The Outsider Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Superb move and slap on the face of Bush's inhuman doctrine. Delivering on his words of the campaign at least at the start of the term. A brave move to side with morality in this hate driven world environment. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23GITMOCND.html?_r=1&hp WASHINGTON — Saying that “our ideals give us the strength and moral high ground†to combat terrorism, President Obama signed executive orders Thursday ending the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret overseas prisons, banning coercive interrogation methods and closing the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year. But even as he reversed the most disputed counterterrorism policies of the Bush years, Mr. Obama postponed for at least six months difficult decisions on the details. He ordered a cabinet-level review of the most challenging questions his administration faces — what to do with dangerous prisoners who cannot be tried in American courts; whether some interrogation methods should remain secret to keep Al Qaeda from training to resist them; and how the United States can make sure prisoners transferred to other countries will not be tortured. As Mr. Obama signed three orders in a White House ceremony, 16 retired generals and admirals who have fought for months for a ban on coercive interrogations stood behind him and applauded. The group, organized to lobby the Obama transition team by the group Human Rights First, did not include any career C.I.A. officers or retirees. “We intend to win this fight,†Mr. Obama said, “We are going to win it on our own terms.†One of Mr. Obama’s orders requires the C.I.A. to use only the 19 interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual, ending President Bush’s policy of permitting the agency to use some secret methods that went beyond those allowed for military interrogators. “We believe we can abide by a rule that says, we don’t torture, but we can effectively obtain the intelligence we need,†Mr. Obama said. The orders, and Mr. Obama’s televised statement, marked an abrupt break with the Bush administration. Critics for years have accused Mr. Bush of permitting torture and damaging the country’s moral standing in the world, while Dick Cheney, the former president and vice president, insisted that all their programs were lawful and had prevented a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. John D. Hutson, a retired admiral and law school dean, was at the signing ceremony “He really gets it,†Mr. Hutson said of Mr. Obama in an interview a few minutes after the ceremony. “He acknowledged that this isn’t easy. But he is absolutely dedicated to getting us back on track as a nation. This is the right thing to do morally, diplomatically, militarily and Constitutionally. But it also makes us safer.†Democrats in Congress and human rights groups largely hailed Mr. Obama’s moves, while some Republicans said they were unrealistic. Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the decision to close Guantánamo by a year from now “places hope ahead of reality — it sets an objective without a plan to get there.†He said that in briefings for Congress on Wednesday, administration officials “could not answer questions as to what they will do with any new jihadists or enemy combatants that we capture.†“What are we to do with these people, bring them to the very place they hoped to attack: The United States? What do we do with confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow terrorist conspirators, offer them jail cells in American communities?†By contrast, Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, “Today is a great day for the rule of law in the United States of America,†adding: “America is ready to lead again — not just with our words, but by our example.†Mr. Obama’s order closing Guantánamo assigns the attorney general to lead a review of what should happen to the remaining detainees and does not rule out the possibility of trying some of them using military commissions, as has the Bush administration, though possibly with different procedures. One task force, with the attorney general and secretary of defense as co-chairmen, will study detainee policy and report to the president in six months. A second task force, led by the attorney general, and with the secretary of defense and director of national intelligence as vice co-chairs, will study whether the Army Field Manual should remain the only standard for interrogators and review the practice of extraordinary rendition, in which captured terrorist suspects are transferred to other countries. One more order directed a high-level review of the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a suspected terrorist — Mr. Obama called him “dangerous†— who is currently being held in a military jail in South Carolina. The new White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, briefed lawmakers about some elements of the orders on Wednesday evening. A Congressional official who attended the session said Mr. Craig acknowledged concerns from intelligence officials that new restrictions on C.I.A. methods might be unwise and indicated that the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other the 19 techniques allowed for the military. But the executive order on interrogations is certain to be received with some skepticism at the C.I.A., which for years has maintained that the military’s interrogation rules are insufficient to get information from senior Qaeda figures like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Bush administration asserted that the harsh interrogation methods were instrumental in gaining valuable intelligence on Qaeda operations. The intelligence agency built a network of secret prisons in 2002 to house and interrogate senior Qaeda figures captured overseas. The exact number of suspects to have moved through the prisons is unknown, although Michael V. Hayden, the departing director of the agency, has in the past put the number at “fewer than 100.†The secret detentions brought international condemnation, and in September 2006, Mr. Bush ordered that the remaining 14 detainees in C.I.A. custody be transferred to Guantánamo Bay and tried by military tribunals. But Mr. Bush made clear then that he was not shutting down the C.I.A. detention system, and in the last two years, two Qaeda operatives are believed to have been detained in agency prisons for several months each before being sent to Guantánamo. A government official said Mr. Obama’s order on the C.I.A. would still allow its officers abroad to temporarily detain terrorism suspects and transfer them to other agencies, but would no longer allow the agency to carry out long-term detentions. Since the early days after the 2001 attacks, the intelligence agency’s role in detaining terrorism suspects has been significantly scaled back, as has the severity of interrogation methods the agency is permitted to use. The most controversial practice, the simulated drowning technique known as water-boarding, was used on three suspects but has not been used since 2003, C.I.A. officials said. But at the urging of the Bush administration, Congress in 2006 authorized the agency to continue using harsher interrogation methods than those permitted for use by other agencies, including the military. Those exact methods remain classified. The order on Guantánamo says that the camp, which received its first hooded and chained detainees seven years ago this month, “shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.†The order calls for a cabinet-level panel to grapple with issues including where in the United States prisoners might be moved and what courts they could be tried in. It also provides for a new diplomatic effort to transfer some of the remaining men, including more than 60 that the Bush administration had cleared for release. The order also directs an immediate assessment of the prison itself to ensure that the men are held in conditions that meet the humanitarian requirements of the Geneva Convention. That provision appeared to be a pointed embrace of the international treaties that the Bush administration often argued did not apply to detainees captured in the war against terrorism. The seven years of the detention camp have included four suicides, hunger strikes by scores of detainees, and accusations of extensive use of solitary confinement and abusive interrogations, which the Department of Defense has long denied. Last week a senior Pentagon official said she had concluded that interrogators at Guantánamo had tortured one detainee, who officials have said was a would-be “20th hijacker†in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The new administration late Tuesday night ordered an immediate halt to the military commission proceedings for prosecuting detainees at Guantánamo and filed a request in Federal District Court in Washington to stay habeas corpus proceedings there. Government lawyers described both delays as necessary for the administration to make a broad assessment of detention policy. The cases immediately affected include those of five detainees charged as the coordinators of the 2001 attacks, including the case against Mr. Mohammed, the self-described mastermind. The decision to stop the commissions was described by the military prosecutors as a pause in the war-crimes system “to permit the newly inaugurated president and his administration time to review the military commission process generally and the cases currently pending before the military commissions, specifically.†More than 200 detainees’ habeas corpus cases have been filed in federal court, and lawyers said they expected that all of the cases would be stayed. Mr. Obama had suggested in the campaign that, in place of military commissions, he would prefer prosecutions in federal courts or, perhaps, in the existing military justice system, which provides legal guarantees similar to those of American civilian courts.
cowboysfan Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 this is a good move but how will the interrogation work now of known terrorists who are planning attacks and we cant touch them? maybe they should outsource the interrogation too.
punjabi_khota Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 this is a good move but how will the interrogation work now of known terrorists who are planning attacks and we cant touch them? maybe they should outsource the interrogation too. ??
kumble_rocks Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I don't have any issue with Gitmo as regards to whether Geneva convention was applied or not . The only issue I have had is the fact that no charges were filed against inmates. They should have been tried in military courts . And for the record , I could care less if thugs like Khaleed Sheikh get tortured . And even if they get deported to muslim countries like Saudi , Pakistan or Egypt , they would have been tortured anyways and probably the degree would have been far worse. The hypocrisy of some of these folks from muslim countries is mind boggling. No way, would I support civilian courts for these nut jobs.
EnterTheVoid Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 The worlds most dangerous terrorists / conspirators are coming to a local jail near you where petty thief's are kept Sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite. Who gives a hoot if they torture inmates? I couldn't care less as these idiots shouldn't have been fighting against us anyway
punjabi_khota Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I don't have any issue with Gitmo as regards to whether Geneva convention was applied or not . The only issue I have had is the fact that no charges were filed against inmates. They should have been tried in military courts . And for the record ' date=' I could care less if thugs like Khaleed Sheikh get tortured . And even if they get deported to muslim countries like Saudi , Pakistan or Egypt , they would have been tortured anyways and probably the degree would have been far worse. The hypocrisy of some of these folks from muslim countries is mind boggling. No way, would I support civilian courts for these nut jobs.[/quote'] I think charges were filed for some of these inmates. Also, if they the cases are so strong such that they CAN be tried in military courts, what is the reason for having such prisons at the first place ? Is it that the torture methods used are not allowed on the land of US or something ?
cowboysfan Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 ?? this has already been done where the us sends the detainees to other countries to get some answers.
kumble_rocks Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I think charges were filed for some of these inmates. Also' date= if they the cases are so strong such that they CAN be tried in military courts, what is the reason for having such prisons at the first place ? Is it that the torture methods used are not allowed on the land of US or something ? Only after the supreme court rulings. Bush government held them for more than four years without habeus corpus . We don't want innocents to rot in Gitmo , do we ? They should have tried these inmates in military courts and acquitted innocent . And for known terrorists like Khaleed Sheikh who actually happened to be the mastermind of 9-11 , I could care less if he was water boarded or not . Bush government refuse to label them as war prisoners but as enemy combatants with no geneva conventions and rightly so.
graphic23 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I'm actually quite thrilled. It makes the US a little bit less hypocritical when they speak of themselves as the greatest nation on the earth (like Sean Hannity does).
Ram Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Great day for human rights! Having this extra-judicial detention centre in the middle of nowhere, outside the purview of all legal treaties was the worst thing the US could have possibly done. Now its gone!
kumble_rocks Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Great day for human rights! Having this extra-judicial detention centre in the middle of nowhere, outside the purview of all legal treaties was the worst thing the US could have possibly done. Now its gone! Why are you so judgmental when it comes to USA alone . Heck , even petty criminals get tortured in India by the police , let alone torture by military personnel on dreaded terrorists. Can you at least condemn Indian government for not applying Geneva conventions to inmates . And for muslim countries to go postal on this issue is quite baffling . They themselves indulge in suppression of human rights.
Ram Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Why are you so judgmental when it comes to USA alone . Heck ' date=' even petty criminals get tortured in India by the police , let alone torture by military personnel on dreaded terrorists. Can you at least condemn Indian government for not applying Geneva conventions to inmates . And for muslim countries to go postal on this issue is quite baffling . They themselves indulge in suppression of human rights.[/quote'] I dont understand this. I can only comment on one topic at a time. You open a topic on how criminals are tortured by Indian police or torture of terrorists, I shall reply to it, separately. Why do you seek comments on totally separate issues in this thread?
kumble_rocks Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I dont understand this. I can only comment on one topic at a time. You open a topic on how criminals are tortured by Indian police or torture of terrorists, I shall reply to it, separately. Why do you seek comments on totally separate issues in this thread? Because Gitmo is an international issue and human rights issues are not country specific . You are acting as if US is the only country in the world which indulges in torture. I have news for you. All the Islamic countries plus democratic countries like India , thailand etc do practice torture of terrorists and they could care less about Geneva conventions. So , I find it rather strange that torch bearers of human rights conveniently ignore this. Would you agree that human right violation in Gitmo is more less to the same degree as what goes around in muslim countries like Saudi , Pakistan , Iran etc. Then it is beyond me , why the subjects of these countries go postal when it comes to Gitmo. They themselves have checkered record in when it comes to upholding human rights. Granted , it is hypocritical for the USA government to claim that they are torch bearers of human rights when they indulge in torture. But , why do you care if 9-11 mastermind Khaleed Sheikh gets tortured or not ? As far as I could recall , the government claims that in only a few instances did FBI agents use coercive techniques that would not normally be permitted in the United States or participate in interrogations during which such techniques were used by others. I certainly can understand the rationale for non-coercive rapport-based techniques traditionally used by the FBI in combination with purposeful and incremental manipulation of a detainee’s environment and perceptions if it can help in information gathering that saves lives. For example water boarding or sleep deprivation are few such technique used against Khaleed Sheikh. According to FBI agents these techniques do work and they claim that it has produced extensive useful information in the post-September 11 context. But , I am willing to accept that jury is still out on these techniques and quite few here do not agree with my POV.
suraj Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Because Gitmo is an international issue and human rights issues are not country specific . You are acting as if US is the only country in the world which indulges in torture. I have news for you. All the Islamic countries plus democratic countries like India ' date=' thailand etc do practice torture of terrorists and they could care less about Geneva conventions. So , I find it rather strange that torch bearers of human rights conveniently ignore this. Would you agree that human right violation in Gitmo is more less to the same degree as what goes around in muslim countries like Saudi , Pakistan , Iran etc. Then it is beyond me , why the subjects of these countries go postal when it comes to Gitmo. They themselves have checkered record in when it comes to upholding human rights. Granted , it is hypocritical for the USA government to claim that they are torch bearers of human rights when they indulge in torture. But , why do you care if 9-11 mastermind Khaleed Sheikh gets tortured or not ? As far as I could recall , the government claims that in only a few instances did FBI agents use coercive techniques that would not normally be permitted in the United States or participate in interrogations during which such techniques were used by others. I certainly can understand the rationale for non-coercive rapport-based techniques traditionally used by the FBI in combination with purposeful and incremental manipulation of a detainee’s environment and perceptions if it can help in information gathering that saves lives. For example water boarding or sleep deprivation are few such technique used against Khaleed Sheikh. According to FBI agents these techniques do work and they claim that it has produced extensive useful information in the post-September 11 context. But , I am willing to accept that jury is still out on these techniques and quite few here do not agree with my POV.[/quote'] Torture in Islamic countries is part of their religious beliefs and a word from the supreme Allah so we need to respect their methods otherwise we are all intolerant fanatics Now US torturing some terrorists to solicit information that can prevent a few thousand deaths is the biggest catastrophe human beings evcer faced and we should all focus our energy in denouncing this evil country............ even if we continue to live in the same country because we are selfish enough to enjoy its comforts Allah ho Akbar Allah ho Akbar!!!
Willow_on_fire Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 If there are any innocent muslims in Guantánamo Bay...they should be freed...but the ones who want to blow up non-muslims in the name of Allah should be dealt severely....I mean... death sentence!!!!
EnterTheVoid Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Torture in Islamic countries is part of their religious beliefs and a word from the supreme Allah so we need to respect their methods otherwise we are all intolerant fanatics Now US torturing some terrorists to solicit information that can prevent a few thousand deaths is the biggest catastrophe human beings evcer faced and we should all focus our energy in denouncing this evil country............ even if we continue to live in the same country because we are selfish enough to enjoy its comforts Allah ho Akbar Allah ho Akbar!!! Yea, thats right, thats what we should do, bite the hand that feeds us There are torture cells in Pakistan, but they are the first to cry about the "innocent muslims" ..... cough, cough, cough, *taliban fighters* in guantanamo, when, very next door, you have the Taliban committing much more horrendous acts in broad freaking daylight without so much as a squeak from anyone Some people, ........ :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: Yea, lets shut down Pakistan / Afghanistan; Who's with me? ......
punjabi_khota Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 :giggle: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html?ref=world epic pwnage is to be delivered. Allah is to be praised for his mercy.:yay::yay:
THX_1138 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Guantanamo Inmates : Comming soon to a neighbourhood near India What another sooyeecide attack ? ... former Guantanamo inmate involved ?.. pfft big deal. We should increase our sickyoority wonly. But khabardaar if you impinge on Human rights of animals. Like Pavlov's dogs, you being to salivate at the first mention of human rights dont you?
cochise Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Fantastic move! You know why? Simple. If you wish to step onto the battlefield, do so with all your values intact. If you do not do so, and give up your values at the slightest threat, you have already lost the battle. For you have lost yourself. So Gitmo was for the US. A festering malignant sore eating away at it's perceived morality as it had projected. Time for it to go.
Ram Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Because Gitmo is an international issue and human rights issues are not country specific . You are acting as if US is the only country in the world which indulges in torture. I have news for you. All the Islamic countries plus democratic countries like India ' date=' thailand etc do practice torture of terrorists and they could care less about Geneva conventions. So , I find it rather strange that torch bearers of human rights conveniently ignore this. Would you agree that human right violation in Gitmo is more less to the same degree as what goes around in muslim countries like Saudi , Pakistan , Iran etc. Then it is beyond me , why the subjects of these countries go postal when it comes to Gitmo. They themselves have checkered record in when it comes to upholding human rights. Granted , it is hypocritical for the USA government to claim that they are torch bearers of human rights when they indulge in torture. But , why do you care if 9-11 mastermind Khaleed Sheikh gets tortured or not ? As far as I could recall , the government claims that in only a few instances did FBI agents use coercive techniques that would not normally be permitted in the United States or participate in interrogations during which such techniques were used by others. I certainly can understand the rationale for non-coercive rapport-based techniques traditionally used by the FBI in combination with purposeful and incremental manipulation of a detainee’s environment and perceptions if it can help in information gathering that saves lives. For example water boarding or sleep deprivation are few such technique used against Khaleed Sheikh. According to FBI agents these techniques do work and they claim that it has produced extensive useful information in the post-September 11 context. But , I am willing to accept that jury is still out on these techniques and quite few here do not agree with my POV.[/quote'] You just wasted 15 mins of your time typing all that explanation KR, because I already agree with most of what you've written there. I never said US govt. is the only abuser of Human rights, nor did I ever say the Indian govt. or the Thai govt. or the Muslim govt. are the beacons of human rights. This thread was about Gitmo, so I restricted my comments to the US govt. That does not mean I give a clean chit to the other govts. you mentioned.You've immediately assumed that just becuse I have not mentioned those names here does not mean I am in tacit agreement of what they do. No, I DONT.
Recommended Posts