This is wonderful news, I honestly can't say how pleased I am that the president elect has made this commitment.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since they are having an impossible time finding people to take the inmates there, one wonders what will happen to them then? I'd imagine that they'll all be given immediate trials, probably somewhat secret ones unless Obama has a far lower threshhold for what is and isn't a state secret than Bush had (likely?).
But if they're found innocent...where do they go? Do we just dump the at the border of the nation we picked them up in?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
...And some of them might be considered refugees or asylum seekers from their home countries, so there's the whole question of what to do with them... But yes, overall, I'm glad to hear that Gitmo will close.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ...And some of them might be considered refugees or asylum seekers from their home countries, so there's the whole question of what to do with them... But yes, overall, I'm glad to hear that Gitmo will close.
Oh certainly I'm glad that the prison aspect of Gitmo is closing. Camp X-Ray is a blemish on American history.
But I'm also concerned over the consequences. I'm not entirely sure what the circumstances are regarding the people already there. I was under the impression that the Bush Administration tried to release several of them but couldn't find homes for them. So, do we give them citizenship and integrate them into society after unfairly incarcerating a lot of them for many years and probably doing unspeakable things to them and probably giving them a lot of reasons to bear ill will towards America? Do we just dump them somewhere? Bring pressure to bear on their nation of citizenship to take them in?
Inevitably there will be some leftover that won't be housed in some other country. I'm concerned for their well being. As far as I'm concerned, for the ones found innocent of wrongdoing, it's our fault that they are here, and it's our responsibility to see after them if they have nowhere else to go. There's potential danger involved in such a responsibility, but maybe that'll give us more pause next time we consider doing something like this again.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I could rant and rave about the issue and address concerns of it closing and what to do with the inmates... but mostly I'm just happy it's happening. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that we owe the prisoners something for what we put them through. If they can't get home, maybe a nice little house, their immediate family gets citizenship, help with education and finding a job. I think we should be careful and watch them as much as our laws allow in the future, but I think we should do our best to give back the lives we stole from them.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that we owe the prisoners something for what we put them through. If they can't get home, maybe a nice little house, their immediate family gets citizenship, help with education and finding a job. I think we should be careful and watch them as much as our laws allow in the future, but I think we should do our best to give back the lives we stole from them.
Does this include all the prisoners or only ones found to be innocent? Plus the devil is in the details which Obama has not revealed. Such as how long will this take (up to a year is the current trial balloon). I think he is just ordering it closed but it will still be open over a year from now or the prisoners will simply be transferred to a new secret overseas detention camp.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, definetly the ones not found guilty and probably all the ones who have been there longer then the jail time for their crimes. though how much help might be proportional to the amount of jail time they would have served (so, if they are found guilty of a crime with a 6 month penalty and have been there 5 years they would get more then someone found guilty with 4 years jail time who spent 5 years). I haven't worked out all the details in my head and really, this is going to have to be a case by case kinda deal.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This quote from Bush would be really funny if he weren't the most powerful man in the world.
quote:I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged," Bush said. "It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom; that America is a country that provides such great hope.
Talk about being completely clueless.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that we owe the prisoners something for what we put them through. If they can't get home, maybe a nice little house, their immediate family gets citizenship, help with education and finding a job. I think we should be careful and watch them as much as our laws allow in the future, but I think we should do our best to give back the lives we stole from them.
Does this include all the prisoners or only ones found to be innocent? Plus the devil is in the details which Obama has not revealed. Such as how long will this take (up to a year is the current trial balloon). I think he is just ordering it closed but it will still be open over a year from now or the prisoners will simply be transferred to a new secret overseas detention camp.
Why would they go to a secret detention camp overseas? The only reason Bush kept them at Guantanamo was to withhold domestic rights from them. If Obama plans to give them trials anyway, then there's no reason not to bring them to a stateside prison.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, definetly the ones not found guilty and probably all the ones who have been there longer then the jail time for their crimes. though how much help might be proportional to the amount of jail time they would have served (so, if they are found guilty of a crime with a 6 month penalty and have been there 5 years they would get more then someone found guilty with 4 years jail time who spent 5 years). I haven't worked out all the details in my head and really, this is going to have to be a case by case kinda deal.
Would you be OK with killing them if their crimes warrant the death penalty? Life imprisonment?
quote: Why would they go to a secret detention camp overseas? The only reason Bush kept them at Guantanamo was to withhold domestic rights from them. If Obama plans to give them trials anyway, then there's no reason not to bring them to a stateside prison.
Once again it is about the details of which Obama has not fully provided. He will most likely have to setup his own court system and also deal with many detainees who no one wants to take even if we do want to release them
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Once again it is about the details of which Obama has not fully provided. He will most likely have to setup his own court system and also deal with many detainees who no one wants to take even if we do want to release them
He's going to be doing something that is long overdue to correct something that should have never happened in the first place, and he hasn't become the president yet. There's no real reason to worry yet about what details haven't yet been provided given that there's no reason to assume that he can't make things better by closing gitmo.
Secondly, he doesn't have to set up his own court system. Nobody involved in Gitmo had to set up their own court system. They could have used the system for courts martial, and that is what Bush should have done for enemy combatants; he tried to use the executive to found a new legal system to bypass the restrictions of existing court protections, and it was all a disaster.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This quote from Bush would be really funny if he weren't the most powerful man in the world.
quote:I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged," Bush said. "It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom; that America is a country that provides such great hope.
Talk about being completely clueless.
How is this clueless? I think it is spot on.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at least other nations will hate us less now.
I just realized that if any released prisoners are implicated in an attack on America, the Guantanamo opponents will be able to say they did that only because we imprisoned them.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Secondly, he doesn't have to set up his own court system. Nobody involved in Gitmo had to set up their own court system. They could have used the system for courts martial, and that is what Bush should have done for enemy combatants; he tried to use the executive to found a new legal system to bypass the restrictions of existing court protections, and it was all a disaster.
quote: Senate Judiciary Committee member John Cornyn, R-Texas, said it would be a "colossal mistake to treat terrorism as a mere crime."
"It would be a stunning disappointment if the one of the new administration's first priorities is to give foreign terror suspects captured on the battlefield the same legal rights and protections as American citizens accused of crimes," Cornyn said Monday, noting that the Senate overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding Senate bill last year opposing bringing detainees to the U.S.
Obama did not vote on that measure. He has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists," and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system. But discussions of what a new system would look like have already started.
quote: Though a hybrid court may be unpopular, other advisers and Democrats involved in the Guantanamo Bay discussions say Obama has few options.
Prosecuting all detainees in federal courts raises many problems. Evidence gathered through military interrogation or from intelligence sources might be thrown out. Defendants would have the right to confront witnesses, meaning undercover CIA officers or terrorist turncoats might have to take the stand, jeopardizing their cover and revealing classified intelligence tactics.
That means something different would need to be done if detainees couldn't be released or prosecuted in traditional courts. Exactly what remains unclear.
quote: According to three advisers participating in the process, Obama is expected to propose a new court system and may appoint a committee to decide how such a court would operate. Some detainees likely would be returned to the countries where they were first captured for further detention or rehabilitation. The rest could probably be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts, one adviser said. All spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing talks, which have been private.
One challenge will be figuring out what to do with the 90 or so Yemeni detainees — the largest group in the prison. The Bush administration has sought to negotiate the release of some of those detainees as part of a rehabilitation plan with the Yemeni government. But talks have so far been fruitless.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This quote from Bush would be really funny if he weren't the most powerful man in the world.
quote:I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged," Bush said. "It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom; that America is a country that provides such great hope.
Talk about being completely clueless.
How is this clueless? I think it is spot on.
I think it's proof that it's possible for people to coexist both here and in another reality at the same time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That article has confirmed what I've said, as well as that it is likely that he is going to end up using the existing courts-martial system.
quote:He has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists," and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system.
quote:"These issues are complicated, and we have put forward a process that we think would work in order to put them on trial through military tribunals."
quote:Obama did not vote on that measure. He has said the civilian and military court-martial systems provide "a framework for dealing with the terrorists," and Tribe said the administration would look to those venues before creating a new legal system.
ta-da. He's going to use courts-martial as a framework. Any changes he makes (if he turns out to want to do so) will likely be to efficiently fit Bush's invented various combatant statuses into the court-martial system so they can be re-integrated into being afforded basic legal protections like habeus corpus.
Also, that statement by Cornyn is insipid. a colossal mistake to treat terrorism as 'mere crime?'
Crime is the definition of things like terrorism. Terrorism is a crime, so it should be treated like a crime. What is he proposing?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Secondly, he doesn't have to set up his own court system. Nobody involved in Gitmo had to set up their own court system. They could have used the system for courts martial, and that is what Bush should have done for enemy combatants; he tried to use the executive to found a new legal system to bypass the restrictions of existing court protections, and it was all a disaster.
I don't think that affording enemy combatants the right of courts martial is appropriate. As I understand it, part of a soldiers' obligation is to identify himself as such (through uniforms, and upon interrogation). Furthermore, soldiers are restricted from intentional targeting of civilians. In exchange, they are afforded the right of trail through courts martial. The purpose is to prevent harm to civilian populations, either by being mistaken for combatants or by being attacked by them.
Trying irregular combatants, who refuse these obligations, through courts martial affords them rights tied to belonging to a regularly constituted army without requiring the obligations. This in turn disincentivizes states (and non-state actors as well) from compelling fighters to abide by soldiers' obligations which results in greater civilian casualties.
For example, the large number of innocents who are languishing in Gitmo are themselves a product not only of the inability (or unwillingness) of the Bush administration to find an effective judicial method, but more primarily of al Qaeda's members' refusal to identify themselves as combatants, a deliberate (and effective) attempt to inflict harm on the civilian populace.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: I just realized that if any released prisoners are implicated in an attack on America, the Guantanamo opponents will be able to say they did that only because we imprisoned them.
You mean any more of the released prisoners are implicated in an attack.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This quote from Bush would be really funny if he weren't the most powerful man in the world.
quote:I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged," Bush said. "It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom; that America is a country that provides such great hope.
Talk about being completely clueless.
How is this clueless? I think it is spot on.
Lobo, I don't know where you live or who you associate with. But I am now living outside the US and travel extensively internationally. I have friends on every continent, If you and Bush don't think that America's moral standing has been damaged, you are completely out of touch with the world. If only the elite think America's moral status has been damaged, then about 6 billion people in the world must be "elite".
Last year when Bush made statements about human rights in China, 6 billion people in the world turned their heads, blinked and said "pot calling the kettle black?". Last year when Bush called on Raoul Castro to release his political prisoners, 6 billion people in the world blinked in unbelief and said "Gitmo".
You may not think that's fair and you'd probably have a valid point, but that is unquestionably the way the majority of the world now sees the US. One of the most devastating aspects of the Bush doctrine is that he has sacrificed any moral credibility the US had in world.
Why do you think people around the world were dancing in the streets with Obama won the election?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that affording enemy combatants the right of courts martial is appropriate. As I understand it, part of a soldiers' obligation is to identify himself as such (through uniforms, and upon interrogation).
That is a poor reason for why courts martial should not be considered inappropriate. The courts martial system is not just for uniformed soldiers. It's even used for spies and saboteurs, and those are people that definitely avoid any sort of clear identification. There are military and civilian usages.
It is plain fact that the courts-martial system was the system that was used for individuals that the Bush administration reclassified in order to bypass the law regarding how those individuals are charged. Uniforms, or lack of thereof, don't change that fact.
quote:Furthermore, soldiers are restricted from intentional targeting of civilians.In exchange, they are afforded the right of trail through courts martial.
To reiterate and expand, you have to remember that the courts martial system is not limited to soldiers.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This quote from Bush would be really funny if he weren't the most powerful man in the world.
quote:I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged," Bush said. "It may be damaged amongst some of the elite. But people still understand America stands for freedom; that America is a country that provides such great hope.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Lobo, I don't know where you live or who you associate with. But I am now living outside the US and travel extensively internationally. I have friends on every continent, If you and Bush don't think that America's moral standing has been damaged, you are completely out of touch with the world. If only the elite think America's moral status has been damaged, then about 6 billion people in the world must be "elite".
I think that's simplistic. According to Pew, the US improved in its favorability numbers in India and parts of Africa during the Bush years, largely due to his doubling of funding for AIDS prevention and treatment (something he made sure to mention in his press conference). While our reputation degraded significantly in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East, we stayed pretty level or increased in (non-muslim) SE Asia, China, India and Africa.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that affording enemy combatants the right of courts martial is appropriate. As I understand it, part of a soldiers' obligation is to identify himself as such (through uniforms, and upon interrogation).
That is a poor reason for why courts martial should not be considered inappropriate. The courts martial system is not just for uniformed soldiers. It's even used for spies and saboteurs, and those are people that definitely avoid any sort of clear identification. There are military and civilian usages.
It is plain fact that the courts-martial system was the system that was used for individuals that the Bush administration reclassified in order to bypass the law regarding how those individuals are charged. Uniforms, or lack of thereof, don't change that fact.
quote:Furthermore, soldiers are restricted from intentional targeting of civilians.In exchange, they are afforded the right of trail through courts martial.
To reiterate and expand, you have to remember that the courts martial system is not limited to soldiers.
I am not aware of the use of the US court martial system being used to try non US citizens other than those of regularly constituted armies. The only reason US courts martial apply to non-US citizens (as far as I understand) is due to the Geneva conventions which thus limits the scope to members of regularly constituted, state-sponsored armies.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why would they go to a secret detention camp overseas? The only reason Bush kept them at Guantanamo was to withhold domestic rights from them. If Obama plans to give them trials anyway, then there's no reason not to bring them to a stateside prison.
QFT. They should have been brought stateside from the beginning. If you're fighting people because they *don't* play by the rules (if they are illegal combatants) you fight them by PLAYING BY THE RULES. Else, what are you? Bush has done worse for this country by muddling the distinction between the enemy and our own government- now we face the notion of letting criminals go on principle, but also having, in that time, created potential criminals who we are now responsible for.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off--no one says this is going to be easy. There are three major hurtles that need to be jumped. 1) How do we proceed with those in custody so it is fair and just. 2) What do we do with those who have no place else to go. 3)How do we convince some part of the US to accept a jail full of terrorists in their back yard.
But saying that it needs to go and facing these problems is better than saying it needs to stay, and facing these problems.
There are those who argue that a Terrorist should not be give the same basic rights as an enemy soldier.
The only problem with that is how do we determine who the terrorists are? Stories of people erroneously held, and the innocence of some of those held will remain until we have some way of publicly determining their status.
Or do you maintain that since some soldier somewhere said that they were a terrorist, they should spend the rest of their lives locked in cells, confined, condemned, and controlled.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The only problem with that is how do we determine who the terrorists are? Stories of people erroneously held, and the innocence of some of those held will remain until we have some way of publicly determining their status.
Or do you maintain that since some soldier somewhere said that they were a terrorist, they should spend the rest of their lives locked in cells, confined, condemned, and controlled.
And stories of detainees proclaiming innocence, vowing they were and would remain peaceful, and then returning to the fight also exist.
Like I said earlier, the confusion between enemies and innocents is primarily due to the terrorists purposeful tactic of hiding among the citizenry. Until terrorists start wearing uniforms, I'm not sure how the US is supposed to solve the problem. [edit]Although it's definitely in our interest to solve it; it's part of the opinion war that we're so good at losing. I just don't know how we can.[/edit]
That said, I think the various attempts of the Bush administration to define policy w.r.t. enemy combatants have been both misguided and counterproductive. They seem to me to come from a posture of paranoia and fear rather than one of strength and determination. I hope the Obama administration is able to find a better way.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight" and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
quote:Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight" and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
This I don't quite get, because how can you say with confidence that they are "returning" to the fight unless you have determined that they were in it to start?
And if you have determined that, why do you have to let them go?
What seems more likely is that some of those people were innocent and then wanted revenge. What's also not being counted are the number of people who join the fight because their innocent family members were imprisoned. If we imprison 10 men, and 8 are innocent, and 4 of their sons take up arms against innocent people, that's not a net security gain.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: This I don't quite get, because how can you say with confidence that they are "returning" to the fight unless you have determined that they were in it to start?
And if you have determined that, why do you have to let them go?
Obviously some of it is spin. The Pentagon is trying to preempt precisely the argument you've made, that detaining creates terrorists from innocents.
However, the Pentagon's choice to release detainees is based on a threat assessment, not a judgment of innocence or guilt for past activities. I imagine there are several detainees they believed were low-level operatives but deemed unlikely to re-engage in the fighting and so released. In such cases they could appropriately be termed "returning to the fight."
It could also be that the Pentagon takes current fighting to be evidence that it's original presumption of guilt was correct. While it certainly isn't incontrovertible evidence, fighting for al Qaeda now can only increase the probability that you were fighting for al Qaeda previously.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Further developments since then, including recent hearings before Congress at which more information was provided by the Department of Defense, confirm that the 30 recidivist claim is simply wrong and has no place in a reasoned public debate about Guantánamo. This Report concludes the following: • At most 12, not 30, detainees “returned to the fight.” • Of these 12, it is by no means clear that all are properly characterized as having been so engaged since their release. • According to the Department of Defense’s published and unpublished data not a single detainee was ever released by a court. Moreover, every released detainee was released by political appointees of the Department of Defense, sometimes over the objection of the military. • According to the Department of Defense’s published and unpublished data and reports, not a single released Guantánamo detainee has ever attacked any Americans. • The Department of Defense’s statements regarding recidivism are inconsistent with each other and often contradictory. • This may be because, despite the importance of detainee recidivism, the Department of Defense’s sources of information are media reports. • Despite national security concerns, the Department of Defense does not have a system for tracking the conduct or even the whereabouts of released detainees. • The only indisputable detainee who took up arms against the United States or its allies was ISN 220. 3 • ISN 220 was not released as a result of any legal process, whether a CSRT or a federal habeas proceeding; no detainee has been released as a result of either process. • The decision to release ISN 220 was made by political officers in the Department of Defense and was contrary to the recommendations of the military officers. • The Department of Defense has never explained why ISN 220 was released or who is responsible for the decision. • It is at least plausible that a more transparent process would have resulted in ISN 220 still being detained."
"In short, while Principal Deputy General Counsel Dell’Orto and the Minority Views publicly insisted that some 30 former Guantánamo detainees have “returned to waging war against the United States and its allies,” the Department’s July 2007 News Release flatly contradicted this claim. Rather than thirty supposed recidivists waging war, the Press Release described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists. Even more surprising, only seven (7) of these individuals are identified by name and were alleged to have returned to any battlefield or any combat. The other eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals alleged by the Government to have “returned to the fight” are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government’s detention policies."
Read the link...they are counting among those 30 the 5 Uighurs who have been exhonorated. They are described as "returning to the fight", which they were never in, and their condemnable conduct?
Someone submitted a newspaper editorial on their behalf.
Yeah, one can see why the administration is desparate to keep these guys locked up for life.
So I'd wait for someone else to look over those 18 and 43 names, because for all we know, none of them have done anything more harmful than make anti-US political statements (and really, who could blame them?)
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
"Further developments since then, including recent hearings before Congress at which more information was provided by the Department of Defense, confirm that the 30 recidivist claim is simply wrong and has no place in a reasoned public debate about Guantánamo. This Report concludes the following: • At most 12, not 30, detainees “returned to the fight.” • Of these 12, it is by no means clear that all are properly characterized as having been so engaged since their release. • According to the Department of Defense’s published and unpublished data not a single detainee was ever released by a court. Moreover, every released detainee was released by political appointees of the Department of Defense, sometimes over the objection of the military. • According to the Department of Defense’s published and unpublished data and reports, not a single released Guantánamo detainee has ever attacked any Americans. • The Department of Defense’s statements regarding recidivism are inconsistent with each other and often contradictory. • This may be because, despite the importance of detainee recidivism, the Department of Defense’s sources of information are media reports. • Despite national security concerns, the Department of Defense does not have a system for tracking the conduct or even the whereabouts of released detainees. • The only indisputable detainee who took up arms against the United States or its allies was ISN 220. 3 • ISN 220 was not released as a result of any legal process, whether a CSRT or a federal habeas proceeding; no detainee has been released as a result of either process. • The decision to release ISN 220 was made by political officers in the Department of Defense and was contrary to the recommendations of the military officers. • The Department of Defense has never explained why ISN 220 was released or who is responsible for the decision. • It is at least plausible that a more transparent process would have resulted in ISN 220 still being detained."
"In short, while Principal Deputy General Counsel Dell’Orto and the Minority Views publicly insisted that some 30 former Guantánamo detainees have “returned to waging war against the United States and its allies,” the Department’s July 2007 News Release flatly contradicted this claim. Rather than thirty supposed recidivists waging war, the Press Release described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists. Even more surprising, only seven (7) of these individuals are identified by name and were alleged to have returned to any battlefield or any combat. The other eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals alleged by the Government to have “returned to the fight” are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government’s detention policies."
Read the link...they are counting among those 30 the 5 Uighurs who have been exhonorated. They are described as "returning to the fight", which they were never in, and their condemnable conduct?
Someone submitted a newspaper editorial on their behalf.
Yeah, one can see why the administration is desparate to keep these guys locked up for life.
So I'd wait for someone else to look over those 18 and 43 names, because for all we know, none of them have done anything more harmful than make anti-US political statements (and really, who could blame them?)
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Lobo, I don't know where you live or who you associate with. But I am now living outside the US and travel extensively internationally. I have friends on every continent, If you and Bush don't think that America's moral standing has been damaged, you are completely out of touch with the world. If only the elite think America's moral status has been damaged, then about 6 billion people in the world must be "elite".
I think that's simplistic. According to Pew, the US improved in its favorability numbers in India and parts of Africa during the Bush years, largely due to his doubling of funding for AIDS prevention and treatment (something he made sure to mention in his press conference). While our reputation degraded significantly in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East, we stayed pretty level or increased in (non-muslim) SE Asia, China, India and Africa.
I have friends in and from African and India and friends who have worked extensively in both areas. My experience does not correspond with the pew foundation results, or at least your interpretation of them. The answers you get to a question really do depend on how the question is asked.
It is entirely possible for peoples views of the US to be favorable even though they do not view us as having moral authority on issues like torture and human rights. It is possible for people to view us positively and yet not believe the US stands for freedom.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not aware of the use of the US court martial system being used to try non US citizens other than those of regularly constituted armies.
Spies, saboteurs, and other types of asymmetrical warfare agents covered under courts-martial in the event of their capture are not considered part of 'regularly constituted armies.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... My experience does not correspond with the pew foundation results, or at least your interpretation of them. The answers you get to a question really do depend on how the question is asked.
It is entirely possible for peoples views of the US to be favorable ...
Its pretty much just his interpretation of it and, no, people's views aren't favorable but you don't have to take my word for it. This is the relevant bit in their latest report.
quote: The president-elect has indicated that he will focus on international cooperation in addressing global problems, but he will have to navigate a world that has grown highly critical of the United States.
The U.S. image abroad is suffering almost everywhere. Particularly in the most economically developed countries, people blame America for the financial crisis. Opposition to key elements of American foreign policy is widespread in Western Europe, and positive views of the U.S. have declined steeply among many of America's longtime European allies. In Muslim nations, the wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq have driven negative ratings nearly off the charts. The United States earns positive ratings in several Asian and Latin American nations, but usually by declining margins. And while the most recent Pew Global Attitudes survey finds that favorable views of America edged up in 2008, only in sub-Saharan Africa does America score uniformly favorable marks.
This bit should be especially relevant to the idea of US moral authority.
quote: Respondents to the 2006 survey in 13 of 15 countries found the American presence in Iraq to be an equal or greater danger to stability in the Middle East than the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while 11 judged it a threat to Middle East stability greater than or equal to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Last year (or 2007 rather), they also had a specific report to the House of Congress that was more specifically on the America problem:
quote: Beyond the bottom line percentages I would like to describe to you what we have learned about nature of the anti-Americanism we see today.
First, it is worldwide. This is not just a rift with our European allies or hatred of America in the Middle East. It is a global slide, and positive views of the U.S. have declined in other regions of the world, particularly in Latin America and Asia. Our 44-country 2002 poll found America's image slipping in seven of the eight Latin American countries surveyed, while our 2006 survey revealed declines in Japan and India, two still relatively pro-American Asian powers. Other polls international polls, such as BBC and Gallup have confirmed the continuing world-wide nature of America's image problem.
Second, while anti-Americanism is a global phenomenon, it is clearly strongest in the Muslim world. For instance, in all five predominantly Muslim countries included in our 2006 study, fewer than one-third of those surveyed had a favorable view of the U.S. Moreover, with the Iraq war, anti-Americanism spread to parts of the Muslim world where the U.S. had previously been relatively popular. In Indonesia, for example, between 2002 and 2003 America's favorability rating dropped from 61% to only 15%. In Turkey it plunged from 52% in the late 1990s to 15% by 2003.
...
A fourth feature of contemporary anti-Americanism is that it is no longer just the U.S. as a country that is perceived negatively, but increasingly the American people as well, a sign that anti-American opinions are deepening and becoming more entrenched. In countries such as Spain, Jordan, Indonesia, and Turkey, favorable views of Americans have declined significantly in recent years.
In 2005, we asked people around the world about the kinds of characteristics they associate with the American people, and we found a somewhat mixed picture. On the positive side, we are widely seen as hardworking and inventive. On the negative side, in most of the countries surveyed, fewer than half said Americans are honest, while majorities said we are greedy and violent. Significant numbers also considered Americans rude and immoral.
Note about American greediness and our own self-image - while publics in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere characterize Americans as greedy, we Americans are actually more likely than any other public to say we are greedy and many Americans think the description immoral fits too.
Just a reminder, this bit was in 2007, *before* the financial crisis in 2008
quote:And if you have determined that, why do you have to let them go?
Just a stab in the dark here, but you'd let them go because you can't prove to the standards of the relevant proceedings that they're guilty of a crime.
Guilty people going free is the price of a legal system that strives to minimize punishing the innocent. The benefits far outweigh the risks, in my estimation.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you very much Mucus. It is indeed very revealing to read the actually report rather than the spin doctors summary. The report is actually very consistent with my experience.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The House testimony you cite, Mucus, are Andrew Kohut's personal opinions; while they are the result of his polling activities, they are not directly supported by any poll data, so far as I can tell.
If we consider favorability as measured by Pew's poll, it appears [edit]countries representing[/edit] about 2/3 of the world's population have an improved, or at least undegraded, opinion of the US from 8 years ago. I do appreciate that "favorability" and "moral standing" are not equivalent, but this is the closest I've seen to hard data quantifying the effect of US policies on world opinion. The rest is anecdote and perception, which can be significantly influenced by the subpopulations within which we (meaning educated wealthy Westerners) tend to interact.
[edit]I don't want this to be interpreted that I'm unconcerned about the slide in the US's international position. We have important allies and potential allies who are very frustrated with us, and that's a significant problem. I just think the idea that world opinion is monolithic with regards to its condemnation of the US and its foreign policy is simplistic.[/edit]
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: The House testimony you cite, Mucus, are Andrew Kohut's personal opinions; while they are the result of his polling activities, they are not directly supported by any poll data, so far as I can tell.
If we consider favorability as measured by Pew's poll, it appears [edit]countries representing[/edit] about 2/3 of the world's population have an improved, or at least undegraded, opinion of the US from 8 years ago. I do appreciate that "favorability" and "moral standing" are not equivalent, but this is the closest I've seen to hard data quantifying the effect of US policies on world opinion. The rest is anecdote and perception, which can be significantly influenced by the subpopulations within which we (meaning educated wealthy Westerners) tend to interact.
[edit]I don't want this to be interpreted that I'm unconcerned about the slide in the US's international position. We have important allies and potential allies who are very frustrated with us, and that's a significant problem. I just think the idea that world opinion is monolithic with regards to its condemnation of the US and its foreign policy is simplistic.[/edit]
I read the full report Senjo and I simply disagree with your summary of it. The summary Kohut gave in his House testimony is far more accurate than yours.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just think the idea that world opinion is monolithic with regards to its condemnation of the US and its foreign policy is simplistic.
Monolithic, no. Instead what is being (plausibly) asserted is that America's reputability, credibility, and ethos is brought down considerably over the course of years when we commit to things like Guantanamo.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SenojRetep: The section I quoted is fairly representative of his testimony, pretty much every paragraph cites if not necessarily Pew polling data, polls by the US government, the BBC, and so forth.
I highly encourage people that are undecided to simply read both reports and make up their own minds, its fairly easy to read.
As to the rest, I only ask that you keep your incorrect (and borderline insulting) presumptions about whether I'm a Westerner and who I interact with to yourself.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry you found my comments (borderline) insulting. I did not intend them to be such.
Rabbit-
I've also read the full report and the testimony and many of the supporting studies. I'll even go so far as to say the authors of the report agree more with your opinion than with mine. I still don't agree that the data in the report indicates the level of condemnation of US foreign policy that you seem to be indicating.
Samp-
Much of what irked me was Rabbit's suggestion that 6 billion people in unison reacted in a specific way to specific policies. World opinion is complex, and hyperbolic statements (even ones obviously recognizable as hyperbole, as Rabbit's were) should be tempered with a recognition that just because we and the people we associate with consider something vitally important or inherently worthy of condemnation does not mean that the vast swaths of world population that we necessarily don't come into contact with due to geographic, economic, and social isolation necessarily share those beliefs.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
