Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
They aren't trapped in the justice system; they're outside of it. The justice system would have let the innocent go and the guilty hang. Indefinite detention with no legal recourse is pretty much the opposite of justice. IT's the the kind of thing we high and fucking mighty westerners decry from the rooftops when foreign powers do it.
Provide compensation, counselling and a heartfelt apology to the innocent and be amazed at how many just move on.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Perhaps getting them some professional help afterwards would do the trick?
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's Dictionary@Serocco: I'm going to halt you for a moment to make sure we're on the same page. If you assert the right of the detainees to take revenge against America...well, you're right. But! That same moral reasoning essentially means that everyone in the world has a moral right to kill everyone else in the world (everyone's guilty of something).
Do you really want to go there? It's not an invalid conclusion by any means, but I submit that it's less than productive.
@others: On the other hand, "we can't bring them to trial because they might actually win" is exactly the kind of thinking that the Fifth Amendment was written to prevent. We don't have a right to do it, and I really wish the Libertarian gun nuts would get off their asses and Occupy Guantanamo. (Libertarian gun nuts and anarcho-pacifists are on the same page about Guantanamo. Or they ought to be...)
After all, if the NRA freaks want to keep their guns because their sacred guns will let them fight off the government, let's see them put their asses where their mouths are. (Mixed metaphor is mixed.)
edited 10th Feb '13 7:49:07 AM by Ramidel
@Kostya: I do believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," though, so as far as we know, some of these terrorists are innocent civilians themselves.
I think we have a moral duty to grant them asylum in the U.S.. Feel free to put them on a terrorist watchlist, sure (those need to be fixed, but I'm not in principle against the idea of putting extra emphasis on using lawful tools to keep an eye on people suspected of committing future crimes), but our reason for not returning them home is because they will be tortured. If the latter is true, then it should be blitheringly obvious that they are candidates for political asylum.
Asylum is the best option, simply because our intelligence agencies have a very effective threat to make against them: go to Al Qaeda, and we'll leak false information that you're a double agent. They do that, and our former detainee becomes a contestant on that ever-popular game show Lose Your Head. More likely than not, detainees will be targeted by Al Qaeda just for that possibility.
They should be set free, but realistically, asylum in a "safe" country is the best for everyone involved. Canada, Brazil, Argentina, South Korea, and Australia come to mind.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.The U.S. isn't a very safe country. High levels of gun ownership, particularly among a demographic who'd be happy to blow them away if they found out who they were. And every new Arab family that moves in the same year as the announcement of Gitmo's closure will be suspected by the rednecks as carrying terrorist subjects who have just been set free by some freedom-hating pinko Democrat.
Nah, they're safer elsewhere.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I'm more thinking it would be easier to promise a secure job (possible in the government, nothing classified) for them in the US. How feasable would it be to have a permanent security detail on then? And not everywhere is redneck hell. There are many safe places.
Of course, that would be a brutally tough sell to the voting public. Or the Republicans.
"Yeah, we set free these people who were actually innocent (or possible guilty) and we've spent the last decade torturing. We're going to move them to the US, give them a substantial cash payment, and give them a job in our government."
"Are you more angry about the fact that we're fighting potential terrorists with socialism, or that we're setting free potential terrorists?"
edited 10th Feb '13 8:09:33 AM by DrTentacles
I'm sure they'd be safer in New York or something and it's very easy to hide them in big cities. As long as we put them on probation and provide them what they want it should be okay. I just worry what would happen if one did something stupid. Every single Muslim would be viewed with suspicion and the Dems would stand to lose seats.
edited 10th Feb '13 8:13:14 AM by Kostya
@Radical Taoist: If a safe country will take them, sure. If not, they're our problem and our responsibility. Settle them in an East Coast city with a sizable Arab-American minority.
But I think we got rid of everyone that anyone else will take.
Sometimes the right thing isn't the popular thing.
![]()
Honestly, rather than a government sinecure, I'd ask for members of their community (ideally local mosques) to help them find jobs. While they deserve compensation, there's a limit to how far that goes.
edited 10th Feb '13 8:16:16 AM by Ramidel
Do we know how many people we're talking about?
This might seem cold but I think the Dems being in power is better for the country as a whole and I feel that should come first. It's a question of the welfare of 300 million people or a hundred or however many are in there.
edited 10th Feb '13 8:17:58 AM by Kostya
![]()
![]()
For me it's less about "deserve" (though that's a large part of it) and more about giving them no reason to commit any act of terrorism. People with a secure, well-paying job, who are surrounded by their families don't tend to be prime candidates for suicide bombings.
Also, a government job is a good way to keep tabs on them.
edited 10th Feb '13 8:19:31 AM by DrTentacles
Good. They should still be watched but hopefully we can compensate them enough that they don't do something stupid.
edit:Are you fucking kidding me?
edited 10th Feb '13 8:28:28 AM by Kostya

Morally? It is my wish to give these men a chance to live their lives and accept as clear and sincere an apology as we can extend to them, even knowing that that may go terribly for us.
They, however, are not caught in the chains of our moral system, but our justice system. What is just isn't always moral.
edited 10th Feb '13 12:02:32 AM by OhnoaBear
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."