Obama to close down Gitmo?

[navytrooper]

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/01/ap_obama_closing_guantanamo_012209w/

What are your thoughts on this? Me, I'm not really educated enough on the subject to have a reasonable opinion, but I think we should keep the prison but just submit it to closer scrutiny.

[HairyEyeball]

It may be a case of 'premptive CYA': If the 'entrance requirements' include attempting to destroy the United States, he and most of his cabinet are potentially prime candidates for permanent residence.

[Rabbit]

Totally against this. I don't want known terrorists in my backyard. They can shove Habeas Corpus where the sun doesn't shine, in this case. Although, a strengthened plan to sort out the guppies from the sharks should be put into place...just do it somewhere besides home.

[TruBlu]

Within only a few days of his presidency, PBHO has managed to come up with an idea (there is no plan, he gave himself a year for that) to close down Gitmo and by doing so decreasing our nation's security. I too am no expert, but I understand that you cannot simply close down and release suspected and confirmed terrorists. Sure there is talk of trying them under the UMCJ and even in civilian courts, but I don't see that happening, or any reason for it. There is a list of now 62 suspected or confirmed terrorists that have been released from Gitmo. In 2007, the Bush Administration released a certain Saudi who is now a confirmed (once again) terror cell in the Middle East (here's the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481849,00.html).

Even I didn't believe that PBHO would do something like this, especially so soon.

[PhoenixCadet]

He closes Gitmo, and one of the likely new locations that will be used to house them is San Diego.

I don't want those sh*twads in my city!


</rant off>

:mad:

-PC

[HairyEyeball]

Hell, send 'em to one of Sheriff Joe's tent camps - if they don't like it there and manage to leave, we have another name for 'em: Targets.

I don't suppose it's occurred to the incompetent in charge that if we have no viable place to put any prisoners we may take, there might just be a drop in the number we may take. That ought to sit nicely with all his friends in North Africa.

[Woody]

Gitmo was a huge mistake .A pr disaster and in the war on terror pr is important.Not sure what the answers are but its not gitmo.

[HairyEyeball]

When 'public relations' or 'how it will play in the media' becomes the primary determinant for national policy, we're already too deep in the 'hurt locker' for the government to have any claim to legitimacy. 'Public relations' is, unfortunately, a creature of the media and almost wholly dependent on sensationalism and the power of that media to form opinion (a power which has, apparently, no 'guidance' beyond itself), and the security of the nation may not be as 'press worthy', but is - and should be - just a tad bit more essential.

[Woody]

Your right PR was the wrong word to use .It was an easy goal for our enemies to use against us .Not helped by people ending up there who
shouldn't have been. Not sure what the right place to put them is.Battlefield
and covert operations are not the same as law enforcement operations so
trying them as criminals probably won't work .POW status really dosen't apply even if you stretched the boundaries still got the problem of deciding when the war is over and where do you send them back to?

[TruBlu]

Hell, send 'em to one of Sheriff Joe's tent camps - if they don't like it there and manage to leave, we have another name for 'em: Targets.

LOL, that's a grand idea. And for anyone who doesn't know of the tent camps, here's a link to a story of enlightenment: http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/27/tough.sheriff/.

[Javelin66]

We had to shut this place down eventually, and now is as good a time as any. Trust me; the 'baddest of the bad' won't be seeing their favorite wives any time soon.

If you research carefully, you will find that we already have small numbers of these mugs tucked away all over the country in military brigs and other federal facilities under the watchful eye of people actually trained to run a prison, which also has the added benefit of relieving the military of this chore.

As far as housing them in 'your backyard', most of these guys have inflicted less actual physical harm on American citizens than the average inmate in a federal correctional facility, and are frankly far less capable.

We lost this particular battle before we started. Granted, under the Geneva Conventions we could have shot most of these guys on the battlefield as partisans. Barring that, we had the choice of treating them as EPWs or as criminals. Instead, we chose a middle ground that we thought would give us the best of both worlds.

PR is the wrong word and concept to use here, but there is a definite informational aspect to the GWOT as a whole and GTMO in particular, and we ignore it at our peril. True or not, the allegations of what went on inside GTMO have done grave damage to our legitimacy in this conflict and have provided the basis for endless enemy propaganda.

This conflict is yet another example of what the military is now calling Irregular Warfare, which is anything but irregular. The central concepts are deterring enemies, building partnerships, and dissuading potential adversaries. All of these are dependent on some semblance of legitimacy.

[Rabbit]

most of these guys have inflicted less actual physical harm on American citizens than the average inmate in a federal correctional facility, and are frankly far less capable How can you be sure?

[03_SHOOTER]

We had to shut this place down eventually, and now is as good a time as any. Trust me; the 'baddest of the bad' won't be seeing their favorite wives any time soon.

No, but that's only because once we let them out, like we've already done too many times in the past, they go right back to their buddies and start killing Americans again, and that's only when they don't just blow themselves up in the middle of a market, or get promoted to the upper echelons of Al Quada in Iraq and direct the killing of our troops and innocent civilians!

As far as our "legitimacy" being questioned, the only ones I hear questioning it are the gutless blunders like Murtha, Pelosi, Reed, Kerry, and the rest of the liberal morons who have pulled a Walter Crankcase and pronounced our defeat while we're still kicking ass and taking hyphenated names, and I really don't give a tinkers damn what those Traitors have to say about anything anyway.

http://webpages.charter.net/o3shooter/Backstab_Troops.jpg

[Javelin66]

We are talking about other inmates that, while not terrorists according to strict definitions, have terrorized their communities through violent crime.

The fact that some of the detainees got back into the fight is frustrating, but it should surprise no one and would not matter much in the 'combat calculus' if it was not for the fact that the enemy is able to use it as a recruiting and propaganda tool. We gave them that opportunity.

At the strategic level, legitimacy is the 'center of gravity' for both sides in this conflict. Our legitimacy has been questioned by members of our own government as well as a large percentage of the population, not to mention our international partners in this. This erodes our capability to prosecute this war as we lose existing and potential allies and freedom of action in critical areas. At the same time, it enhances the ability of our enemy to operate freely.

Petraeus himself has famously said that we cannot kill or capture our way out of this conflict.

[03_SHOOTER]

We are talking about other inmates that, while not terrorists according to strict definitions, have terrorized their communities through violent crime.

And precisely what is your definition of "terrorist" that these individuals that we're holding at Gitmo fail to meet?

The fact that some of the detainees got back into the fight is frustrating, but it should surprise no one and would not matter much in the 'combat calculus' if it was not for the fact that the enemy is able to use it as a recruiting and propaganda tool. We gave them that opportunity.

Oh, so it's all OUR fault? I suppose you believe that it's our fault that they attacked us on 9-11 too? What precisely would you have us do with those that we have captured? Rent them comfortable furnished apartments in a gated community? They don't need anything for "recruiting and propaganda" other than their silly-assed 72 virgins canard, or have you forgotten that these are the same people who didn't have any problem recruiting for their cause long before we had any interests at all in the mid east? These are the same fools that have been plaguing us nearly since our inception as a nation, which is why the Marine Hymn includes the words "to the shores of Tripoli". These are the same knuckleheads that we faced in the Philippines in the earliest days of the 20th century, and these are the same asshats that have plagued the entire civilized world since that LYING, CHEATING, THIEVING, PEDERAST, BIGAMIST, MURDERING PEDOPHILE Muhammad (piss be on him) declared himself a "prophet".

At the strategic level, legitimacy is the 'center of gravity' for both sides in this conflict. Our legitimacy has been questioned by members of our own government as well as a large percentage of the population, not to mention our international partners in this.

True enough, but only by the gutless blunders, and cheese-eating surrender monkey TRAITORS, and as I said, I don't give a damn what they have to say about anything anyway. Frankly, IMNSHO, anyone who does give anything they have to say about much of anything ANY credence is mentally deficient.

This erodes our capability to prosecute this war as we lose existing and potential allies and freedom of action in critical areas. At the same time, it enhances the ability of our enemy to operate freely.

Blatant horse-droppings. The only thing that "erodes our capability to prosecute this war" is the tolerance of those same said gutless blunders and cheese-eating surrender monkeys I mentioned earlier. A more appropriate way of dealing with them would be to follow Lincolns example and arrest, charge, try, convict and sentence them for TREASON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Vallandigham), and send them over to the enemy where they would obviously prefer to be.

Petraeus himself has famously said that we cannot kill or capture our way out of this conflict.

With all due respect to the General, that's the ONLY way that we've won any war that we've ever fought, and I see no reason why it won't work this time as well.

[Woody]

Kill capture who ? Every Arab ,Every Muslim ?There are billions of them and a lot are probably allies more than enemies majority dont care one way or the other .Unless the war forces them to chose sides .

[HairyEyeball]

It would appear that our own morality is being turned against us by those who possess none: We believe we have some obligation to abide by 'humanitarian' concerns and the rules of (conventional) war in a conflict that is not 'conventional': One in which the enemy combatants are intentionally indistinguishable from the civilians and 'makes up the rules as they go along'; does not only fear death but welcomes it, especially if it involves as many of 'our' casualties as possible; and in which the role of propaganda has been allowed to supplant that of combat.

Despite the fact that one of the primary strategies of that enemy is wholesale murder, we not only insist on capturing - rather than immediately executing - those who actively pursue our deaths by any means possible, but treating them 'honorably' - by our standards (a display of weakness by theirs). We treat them better than 'our' convicted felons, and choose to view them as 'criminals' rather than mortal enemies; and appear more interested in the opinion of parasitic 'members of the world community' than our own security and survival. Should we continue to be influenced by the powerless and corrupt, should our desire to somehow 'please' them continue to outweigh our national integrity, we will not only lose that, we will lose any claim to moral or military superiority: For over two centuries we have set an example of 'leadership', but bowing to the judgment of lesser entities, we forfeit that position. It has never been a requirement that a 'world leader' be 'liked', it was always concomittant with such position it be respected: Both ancient Rome and the modern USSR endured through their respected lifetimes because they crushed their enemies - and when they met their end, it was from internal corruption that sapped their strength to meet and defeat those enemies. "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

The only outcome our enemies respect is victory and/or death; the only way to win wars has historically been decisive victory - demonstrate that you will kill as many of the enemy and destroy as much of their support base as is necessary - to literally hit them so hard their great-grandchildren are born crippled, broken and screaming in agony. One does not win wars - 'conventional' or otherwise - by capturing psychotic murderers, giving them a 'time out' and fortifying them, then turning them loose as smarter, stronger, more effective murderers.

Whether or not Club Med, Gitmo 'needs' to be closed has become irrelevant - it will be. The question then becomes what is to become of its 'guests'. Perhaps repatriating them is an answer - but to the custody of those of their countrymen who have suffered at their hands.

And as an aside, in any discussion on this forum, one of our primary rules - our 'Prime Directive', if you will, is that no matter how wrong, how 'stupid' you may believe an opinion, we attack the opinion, not the poster. We debate with logic, not emotion. Should it become necessary to 'police' that policy, 'gentle reminders' may be succeeded by whatever means necessary.

[CAPSmith]

Close this one, open this other one - six and one half dozen the other. Perhaps this is my own ignorance, but all of the news releases that I have read regarding the gitmo situation, specifically the suspension of the trials for 120 day seem a bit confusing.

The articles all state that many of the detainees wish to plead guilty to the crimes they are charged with - including 5 of those involved with 9/11.

Why, after all this time are there so many that desire to plead guilty still being detained awaiting trial? The last time I checked, pleading guilty avoids the trial step and goes right to sentencing.

If these people wish to skip the trial and go straight to execution, who am I to stand in the way?

[03_SHOOTER]

Kill capture who ? Every Arab ,Every Muslim ?

Any who take up arms against us, and who kill, or even try to kill our people. Is that really such a "far-fetched" or difficult concept to comprehend?

Oh, and as long as our manufacturing base is still producing ammunition, it doesn't really matter how many of them there are.

[HairyEyeball]

...as long as our manufacturing base is still producing ammunition, it doesn't really matter how many of them there are.

Have you seen the price of military caliber ammunition - or even components - lately? While the government doesn't pay what we do, their prices have increased substantially, and that money - along with the costs involved in standing up 'Son of SAC', and additional weapons procurement, and...are all coming out of the same budget - and anyone who thinks there aren't a few hundred knives out for the 'discretionary' portion of it, of which the military is a huge chunk (as opposed to the 'untouchable' allotment to parasites) has some serious cognitive issues (and probably shouldn't be allowed within 50 yards of a voting booth, but that's another thread).

Unfortunately, we can pump out all the ammunition - and arms - our factories are capable of producing, but without the will to win, without the commitment of the troops bearing the brunt and the unconditional support of those they choose to defend, it's merely an exercise in frustration. Whomever coined the quip may have been jesting, at least in part, but for the most part, America's military is at war - 'America' is at the mall.

[03_SHOOTER]

Have you seen the price of military caliber ammunition - or even components - lately? <snip>

You know I have.

Unfortunately, we can pump out all the ammunition - and arms - our factories are capable of producing, but without the will to win, without the commitment of the troops bearing the brunt and the unconditional support of those they choose to defend, it's merely an exercise in frustration. Whomever coined the quip may have been jesting, at least in part, but for the most part, America's military is at war - 'America' is at the mall.

Well, we can fight them there, or we can fight there here. I would appear that the new administration has elected to abandon to former and leave us wide open for the latter. While the sheeple who voted for the new 'resident' may choose to be at the mall, some of us are still prepared, ammunition and all, to deal with any who choose to attack us here (since we've been deemed to be too 'old' to be allowed to go deal with them there), and while they may very well be successful in killing some of us, in my case they'll have to dig through the mountain of empty cartridge casings to get to me first, because THIS member of the Unorganized Militia is armed, ready, willing, and able to defend this nation, against any enemy, foreign or domestic!

[03_SHOOTER]

Kill capture who ? Every Arab ,Every Muslim ?There are billions of them and a lot are probably allies more than enemies majority dont care one way or the other .Unless the war forces them to chose sides .

OOOHHHH, there are billions of them. Well, given that according to the CIA Worldbook, there are apporximately 1.8 bn Muslims in the world, which means that even if ALL of them decided to go to war against America (and we know that that'll never happen), that's still only 6 of them for every 1 of us. Even given the fact that less than half of the population of America own a firearm, that's still only 12 for every one of us who does, and even when you cut that in half again to account for those of us who are actually proficient with our arms, that still leaves only 24 for every skilled marksman in America, and to be honest, that doesn't even constitute a "good day at the range" so to speak. All of that to say this, it doesn't really matter if we do have to kill or capture EVERY one of them in order to compel them to quite being such a bunch of raving idiots and LEAVE US ALONE!

[HairyEyeball]

And that doesn't account for fratricide (ain't that what the MIRV jockeys called it?) if you catch 'em before they disperse: Hit one in the semtex skivvies and the blast will take out those around him. Kind of cuts down on targets, but saves on ammo - I'd call it a fair trade.

Those of us who've done it don't need reminding, but for those who haven't yet, before we were privileged to don the uniform, we took an oath to protect and defend country and Constitution - no mention of transitory 'administrations' - against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Our days of active duty may have ended, but I don't recall being released from the oath. And just 'for the record', for the most part we're not the posturing ones hollowly echoing Charlton Heston's "Cold Dead Hands" speech - if push comes to shove, I'll bet my trophy wall that the majority of them will be the first in line to turn their firearms in.

Walt Kelly was right then, he's right now: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

[Woody]

* Isn't one of* Al Quedas aim to start a religious war against the west ?*** As far as I am aware majority of islam isnt intrested in joining their death cult and the majority of the west isnt calling for another crusade .**** Its not a conventiol war it wont be won by taking and holding ground .Anddestroying the enemy .We wont know if gitmo produced valuable intelligence relevant to the harm it did.

[TruBlu]

Its not a conventiol war it wont be won by taking and holding ground .Anddestroying the enemy .

Well it may or may not be won by taking and holding ground seeing as though the "progressive elements" blend with the "civilian" populations and the only enemies are those that actually shoot at us. Now destroying the enemy, as in killing them seems to be a very effective way of waging war. The only way to win any war is to silence the enemy, and for these ideologues that means a bullet to the head or many a JDM in their caves.

We wont know if gitmo produced valuable intelligence relevant to the harm it did.

Gitmo itself has done no harm. What has done harm are the political leaders and directives set in place that reacquaint terrorists with their fun-loving terror buddies who then attack us again. Remember, there is a list of now 62 suspected/confirmed terrorists released/re-released from Gitmo who have taken action against us.

Gitmo itself is not the problem, but those in control of it.

[03_SHOOTER]

* Isn't one of* Al Quedas aim to start a religious war against the west ?*** As far as I am aware majority of islam isnt intrested in joining their death cult and the majority of the west isnt calling for another crusade .

Yeah, it is a bit frustrating when somebody calls a jihad, and nobody show us isn't it? But hey, that's a good thing because that's fewer that we have to kill!

**** Its not a conventiol war it wont be won by taking and holding ground .Anddestroying the enemy .

Vietnam was not a "conventional" war either, but we DID win it by destroying the enemy, which is why the North cried UNCLE following the Linebacker II operation in late '72. We killed over 1.1 million NVA/VC/Chinese/Soviets during the Vietnam War before they finally tripped to the fact that they had embarked on a self imposed genocide, and that if they didn't stop while they could, that it would be too late and there wouldn't be anyone left at all.

We wont know if gitmo produced valuable intelligence relevant to the harm it did.

Trying to cite Gitmo as any type of a "recruiting tool" for AQ is a canard of the first order, and it's the same logical fallacy that people were trying to use about what happened at Abu Grabass. Someone either is, or is not inclined to join a "jihad"; if they are, anything will do the trick, if they're not, nothing will, it's just that simple, so all of this wailing, crying, and gnashing of teeth about "Abu Grabass and Gitmo are doing nothing but inflating the ranks of our enemies" is pure liberal Bravo Sierra.

[Javelin66]

The real canard is the concept that military action alone wins wars, especially wars like the one in which we are engaged now.

Most military historians point to Vietnam as perhaps the best modern example of how a vastly superior force can win every major engagement yet fail to attain national objectives if it is not coupled with civic action and protecting the population.

In fact, counterinsurgency theory, studies, and doctrine (to include the USMC Small Wars Manual as well as the new Army/USMC Counterinsurgency doctrine) call for such a combination.

Current successful commanders on the ground from tactical to strategic levels will tell you the same thing. John Nagl's book 'Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife' compares and contrasts the US unsuccessful experience in Vietnam with the British success in the Malayan Emergency. Nagl, by the way, was a key contributer to the COIN manual and runs (or ran until recently) the IAG training for all Army and Joint MiTTs going into Iraq. McMaster, who commanded the 3rd ACR in Tal Afar with great success, used essentially the same principles.

None of this means that you stop killing or capturing bad guys. It just means that you are conducting intelligence driven, focused operations rather than massive sweeps. That intelligence is garnered through long term multidisciplined collection. Most of your intel comes from the population themselves, and they will not talk to you if you are dragging their brothers and fathers off to secret prisons.

True Story: A buddy of mine was a Bde S-2 in another unit in Iraq just before I got there in 2004. A local tribal leader came to see them because the brigade had rolled up one of his brother's kids in one of the typical cordon and sweeps of the time. The kid had allegedly gone to Abu G, but no one knew for sure. The sheik comes in and convinces the Div Cmdr (Petraeus) to release him, so my buddy works his way through the system to find him. It takes weeks, because records are bad, lost, incomplete, etc. After one failed trip to pick him up at Abu G, the sheik turns to my buddy and says 'You know, in Saddam's day, if you spoke out against the government you could be taken in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. Now, you Americans come and people are taken from their homes and you can't even find them. How is this better?'

[03_SHOOTER]

The real canard is the concept that military action alone wins wars, especially wars like the one in which we are engaged now.

Most military historians point to Vietnam as perhaps the best modern example of how a vastly superior force can win every major engagement yet fail to attain national objectives if it is not coupled with civic action and protecting the population.

In fact, counterinsurgency theory, studies, and doctrine (to include the USMC Small Wars Manual as well as the new Army/USMC Counterinsurgency doctrine) call for such a combination.

My dear sir, you're obviously confused. Counterinsurgency, civic actions and protecting the civilian population are all part of military actions. That's why we have Psyops, Civil Affairs, Engineers, and all of the other specialty units based right here at Bragg, over at Campbell, and many other places around the country.

Many of the "historians" you refer to are also the same brain-dead mouth breathing revisionists who claim that we "lost" the war in Vietnam, so you'll have to excuse me if I give no credence to their "opinions" whatsoever.

As for the rest, it has no bearing whatever on the point that military action, and specifically killing the enemy, is the ONLY thing that wins wars. Wailing, crying, and gnashing of teeth about it only provides aid and comfort to our enemies, and ensures our failure. Oh, and if your buddy ever did find the kid in question, that only amplifies the profound differences between us and Saddam.

[Woody]

And yet Vietnam still ended up united under communism stunning victory there .Under criteria like that Russia not only won in Afganistian it also won the cold war .

[TruBlu]

Many of the "historians" you refer to are also the same brain-dead mouth breathing revisionists who claim that we "lost" the war in Vietnam, so you'll have to excuse me if I give no credence to their "opinions" whatsoever.

And yet Vietnam still ended up united under communism stunning victory there .Under criteria like that Russia not only won in Afganistian it also won the cold war .

Gentlemen, this is not the place of discussion for such conflicts, that is another thread all together. This thread's scope involves the discussion of Gitmo, or the future lack-there-of.

That said, I would like to ask a few questions that intrigues me but I don't believe it's been talked about: What happens to Gitmo? By this I mean the land that we have on Cuban soil. Do we still maintain a foothold in the sad excuse for a communist country, or do we loose that land? Strategically, we would want to maintain our ground correct, and if so, would the area be converted to another military base with another purpose?

[PhilK]

That said, I would like to ask a few questions that intrigues me but I don't believe it's been talked about: What happens to Gitmo? By this I mean the land that we have on Cuban soil. Do we still maintain a foothold in the sad excuse for a communist country, or do we loose that land? Strategically, we would want to maintain our ground correct, and if so, would the area be converted to another military base with another purpose?

You need to do a little research:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay.htm

The Naval base at GITMO won't be going anywhere. They will just have to find some new uses for the land...maybe a nice softball field or something.

I have several buddies who got pulled for the GITMO mission and as they said there were two types of prisoners at the facility, "Those with weapons and those without."

[Billyd]

Actually, when the pols are talking about closing Gitmo, they are referring to the detention facility there, not the Naval base itself.

[TruBlu]

You need to do a little research:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay.htm

The Naval base at GITMO won't be going anywhere. They will just have to find some new uses for the land...maybe a nice softball field or something.

Thanks for the link and response.

Actually, when the pols are talking about closing Gitmo, they are referring to the detention facility there, not the Naval base itself.

Thanks, I just think the media has skewed it a bit much. I was under the impression that Gitmo was being dismantled and packed up.

[03_SHOOTER]

And yet Vietnam still ended up united under communism stunning victory there .Under criteria like that Russia not only won in Afganistian it also won the cold war .

Tim, I would strongly suggest that you review your history. Vietnam fell 2 years after N. Vietnam capitulated and our forces had pulled out, when our Congress decided that it could no longer afford to financially or militarily support S. Vietnam. We won the War, the Dim-O-Crap Libtards in Congress lost the peace.

[Javelin66]

Gentlemen, this is not the place of discussion for such conflicts, that is another thread all together. This thread's scope involves the discussion of Gitmo, or the future lack-there-of.


I concur- perharps Shooter should start a thread or threads dedicated to his twin assertions that Vietnam was an unqualified success and that victory in the GWOT can be achieved through military means alone. I assume that his thread on Vietnam will include a discussion of the Paris Peace accords, specifically focusing on how the US promises to withdraw troops and not interfere with the reunification of Vietnam constitutes a 'capitulation' on the part of North Vietnam.

As to GTMO, it will go back to its original purpose, which is essentially annoying Castro and serving as a reminder to his people that life would be better without communism.

The detainees there are in two flavors- real life terrorist, and hapless nug that was duped into joining the 'movement'.

The former will never again see the light of day, unless it is during a cell transfer, and the latter may be released and rejoin the fight, either as a combatant, which is fine with me (easier to deal with) or as part of the propaganda campaign against the West.

[Woody]

Personally rather they went back to the fight listening to the whining about their experinces in gitmo ,and,Frankly unbelivable excuses for why they went to Afganistian or pakistian in the first place gets old very quickly .
Getting clean from heroin :D Guess Gitmo could be turned into a rehab centre then .

[HairyEyeball]

What one regards as 'military means' appears to differ: One seems to insist that it applies only to combat, the other that any action performed by, or in conjuction with, military personnel is inclusive. It reminds me of a certain unconvicted serial rapist parsing the 'meaning' of 'is'.

As to Vietnam, there is no question as to who won the military engagements, just as there should be none that the 'reunification' addressed in the Paris Accords was intended to be accomplished by plebescite, not armed invasion and military subjugation. Nowhere would the phrase be more applicable that our troops won the war, our politicians and media lost the peace. Unfortunately, it appears that while two separate and distinct subjects - The War and The Post-War Actions - are separate and distinct, the fact that they involve the same location has been perverted to imply that there are some 'linkages' of cause and effect which careful research would prove nonexistant.

And yes, this is a topic which should be and has been addressed in another thread - one which may also deal with the 'chieu hoi' program which met with reasonable success in Vietnam and is apparently not being pursued in the current conflict.

[HairyEyeball]

What one regards as 'military means' appears to differ: One seems to insist that it applies only to combat, the other that any action performed by, or in conjuction with, military personnel is inclusive. It reminds me of a certain unconvicted serial rapist parsing the 'meaning' of 'is'.

As to Vietnam, there is no question as to who won the military engagements, just as there should be none that the 'reunification' addressed in the Paris Accords was intended to be accomplished by plebescite, not armed invasion and military subjugation. Nowhere would the phrase be more applicable that our troops won the war, our politicians and media lost the peace. Unfortunately, it appears that while two separate and distinct subjects - The War and The Post-War Actions - are separate and distinct, the fact that they involve the same location has been perverted to imply that there are some 'linkages' of cause and effect which careful research would prove nonexistant.

And yes, this is a topic which should be and has been addressed in another thread - one which may also deal with the 'chieu hoi' program which met with reasonable success in Vietnam and is apparently not being pursued in the current conflict.

[JohnP]

4-star sees difficulties in closing Gitmo

By David Stringer - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Jan 29, 2009 15:09:48 EST

REYKJAVIK, Iceland — A senior U.S. general who once oversaw the Guantanamo Bay prison camp predicted Thursday that the U.S. will face problems closing it down — something President Barack Obama has ordered be done within a year.
Army Gen. John Craddock, who headed U.S. Southern Command from 2004-2006, said while attending a NATO conference that issues over where to send some of the remaining detainees need to be resolved and that doing so will be difficult.
Concerns have been heightened after a former Saudi detainee released from Guantanamo showed up in a video clip of al-Qaida militants in Yemen.
“I’m always concerned when bad people are released and show up again trying to kill either American or international forces. Obviously as a commander you want to protect the force,” Craddock, now NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe, said during an interview.
“In terms of the closing, I have no concerns. I’m sure the modalities of that will be worked out. I think it will be difficult for some nations to receive detainees in their country of origin. That will have to be worked through,” Craddock said.
Obama’s order calls for the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be closed within a year. The camp still houses around 245 detainees, but it is not clear how many will be prosecuted or where many of them will be transferred.
European Union leaders said Monday they would consider taking in some of the prisoners being released, but only after detailed screening to ensure they don’t present a security threat.
The U.S. military says there are 60 Guantanamo inmates who, if freed, cannot be returned to their home countries because they would likely face abuse, imprisonment or death. Those prisoners come from Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Chad, China, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

I find it interesting that the people who want to close it are people who have not served or even visited there.

[03_SHOOTER]

I find it interesting that the people who want to close it are people who have not served or even visited there.

OK, after giving this subject a bit of thought, I propose that they immediately close the prison facility at Gitmo, take ALL of the current detainees, load them aboard aircraft and fly them back to the nation in which they were captured and turn them over to the respective legitimate governments of the countries in which they were captured. If the silly little libs think that they're being mistreated now, I will be overjoyed to hear their crying, wailing, and gnashing of teeth when they are ALL summarily executed, preferrably in a slow painful manner, very shortly after their "repatriation".