweetness and light indeed!

Have I served my country? yes. I know blokes who have led men in combat (one of whom did that metaanalysis).

Chiming in on historical accuracy.

Of course, most wars were fought over decades. That's what you get from slow transportation.

(what was your rank, if I can ask?)

In your case

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 17:42.

Whose surrender would we accept? Which country holds the mantle of 'terrorism'?

I'm not saying we'll win the hearts and minds of those who are already terrorists. But we must make sure not to convince those on the fence to SIDE with the terrorists. Do you think that there is a clear cut line between those who are willing to help terrorists, and those who would not, and never the two shall meet?

Of course the United States has gotten dirty to win. I don't agree with the firebombings and nuclear bomb dropping, because I feel that we should always strive for lessened amounts of civilian losses.

It did have positive results, yes; the war was ended without greater American casualties. My sense of morality though does not mean I think that was the proper decision to make. As well, those were instances of a clearly defined enemy (for the most part, though it's questionable with Japan, as many think their civilians would have taken up arms).

Would you not say that American fought, and prevailed, with one hand behind our back in the Revolutionary War? What about WWII?

Swamp fox mean somethin ta ya?

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 09:50.

nah, in the Revolutionary war we used nonstandard tactics at every turn.

Did you read MuslimMatters book review of the Gallup polll on Muslims? it seems to me pretty clear that the terrorist-supporters closely resemble Russian Anarchists from the tzarist days. It's especially striking when you learn that they support democracy to more of an extent than the non-terrorist supporters. Also that they are middle class, in the main, not lower class.

Nonstandard tactics, yes

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 13:05.

However, we did not target civilians, and George Washington was adamant about treating the British POWs with respect.

Eye for an eye, leads to a society of the blind.

Submitted by artigiano on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 09:05.

centerfire-You do take me seriously in spite of your words. At least seriously enough to read my stuff and come back with a good argument. I really don't expect anything more. And you are a mensch for going that far.

You seem to be arguing that we should give as good as we get. I think we should give as good as we choose. Victor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning is one everyone should read. The lessons found there are profound. Frankl argues that "The last human freedom, which can never be stripped away is the ability to choose one's attitude in a given circumstance."

Frankl was asked by his fellow Holocaust prisoners why he did not hate the Nazi's and always treated them with respect and compassion. He replied something along the lines of "They have taken my familly, my possessions, and my freedom. And you propose I should give them the one thing I have left that they can never take; my ability to love them."

Frankl understood that his regard for his enemy was solely his choice, and had nothing at all to do with how his enemy chose to treat or regard him. He was the superior of everyman around him who had chosen hate, both guard and prisoner. His attitude would have still been his to chose if he had been a jailer and the Nazis had been the prisoners.

My exwife had her own more profane version of Frankl's philosophy: "Just because you're pitching shit, it don't make me a catcher."

And which of us had the neatly encapsulated perfect demonstration, you or I?

Frankl's high-minded

Submitted by centerfire on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 15:32.

Frankl's high-minded philosophy got him nothing except three years in Thereseinstadt,  Auschwitz, and Turkheim before American soldiers -- people with the testicular fortitude to destroy the enemy by the most expedient means rather than engaging in a lot of hand-wringing about how well our methods reflected on us -- liberated him in April 1945.  I'm sure he comported himself as an exemplary human being with the most rarified ethics.  The Nazis didn't care, and murdered his whole family.

You have misinterpreted me as arguing for mindless "eye for an eye"-ism.  I am arguing that we should do what is necessary to win.  If the day ever arrives that we are confronted by an enemy who can be convinced to lay down arms by our moral preening, then preen away.  That day is not today.

"Just because you're pitching shit, it don't make me a catcher."  Your ex-wife was right.  On the other hand, you pitching shit makes me wise to get out of the way, pick up a convenient bat, and beat your ass.

well, that's all fine and dandy

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 15:54.

but it doesn't affect the effectiveness of torture, which is in doubt and in question.

Someday maybe.

Submitted by artigiano on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 16:27.

You say "That day is not today." But perhaps the day will come soon. Morality and ethics does evolve over time. Ironically, the same concept I used as an example of poor ethics was considered a great leap forward in it's day.

"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", was really about keeping vendettas from escalating into complete chaos. Which they almost always did. If I kill your goat, it isn't right for you to rape my sister, burn down my house, and kill my goat in retribution.

That bat must not have been too conveniently located. I got out of there before my exwife could take it to the level of beating my ass. As you can tell from my posts, I have yet to break the shit pitching habit. : )

Sure -- someday, maybe. 

Submitted by centerfire on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 17:47.

Sure -- someday, maybe.  Someday, maybe, our enemies will lay down their arms out of sheer awe at our high-minded fidelity to our principles.  We'll be able to send Captain Picard to handle the negotiations, and after he gives a little presentation on the Prime Directive he'll have them committed to signing a peace treaty with a Federation envoy by the top of the hour.

But we go to war against the enemies we have, not the enemies we wish we had.  Right now, these people laugh with delight that we agonize about, say, whether to extend them the procedural rights of the accused; it's a sign to them of our weakness and our decadence, and reinforces in them their belief that we deserve to be subjugated or exterminated.  They're thrilled that when they complain about the conditions at GTMO we take them seriously, because that's, to them, a demonstration of our lack of civilizational confidence -- and thus a huge propaganda coup.

You're worried about the horrible things that might be done in your name.  I'm worried about the horrible things that will be done to you, and me, if we're restrained in our prosecution of war by fidelity to some principle other than defeating the enemy by the most expedient means available.  I think Sherman's March to the Sea was a masterstroke that helped end the Civil War and ultimately saved lives; you probably regard it as an atrocity.

 

Silver lining.

Submitted by artigiano on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 18:16.

"I think Sherman's March to the Sea was a masterstroke that helped end the Civil War and ultimately saved lives; you probably regard it as an atrocity."

You know we liberals always find a bright side. I prefer to think of Sherman as the father of urban renewal and modern city planning. And as the far thinking man who cleared the way for the first interstate super highways. : )

If forced to choose between the penitentiary and the White House for four years, I would say the penitentiary, thank you. William Tecumseh Sherman  

 

let 'em underestimate us.

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 09:57.

I don't give a duck. THEY always underestimate Americans, no matter what we do. That's because we are a hardy AND decadent folk. You can't be so rich without being decadent.

What if torture isn't the most expedient way possible? What if harry potter books are really better at getting good information on a timely basis (as considerable amounts of our military and intelligence community believes)?

Then will you condemn torture as being INEFFECTIVE?

What would you define as a win?

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 17:43.

I would still like a definition of what a 'win' in the war on Terrorism would entail.

In 1800's russia the same folks were set free by the public

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 10:25.

in open court trials. Am I comparing Russia more favorably than America? Man, that feels weird.

If you bring a knife to a gunfight, make sure it's poisoned, and bring a gas mask and knockout gas too. *snerk*

No, I am of the opinion, as many of our intelligence men are, that torture leads to a lot of useless, wrong, and made up information. That it is possible to get a terrorist to spill the beans through giving them a Harry Potter book.

Being the good guys works better than being the bad guys. Plain and simple.

If there was such a moral quandary as you're talking about (and I believe there was with Truman's terrorism of Japan), then yeah, we can go talk realpolitik. I ain't no idealist.

If you need sources, I can cite 'em.

US GI POW's get similar? posted by Artigiano

Submitted by JCleaver on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 19:11.

You are obviously an idealistic lefty that found a new home here.  It is a free country after all.  Last time I checked, terrorists were chopping off American heads or setting U.S. soldiers on fire and dragging them along the road before hanging.

If you want to bloviate about the highest possible standards, you might want to start with Obama's cabinets appointees.  Do you also have the same high standards for the unborn?  I think not.

Right

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 08:31.

Now if you'd just like to point out the magical way to determine whether all the detainees are terrorists, feel free. Or are you of the mind that prisoners without access to habeas corpus, or the right to review material against them, is a solid court system?

You guys rock! Most of you at least.

Submitted by artigiano on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 23:10.

chemjeff and centerfire-I believe I could count on you guys to bring it hard no matter what I argue. You make this place fun. Thanks for not calling me a "troll" and actually  taking the time to consider my posts and offering a challenging view.

Between one side's idealism and the other side's pragmatism we are going to find all the answers we need to move this country to the more perfect union. I will get back to each of you with a rebutal in the morning. Need to give it some thought. And I hate typing on my wife's laptop.

JCleaver-I'm certainly not going to start a high minded debate about principles of warfare with something as mundane as Obama's cabinet selections. Especially, since the original post had nothing to do with that or the unborn. I do agree with you on three things:

idealistic lefty-check one

free country-check two

you think not-check three

Unamerican

Submitted by lgm on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 08:19.

With the opening sentence

Guantanamo Bay is a terrible place to imprison terrorists who want to kill Americans.

LowDownCentral flunks civics class, the one where you learn what American principles are and what made and keeps America great: rule of law (among others).  The problem with Guantanamo is not the harsh weather.  People can be tortured in any climate.  International rights organizations, the ones we rely on to criticize treatment of political prisoners in countries we don't like, those organizations have documented prisoner abuse at Guantanamo. 

The biggest problem with Guantanamo is that people are being held there without due process, or process of any kind (records turn out to be missing or distoryed).  Some of them "want to kill Americans", others were unlucky to be kidnapped by mistake. 

Conservatives are fond of calling this or that liberal program "socialism", as in "socialized medicine" (a system used throughout the civilized world outside the US).  Yet these same conservatives seem eager to immitate the Communist Soviet Union not in its health delivery system (which was OK), but in its prison system (which was a disgrace).  Sure, let's create Gulags on our own arctic archipelago.  That is sure to teach the world what a great country we are.