What does it mean to hunger strike in gitmo?

[strawman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/opinion/hunger-striking-at-guantanamo-bay.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/01/obama-closing-guantanamo-timeline/61509/

I should turn this into a "THANKS OBAMA!" joke, but the reality is pretty horrifying.

The US has ended it's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan yet has continued to jail these people for over a decade.

I have 5 children who have been alive longer than most of those prisoners have been incarcerated without charges and without trial.

For how much longer will we allow the legal fiction that an unlimited war on terror allows the federal government to use war powers to illegally imprison humans, not to mention the huge leeway we've given our own government to detain, spy on, and even kill our own US citizens without due process?

It's been over ten years, and we are used to it.

I'm not content with the thought that my children will simply grow up thinking that's the way it's always been, and accepting it.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Yup. This is horrible and Guantanamo is a stain on our nation.

 

[AshburnerX]

The ones who are cleared to leave need to be let go. That is all there is to it.

As for the others... unfortunately, there is a large number of people there that their home countries won't take back, even if they ARE innocent. They've said as much to us, officially. We're going be stuck with them until they die of old age or something else.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

We're going be stuck with them until they die of old age or something else.

hey hum, here's a novel idea: we give them a fucking trial??

 

[Tress]

hey hum, here's a novel idea: we give them a fucking trial??

I think what Ash is saying is that even those found innocent are not wanted at home. They aren't wanted on U.S. soil, either free or as prisoners. There are few places they can go.

None of that matters, though. This whole situation needs to be fixed, as soon as possible. Try them, free the innocents, and ignore any complaints about it.

 

[AshburnerX]

hey hum, here's a novel idea: we give them a fucking trial??

Okay... and then what do we do if they are found innocent? Their home countries don't want them back. That means we have three options.

1.) Dump them in their homelands, against the will of said governments. We will be vilified as dropping terrorists onto foreign soil and that's assuming they don't try to stop us with force. Even if we succeed, there is a high probability we are just sending them to their deaths.

2.) Give them citizenship/a green card, a new identity, and let them live in the US. I'd like to see you explain that to the American people without causing riots in the streets.

3.) Turn Gitmo into a residential district for the detainees and let them live their lives in dignity, at the American tax payer's expense. Except under armed guard because the Cubans would kill them if we let them off the base. This is the least awful of all the outcomes and one I'd fully support... but I just know the right wing would have a field day with this.

Giving them trials solves nothing anymore, as several countries have already made official statements about certain detainees. It doesn't matter if they are innocent, they don't care. That's the whole fucking problem: We can't DO anything with them.

 

[strawman]

I would be surprised if that was the case with every single inmate there. At minimum they should be charged, tried, and convicted or declared innocent. We may not be able to find a place for them, but if, in trial, they are not found guilty, they should be given as much freedom as we can give them there. At minimum the ability to communicate with friends and family whenever and however they want, and some legal representation and other services so they can work on finding a new home if their old home isn't an option.

I suspect there are countries that would accept those the US declared innocent.

Regardless, our war powers stop when war is done, and prisoners of war, if that's what they are, must be released.

I fear that the war on terror, however, will never be over, thus continuing the legal framework to continue to commit these acts.

 

[Tress]

There's also the possibility of someone who was innocent or wrongly imprisoned, and now holds such a grudge against the U.S. that they are likely to join some terrorist organization. What could they do if that were the case with one of the inmates?

 

[blotsfan]

I hate to say it but I think we'd have to take that chance. At worst, maybe it could be a lesson about why treating people like this is wrong.
Of course I guess the government could say that it justified their actions...

Regardless, the solution can't be to keep the status quo.

 

[David]

Must... resist... Dr. Horrible Quote...

 

[Bubble181]

If any other country was illegally detaining Americans this way, you'd be carpet bombing them to the Moon and back (or you'd toss out a great president for not invading Iran, either way). It's horrible and not at all internationally tenable. Even POW have far more rights than these people are given, but I'll continue this post later.

 

[Dei]

Again, no one wants them. They have no where (literally) to go. It's not really an equivalent example. Pretty sure Gitmo would be empty by now if it could be.Whether or not it should have ever happened is a different discussion than holding claimed citizens that a country wants back.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Pretty sure Gitmo would be empty by now if it could be.back.

It can be empty. Really easily. Try them and convict them in federal court if they're all terrorists like the government claims. If they're found innocent, I'm sure some country would accept them and transporting them there is the least we can do.

 

[AshburnerX]

If any other country was illegally detaining Americans this way, you'd be carpet bombing them to the Moon and back (or you'd toss out a great president for not invading Iran, either way).

No we wouldn't. Our government would negotiate, while doing all we could to get everyone out without resorting to overt violence. We spent a good time negotiating during the Iranian hostage crisis and didn't even attempt a covert rescue of the embassy hostages (which ultimately failed when a helicopter had issues) until it was apparent they weren't willing to let them go without surrendering the shah (whom they'd torture and kill publicly, after stealing all his assets). This is despite some of Carter's cabinet telling him to just bomb Tehran until they let them go. It's probably the main issue that cost him a second term.

You don't do that sort of thing when your people are being held hostage. It just endangers their lives if the people holding them don't really care if they live or die. This is why we still have Al Qaeda doing attacks despite having several of their members locked up: they are fine martyring their comrades because it still advances their cause. Getting them out or getting them killed are equally effective in the eyes of their followers. That's not true in reverse: if American hostages are killed, it's a definitely loss for us and a gain for them.

 

[Dei]

That's very optimistic of you.

It can be empty. Really easily. Try them and convict them in federal court if they're all terrorists like the government claims. If they're found innocent, I'm sure some country would accept them and transporting them there is the least we can do.

 

[strawman]

It's not even equivalent. Al qaida is not a nation/state.

The closest equivalent would be if a hundred multinational executives of oil companies were being held for "war crimes" in a foreign country after Exxon was linked to intentionally killing a few thousand of their citizens. Sure, they may have been from other oil companies, and some may not be guilty of crimes worthy of their incarceration, but since they aren't all US, and since there is some amount of culpability for at least some of them, we couldn't easily just carpet bomb them - we aren't Exxon, nevermind the rest of the oil companies. We might try to extract our own citizens. We might work with other countries affected to perform an extraction, but we would pursue diplomatic means first.

The problem here is that these people have no nation or state willing to fight for them, and promising to protect them from retribution. Al Qaida is certainly not going to lift a finger to aid them - even if they were among its members.

There are nations that would likely accept them back, but wouldn't guarantee their safety, and it's believed that they would be executed by extremists for either damaging Islam, or for speaking to Americans. They can't win.

 

[AshburnerX]

There are nations that would likely accept them back, but wouldn't guarantee their safety, and it's believed that they would be executed by extremists for either damaging Islam, or for speaking to Americans. They can't win.

This is a point worth making. If a country won't guarantee their safety, we're essentially sending these people home to die.

 

[Bowielee]

This is a point worth making. If a country won't guarantee their safety, we're essentially sending these people home to die.

So, in Charlie's mind, detaining them is worse then allowing them to be executed in their own countries. I think his false mask of compassion is slipping.

 

[strawman]

So, in Charlie's mind, detaining them is worse then allowing them to be executed in their own countries. I think his false mask of compassion is slipping.

It's not an invalid point of view, though. PETA would rather see an animal die that can't survive in the wild on its own than see it locked up in human servitude.

Freedom at any price, even if that price is death, for some people trumps an assumed sense of security found in captivity.

Regardless, if the people themselves are hunger striking, it seems that they too wish for death rather than captivity.

Do we really have the moral high road to force life on them in any conditions, nevermind these conditions?

Presumably they have a high risk of death if released, but that is a risk they may be willing to take, and by taking their life into their own hands they may survive, and living according to their own dictate might be worth the difficulties they'd encounter.

Either way, if they are innocent, it's hardly for us to decide.

 

[Shakey]

There are nations that would likely accept them back, but wouldn't guarantee their safety, and it's believed that they would be executed by extremists for either damaging Islam, or for speaking to Americans. They can't win.

Yemen seems willing to take them, the US just doesn't want to send them there. You can see why here: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/15/whats_keeping_gitmo_detainees_from_going_home

It's not about guaranteeing the prisoners safety, it's that they know we've most likely pushed them to extremism. That's our fault, not theirs, and it's not ok to keep them in prison because of it.

 

[AshburnerX]

Yemen seems willing to take them, the US just doesn't want to send them there. You can see why here: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/15/whats_keeping_gitmo_detainees_from_going_home

It's not about guaranteeing the prisoners safety, it's that they know we've most likely pushed them to extremism. That's our fault, not theirs, and it's not ok to keep them in prison because of it.

It's also apparently because the Yemeni government has nether the inclination nor capability to try and reform/watch these individuals, mostly because of Al Qaeda and other outside forces.

 

[Shakey]

It's also apparently because the Yemeni government has nether the inclination nor capability to try and reform/watch these individuals, mostly because of Al Qaeda and other outside forces.

Right, but that shouldn't be a reason to hold them. If they're innocent they should be released. Just because we know we've treated these people so horribly that they now hate us so much they'll likely become terrorists doesn't mean we should continue to hold them. The US fucked up with these people and instead of making it right we're continuing to hold them hoping they'll either die or people will forget.

 

[AshburnerX]

Oh, I know. I'm just pointing out the legitimate concern. It's not enough to prevent the release, but it IS going to be a problem when we do.

I think holding the people behind Gitmo responsible would go a long way to restoring our world view with these people, but apparently the current administration believes that would simply cause the Republicans to look for something similar to charge Democrats with when it's their turn in office again, if only to save face. They are probably right but it's still deplorable to let those people go to keep the Status Que.

 

[Eriol]

Just because we know we've treated these people so horribly that they now hate us so much they'll likely become terrorists doesn't mean we should continue to hold them.

That's another fucked-up aspect of this. According to your sentence there, that is a reason to hold them: the certainty of them attempting to hurt your country back. Regardless of the cause (if they would have or did originally), the belief is that releasing them is like releasing a rabid dog. They'll just turn around and bite you. Ya you gave them the rabies, but they're still dangerous. Yes I'm dehumanizing them with the example, but the point stands: they're dangerous now, whether or not they were originally. That IS a reason to keep them. Sad, but true. Your image goes to crap in the meantime, but your country is safer from those individuals.

 

[strawman]

But the fact that we are holding them in violation of their rights is spurring other actors to attack us that wouldn't otherwise engage us.

I think the risk to the US is the same whether they are released or not (and again, I'm talking about those that are innocent. I suspect we're still holding some terrorists).

If the risk is essentially the same, then we should be taking the moral high ground, even though its risky.

I know the world jokes about America being the world's police, but the damage to our image and the impact on how well others believe they can trust us is not insignificant.

Can we really afford to be seen as corrupt, choosing to follow the rules only when it suits our needs? Isolationists might say yes, but I believe we have to take a global view and stick a stake in the stand. We can hardly call Iran and North Korea to end their inhumane practices when we insist ours are legitimate. Sure, the scale is staggeringly different, but that does not give us the moral high ground.

 

[Shakey]

That's another fucked-up aspect of this. According to your sentence there, that is a reason to hold them: the certainty of them attempting to hurt your country back. Regardless of the cause (if they would have or did originally), the belief is that releasing them is like releasing a rabid dog. They'll just turn around and bite you. Ya you gave them the rabies, but they're still dangerous. Yes I'm dehumanizing them with the example, but the point stands: they're dangerous now, whether or not they were originally. That IS a reason to keep them. Sad, but true. Your image goes to crap in the meantime, but your country is safer from those individuals.

Just because there is a reason to hold them, doesn't mean we should hold them. There's no certainty they will join a terrorist organization. Is there a good chance? Maybe. Do we really want to cross the line of "We think they'll hurt us at some point, so we should just lock them up and let them rot"? I guess that's up to each person to ask themselves. I'd like to think we're better than that. Especially since we are the ones who caused this. It wasn't the radicals recruiting. It wasn't someone brainwashing them. It was us torturing and wrongfully imprisoning them, and then trying to forget they exist. We need to own up to that and at least try to make it better.

 

[Eriol]

But the fact that we are holding them in violation of their rights is spurring other actors to attack us that wouldn't otherwise engage us.

I think that's used as an excuse a lot, but do you really think it's impacting recruiting significantly? That somebody who was otherwise peaceful will see Gitmo and say "I'm going to go out and shoot/bomb/whatever America now!" I think the people are pretty fucked up to begin with to start engaging in terrorism, and Gitmo won't be the factor in that, it's just the excuse.

Can we really afford to be seen as corrupt, choosing to follow the rules only when it suits our needs? Isolationists might say yes, but I believe we have to take a global view and stick a stake in the stand. We can hardly call Iran and North Korea to end their inhumane practices when we insist ours are legitimate. Sure, the scale is staggeringly different, but that does not give us the moral high ground.

Actually I'd say that the scale DOES matter a lot. Otherwise nobody has any ground to take others to task for actual atrocities, like the Cultural Revolution (more deaths than WWII all-told. I don't mean the holocaust, I mean that AND all the military and civilian deaths combined), just to name one. And everybody in the world already does only follow the rules when it suits their needs. Very very rarely is that any different, so I can't get that worked up about one more case of it.

Do we really want to cross the line of "We think they'll hurt us at some point, so we should just lock them up and let them rot"? I guess that's up to each person to ask themselves. I'd like to think we're better than that. Especially since we are the ones who caused this. It wasn't the radicals recruiting. It wasn't someone brainwashing them. It was us torturing and wrongfully imprisoning them, and then trying to forget they exist. We need to own up to that and at least try to make it better.

The difference here is between rounding people up indiscriminately, and just keeping people you already captured in a combat zone. They are by most definitions POWs, but the main difference is that when wars are over between states, their soldiers get sent back home, and they respect the peace (they go home, have babies, etc). That's why you release each others' soldiers, to get your own back, and your country knows that this "deal" won't bite them in the ass. So there's no such guarantee like in state-vs-state war because these guys are different. They won't respect any concept of peace in the future, and will likely go back to committing mayhem (remember, they were captured in a combat zone, not pulled out randomly from houses). The issue is about what to do with those already captured now that you have them, and little to nothing to do with how they were acquired, or about acquiring more (you're not acquiring more).

IMO they're a danger to be released, and the damage to reputation isn't significant enough to outweigh that. Anybody who already hated you doesn't need Gitmo, and anybody who was non-violent is highly unlikely to be swayed by just that. And in case you wanted an outside opinion on that, I AM an outside opinion (Canadian, never lived in the 'States). Anybody who wasn't fond of you up here still isn't, and anybody who was fine, still is. Gitmo is an excuse, not a reason.

 

[Shakey]

The difference here is between rounding people up indiscriminately, and just keeping people you already captured in a combat zone. They are by most definitions POWs, but the main difference is that when wars are over between states, their soldiers get sent back home, and they respect the peace (they go home, have babies, etc). That's why you release each others' soldiers, to get your own back, and your country knows that this "deal" won't bite them in the ass. So there's no such guarantee like in state-vs-state war because these guys are different. They won't respect any concept of peace in the future, and will likely go back to committing mayhem (remember, they were captured in a combat zone, not pulled out randomly from houses). The issue is about what to do with those already captured now that you have them, and little to nothing to do with how they were acquired, or about acquiring more (you're not acquiring more).

IMO they're a danger to be released, and the damage to reputation isn't significant enough to outweigh that. Anybody who already hated you doesn't need Gitmo, and anybody who was non-violent is highly unlikely to be swayed by just that. And in case you wanted an outside opinion on that, I AM an outside opinion (Canadian, never lived in the 'States). Anybody who wasn't fond of you up here still isn't, and anybody who was fine, still is. Gitmo is an excuse, not a reason.

These aren't high level leaders or masterminds behind attacks on us. They're just grunts. People suckered into fighting. Remember, these are people we have admitted pose no real threat to anyone. Releasing them isn't going to usher in a new era of bombings and attacks on us. They'll either go back to fighting and get killed, or go home and never be heard from again.

I don't really care what anyone else thinks of us. I care about how we as a country treat other human beings, and this is about as horrible as it gets.

 

[Eriol]

I care about how we as a country treat other human beings, and this is about as horrible as it gets.

You haven't read about what Japan did to their prisoners and captured populations have you? They make everybody else I've ever heard of look tame. If you gave somebody the option of going to Auschwitz, or going to a Japanese camp, and they truthfully knew what each was, 100/100 would choose Auschwitz.

Be careful with statements like "as horrible as it gets." You just don't know enough history. You don't NEED imagination.

 

[The_Khan]

You haven't read about what Japan did to their prisoners and captured populations have you? They make everybody else I've ever heard of look tame. If you gave somebody the option of going to Auschwitz, or going to a Japanese camp, and they truthfully knew what each was, 100/100 would choose Auschwitz.

Be careful with statements like "as horrible as it gets." You just don't know enough history. You don't NEED imagination.

Yep, gitmo is a ok because the japanese/ nazis/ north Koreans and crazy cultural revolutionists are were worse.

Just as a side note. You can't really say the cultural revolution is something the government did to its people, everybody was involved in this mess. As my wife likes to point out, I've probably met many grandmothers who got their neighbours killed with rumors on purpose. As weird and atrocious as it was, it was a bit like mass hysteria where the people are to blame as much as the government.

 

[Shakey]

You haven't read about what Japan did to their prisoners and captured populations have you? They make everybody else I've ever heard of look tame. If you gave somebody the option of going to Auschwitz, or going to a Japanese camp, and they truthfully knew what each was, 100/100 would choose Auschwitz.

Be careful with statements like "as horrible as it gets." You just don't know enough history. You don't NEED imagination.

I didn't mean in the history of things. I know we've done worse things before too. I guess I always thought we as a nation valued individuals rights before anything else. Taking those away because we're afraid that someone might do something, not because of something they've done, is a big deal. That's what I was getting at.

 

[Dei]

See: Japanese Internment Camps. Gitmo isn't even the first time we've fucked up about that kind of thing. Sorry, we as a nation don't have the best track record either.

 

[Hailey Knight]

See: Japanese Internment Camps. Gitmo isn't even the first time we've fucked up about that kind of thing. Sorry, we as a nation don't have the best track record either.

And before that there was the shit in the Philippines at the turn of the last century.

 

[Shakey]

And the native americans. I get that we've done worse. That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

 

[tegid]

IMO they're a danger to be released, and the damage to reputation isn't significant enough to outweigh that. Anybody who already hated you doesn't need Gitmo, and anybody who was non-violent is highly unlikely to be swayed by just that. And in case you wanted an outside opinion on that, I AM an outside opinion (Canadian, never lived in the 'States). Anybody who wasn't fond of you up here still isn't, and anybody who was fine, still is. Gitmo is an excuse, not a reason.

Why are they so high a risk to be released? How many terrorists are there out there hating america, working against it, whatever? What percentage of them would make the prisoners of Gitmo (~160 people), even if they all turned into terrorists?
And that's assuming they would all turn into terrorists. What about the ones that wouldn't? Let's suppose a 50% probability. Should the US keep 80 innocents that won't do anything against them to keep another 80 from becoming terrorists (maybe 'rightfully')? Fuck that.

In any case, and I think we can all agree to this, if they are not going to free them at least they should be given good living conditions.