Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Propose Biodiversity Lab To Redeem Guantanamo Prison Camp

HughPickens.com writes: The American presence at the Guantanamo Prison Camp has been deeply contentious since even before terrorism suspects began to be housed there beginning in 2002. Now as President Obama prepares to make the first presidential visit to Cuba in almost 90 years, ecologists Joe Roman and James Kraska have published their case in the influential journal Science for creating a Guantanamo-based research center to study biodiversity in the Caribbean. The primary benefit of a Guantanamo Bay research station is symbolic. "The main goal is trying to take Guantanamo and make it an inspiring place, and redeem it," says Roman. But the case for Guantanamo Bay as a science lab goes beyond political optics. According to Roman and Kraska the land and the sea offer an ecosystem uniquely worthy of study. The research hub of Roman's dreams would be a state-of-the art facility to help understand how biodiversity loss can be prevented across the Caribbean. "A parcel of the land, perhaps on the developed southeastern side of the base, could become a 'Woods Hole of the Caribbean,' housing research and educational facilities dedicated to addressing climate change, ocean conservation, and biodiversity loss. With genetics laboratories, geographic information systems laboratories, videoconference rooms — even art, music, and design studios — scientists, scholars, and artists from Cuba, the United States, and around the world could gather and study. The new facilities could strive to be carbon neutral, with four 80-meter wind turbines having been installed on the base in 2005, and designed to minimize ecological damage to the surrounding marine and terrestrial ecosystems" Hugh Pickens continues: According to Roman, the main idea is that science can be healing: a way to bring diverse nations together, a way to rectify a complicated history, and a way to help better the lives of all people through research. The biggest roadblock won't be the Obama administration but Congress. Republican lawmakers have derided Obama's preliminary framework for closing the prison, so for the foreseeable future, the status quo will remain. But Roman can still dream. "At a certain point, I don't know when, that base is going to close. It's going to return to Cuba at some point. This is a great use of that property. You don't have many places in the world like that."

170 comments

  1. Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about just giving it back to Cuba?

    It's as anachronistic and wounding to national pride as it would be for Americans having to tolerate a foreign military base on Manhattan island.

    The Brits gave Hong Kong island back to China for a good reason. Shit like this belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st.

    1. Re: Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      Not only that... Redeem it? Wtf is this, some sort of LEED brownfield redevelopment project?

    2. Re:Give it back? by Xest · · Score: 2

      "The Brits gave Hong Kong island back to China for a good reason."

      Yeah, because our 99 year lease was up.

    3. Re:Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the New Territories were leased. Kowloon and Hong Kong island were ceded in perpetuity.

      Of course, they weren't at all defensible against a nation as powerful as China had grown to by 1997, so China could have rolled right in without anyone being able to stop them short of initiating a nuclear war in response..

    4. Re:Give it back? by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      Amen. Time for everyone to move to the 21st Century.

    5. Re:Give it back? by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "The Brits gave Hong Kong island back to China for a good reason"

      Yes, the good reason was that they had a leasing contract done in 1898 for 99 years and that contract expired 1997 so it fell back to China.

      They kept the stuff the conquered.

      They didn't give back Northern Ireland, Scotland, Gibraltar, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Anguilla, Bermuda, the Falklands, the Cayman islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands nor the Turks and Caicos Islands.

    6. Re: Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      Not only that... Redeem it? Wtf is this, some sort of LEED brownfield redevelopment project?

      You cannot redeem a concentration camp.

      Man each time I think about Guantanamo I get the image of Caffey grilling Colonel Jessep and Jessup winning in the end. That would be the ending if A Few Good Men were made today. How things change eh ? America died in 2001. You cannot redeem that which is already six feet under.

    7. Re:Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Brits gave Hong Kong island back to China for a good reason."

      Yeah, because our 99 year lease was up.

      Nah the 99 years lease was an excuse. The real reason was that the UK didn't have a royal navy worthy of that name anymore. So they had to give Hong-Kong back and fuck democracy and all its inhabitants. It hurts not being a world power anymore.

    8. Re: Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, *and then questions the manner in which I provide it* "

      Questioning is good.

    9. Re:Give it back? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      We don't give it back for the same reason that we've implemented most of our Cuban policies over the last 50 years: because a bunch of old Batista cronies in Miami are still pissed that Fidel Castro took their corrupt oligarchy away.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    10. Re:Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Democracy doesn't exist anymore. Every country that says they're democratic is really an oligarchy.

    11. Re: Give it back? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You could make it a memorial, as a warning to future generations. Pretty much what had been done with the Nazi Germany KZs.

      But I guess that's not what is wanted. You don't want to remember, you wish to forget, and the faster the better. Forget and replace the memory with something nice.

      Should've done that in Germany, too. Auschwitz could today be a place of medical research, ya know...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Give it back? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The USA claims that Guantanamo Bay is a lease as well, not a conquest. Analogy: It's like renting an apartment from your brother at a super low token rate of $50 a month. Then he dies and the new owner of the complex tries to evict you. You refuse to leave the apartment and send the new owner a $50 check every month which he refuses to cash, and you tell everyone that this is a legal lease where you have every right to stay in the apartment for as long as you pay your $50 a month. For the next 55 years, because you're the one lucky renter who has more guns than the police who come to evict you.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    13. Re: Give it back? by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      ok lets be serious for a minute.

      we cant compare gitmo to Auschwitz.

      stop.... just....stop

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    14. Re:Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't give back Northern Ireland, Scotland, Gibraltar, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Anguilla, Bermuda, the Falklands, the Cayman islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands nor the Turks and Caicos Islands.

      On the other hand, they did let Northern Ireland and Scotland have a vote, and Bermuda, and the Falklands, and there are dozens of others that are independent, ranging from the United States, to South Africa, to Canada, to Australia and the United Arab Emirates.

      That isn't even counting former territories of the English throne like Calais, Normandy, Gascony and Aquitaine.

    15. Re:Give it back? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Scotland wasn't conquered. The rest of them, okay. Although one or two of the others were uninhabited or inhabited solely by British colonists.

    16. Re: Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you don't understand the answers

    17. Re: Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lease was imposed on the Cubans by the US after their invasion of the island. The original use of force, the continued military occupation and threat of force are what make the lease a complete nullity under international law, but are also what keep it alive as a convenient fiction for the occupiers.

      Bizarrely, though, the US occupiers have breached the terms of the oppressive lease that they themselves imposed! The lease specified that the base be used as a "coaling station", and explicitly "for no other purpose".

    18. Re:Give it back? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's certainly colorful and all but I'm not entirely sure it's as accurate as you're implying. In your instance, the renting of the property may well have been transfered as a condition of purchase, this does happen. They're called renter's rights. They are awesome for those one lucky renters.

      So, they won't need guns. They've got the force of law on their side. The new owner should just burn the place down and collect the insurance and pay to put 'em up in a new apartment for a little while. It depends on how the lease was written but lease rights usually transfer with ownership - it's a negative applied to valuation. Well, it's supposed to be. It happens in NYC a bit and I believe protocol is to make it unlivable or to torch it. By the time the courts sort it own, it'll be four years later and there will be a new set of high-rise condominiums on the spot unless Stephen Segal is there to save them.

      I've seen this movie... Guns don't mean shit. Wait... What?

      Oh, yeah, no... That's real. Except for Segal. He doesn't usually show up. It makes the local news, people protest, shit goes to court, place mysteriously burns and a guy named Frank moved to New Jersey for a few months. At least until his parole officer catches up with him and... No, that's a movie again.

      At any rate... Ostensibly, they get rights. Depending on who and what they are, they may get to enforce those rights. Ideally, it's covered in the valuation, including the duration, and adjusted accordingly and all goes well as they gentrify around the old lady. Hmm... That might be a movie again.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:Give it back? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Even if we had a strong enough Royal Navy to hold off the entire Chinese mainland what good would it have done us? We'd have been a global pariah for illegally annexing foreign sovereign territory. Our reputation was hammered enough for simply invading and occupying Iraq, that wasn't even an annexation. What good would annexing part of China's territory and the inevitable hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions in costs do?

      Democracy is all well and good, but sometimes if that's what people want they have to fight for it themselves. Little use us doing it for them if it destroys us economically, militarily, and politically. The days of British imperialism are dead, it doesn't hurt, because it's a good thing - the world has moved on. We still have plenty of territory that actually belongs to us by way of the countless patches of British Overseas Territory that exist without us trying to seize by force and claim and administer that which doesn't.

    20. Re:Give it back? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > Scotland wasn't conquered.

      Not by the Romans, no... But, umm... Are you *sure* that Scotland wasn't conquered? I seem to recall them getting their asses handed to them - some melodramatic guy in a long coat and with long hair told me about it in his giant 5 hour long series about the history of Scotland. It was BBC so I don't think they'd lie about it. Some Lion King or something like that - sometime around 1200 IIRC? I think it might have happened more than once. There was some dude named Bruce but he might have been Welsh. Err... I watch a lot of documentaries but not to actually learn anything - I just find 'em entertaining. I'm pretty sure Scotland's been conquered before.

      Hadrian didn't conquer it but there's some new information from some digs. He didn't really wall it off so much as he gave 'em a gate inward where he could tax them and whatnot. They found bits of wood that went unburned and they're able to use various light waves to read 'em. I wanna say it's a mix of infrared and then they use blue to bring out the color - I've seen that one a few times.

      At any rate, I'm pretty sure they've been conquered at least once. I think even the Dane's had their way with 'em at one point.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re: Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your service Rambo; you're so brave!

    22. Re: Give it back? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 0

      Sure you can.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    23. Re: Give it back? by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      you can...but you would be a moron if you did

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    24. Re:Give it back? by fche · · Score: 2

      Aw poor commie "national pride". My heart bleeds, beyond redemption.

    25. Re: Give it back? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It the US starts doing, ehm..."biodiversity research" there, you could. Surely one could find a new thing to do for those Tuskegee scientists.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    26. Re: Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Neither is morally justifiable. One might be much MORE unjustifiable, but wrong is wrong. They're both places where people were unjustly held against their will by a government. There's certainly at least some valid comparison.

    27. Re:Give it back? by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      We didn't give it back ... our lease ran out. Read your history book

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    28. Re: Give it back? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Not realistically, you can't.
      First, it only housed a few hundred people at any time, and well less than a thousand all together, *most* of which were the most severe of terrorists, not thousands upon thousands of innocent people (along with captured soldiers), and there were no gas chambers, no ovens, and no mass starvation (hunger strikes were willingly initiated by the prisoners, not the guards - in Auschwitz, it would've been the other way around). Prisoners were even allowed a copy of their Q'uran. Waterboarding and sleep deprivation may be torture, but they're at the bottom of the relative scale.. it doesn't compare to the shit the Nazi's pulled, and the majority of prisoners were not waterboarded.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    29. Re:Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Never conquered is different from "Scotland was not added to the United Kingdom as a result of conquest" which is strictly speaking, true.

      You would want to look at the circumstances that lead to James VI of Scotland taking the English throne as James I of England.

    30. Re: Give it back? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Moral relativism? Wrong is wrong.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    31. Re: Give it back? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      one is a prison camp holding prisoners of war

      the other was an extermination camp set out to murder the jews and anyone else the german dictatorship found to be unworthy.

      i mean we could say they are the same because they both had fences,and guards, but lets not be so stupid shall we???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    32. Re: Give it back? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Really? One was a place to hold people because of their race. The other is a place to hold combatants from a group that we were at war with. Should we drop them off in your neighborhood?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    33. Re: Give it back? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      With that logic, all crimes are equal, because wrong is wrong.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    34. Re: Give it back? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      wrong is wrong... but its not absolute

      stealing an apple to eat is wrong...but its not as bad as stealing the fillings out of jewish peoples teeth

      you make it seem as if they are the same though

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    35. Re: Give it back? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Moral relativism? Wrong is wrong.

      Ah yes, it's all black and white in your mind. Let's drop these guys off at your place, okay?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    36. Re:Give it back? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, forgive me, I was specifically talking about their incorporation into United Kingdom of Great Britain. The English and others had certainly invaded before, and there was even a period were a great deal of lowland Scotland was under English domination, but Scotland had not been ever rendered permanently defunct as a country by military conquest.

      However, the actual incorporation of Scotland into the UK started as a personal union of England and Scotland under King James (the first of England and the Sixth of Scotland) and his descendants the Houses of Stuart and Hannover. It was finalized with the Act of Union in 1707 which was a purely legislative process.

      So you could sort of say that the Scottish actually acquired England, rather than vice-versa.

    37. Re: Give it back? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your service Rambo; you're so brave!

      Written like a true AC

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    38. Re:Give it back? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      What good would annexing part of China's territory and the inevitable hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions in costs do?

      Maybe you should ask the people who live there which side they wanted. I think they were generally more happy/free under UK rule.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    39. Re: Give it back? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Please read the damn document....

      Between the United States of America and the Republic of Cuba for the lease (subject to terms to be agreed upon by the two Governments) to the United States of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    40. Re: Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple: just book them a flight to the USA on Malaysian airlines. Problem solved!

    41. Re:Give it back? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      How about just giving it back to Cuba?

      What? Are you crazy? You can't go handing over prime tropical real estate to third world dictators (or third world leaders at all, for that matter). These scientists have a great idea, and I'm sure there will be tons of junkets by congressmen, business professionals, and all sorts of elite university researchers. All paid by the expense account of course - what a capital plan!

      I mean, we let Haiti take over all that prime vacation land for SOOO long! Good thing that "natural" earthquake came along and rubblized everything, so we could use "humanitarian" funds to help build a new 5-star resort hotel for the elites!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    42. Re:Give it back? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It's as anachronistic and wounding to national pride as it would be for Americans having to tolerate a foreign military base on Manhattan island.

      It's worth pointing out that the US gave all the rest of Cuba back to Cuba. The Spanish gave it to the US, and the US granted them freedom. Heck, the whole Spanish American war was caused by the US coming in on the pro-Independence side of Cuba in their revolution.

      That the US voluntarily wanted to grant Cuba their Independence kept it form becoming a territory like PR or Guam.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    43. Re: Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guantanamo Bay holds "enemy combatants" not prisoners of war. Prisoners of war have rights under the Geneva Conventions, "enemy combatants" get tortured.

    44. Re:Give it back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was actually plans for Cuba to become a US state, but the damn sugar beet lobbyists made sure that wasn't going to happen.

    45. Re:Give it back? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Ah! Okay. I get it now. I was awfully confused 'cause I was pretty sure I'd seen you post enough times to not think you're dumb. Now that I look at the thread, in context, I probably should have picked up on that - so the fault is partially my own. I understand how they came to be a part of the UK - within reason and probably pretty well for a non-historian. I was awfully confused, as I said.

      It could be worse, they could be Wales. I forget the name of the King who stomped through just building castles - a whole slew of 'em. I don't know all the details (I am not a historian, I watch documentaries) but that's one of the premier dick moves in all of history. Some of the castles they built were huge. Mike Lodes (spelling) has a few documentaries that get into it. I like him.

      Like I said, it's just entertainment for me. I don't just watch silly US documentaries. I don't get into the "stupid ones" that a soccer mom might like. I like energy dense documentaries with few intensive graphics, few sound effects, and actual facts - 'cause I will check facts and I will watch multiple documentaries about the same subject. There sure are some skewed views of history...

      Thanks for clearing it up.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    46. Re: Give it back? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "that we were at war with" - I think you mean "that we declared war on" which is not quite the same thing.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    47. Re: Give it back? by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      You declared war? When?

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    48. Re:Give it back? by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      To add to what precedes, that's the reason why a vote of separation by Scotland would be legally valid, and the UK couldn't do much about it.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    49. Re: Give it back? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "that we were at war with" - I think you mean "that we declared war on" which is not quite the same thing.

      Seriously, you're going to argue that it wasn't war because it wasn't declared?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    50. Re: Give it back? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You declared war? When?

      War is war, declared or not. I made no claim that it was declared. Is there some purpose in giving a shit if it is or isn't?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    51. Re:Give it back? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      The Brits gave Hong Kong island back to China for a good reason. Shit like this belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st.

      I appreciate the sentiment, but this is a pretty bad example.

      The British government had a 100-year lease on the property, they did not own it. They tried to extend the lease but the Chinese were pretty insistent that they hand back their property. And since the British Empire no longer existed as such, and the Chinese army, navy and airforce were quite capable of taking the island by force, if necessary, they ground their teeth and handed it over. Lock, stock and barrel. But not before the British government quickly implemented democracy for the first time ever in Hong Kong right before the handover, just to, ah... help the Hong Kong people understand what a Western style democracy actually is. Mind you, they never had the chance to experience it before that time so it was pretty nice they got around to it. Just a pity they did it only after it became apparent they wouldn't actually be able to hold it.

      Someday, someone should make a comedy about this. Although I'm not sure the inhabitants will appreciate the humour of it all.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    52. Re:Give it back? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am kind of curious as to how that plays out. It pops up on NPR once in a while. I keep an ear out to see if anything major happens but nothing yet. I think they might bail if the UK splits with the EU. I figure they might split then and then join the EU directly. It should be interesting.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    53. Re:Give it back? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, got that now. That's not what they'd said but it's what they'd meant. The misinterpretation was mostly mine. I should have picked that up from context, I did not.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    54. Re:Give it back? by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert on the subject, and I'm not even from the UK. I base my view on the vulgarized analyses I've seen from actual experts on French media, plus some web-browsing to check for different angles.

      If the UK leaves the EU, most French experts I've heard and read claim Scotland leaving the UK to join the EU separately is a credible scenario. But I've also read analyses stating that Scotland would have too much to lose, and that while it's possible, it's far to be likely. It's true that the Scottish National Party got a lot of traction in Scotland on the last General Elections, but I think it may have been for reasons that haven't much to do with separatism, and a lot to do with the SNP's social platform, which was appealing to disappointed former Labour voters. So things are not clear-cut. Interesting indeed.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    55. Re: Give it back? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Yes, otherwise it's an invasion.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    56. Re: Give it back? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Yes. Because it should properly be called an invasion and most of those people who were condemed to Guantanamo Bay should never have been taken out of their own neighborhoods and then you wouldn't have to worry about them being dropped off in yours.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    57. Re: Give it back? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Please name one that was taken out of his own neighborhood. The vast majority of these weren't even from Iraq/Afghanistan. Let's take a look...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    58. Re: Give it back? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You seem to want to quibble about something that everyone else calls a war An invasion is simply a part of war, and everyone else seems to be fine with calling it such. A declaration before an invasion would still have made it an invasion.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    59. Re: Give it back? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Here are 200 from Afghanistan. Satisfied?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    60. Re: Give it back? by guises · · Score: 1
      What, we're being serious? Okay. I can compare Gitmo to Auschwitz if I want, I can compare Auschwitz to a delicious Honeycrisp apple if I want. Watch:

      Auschwitz has very little in common with a delicious Honeycrip Apple.

      Bam. Done. That phrase, "You can't compare X to Y!" is just a means of stifling conversation. Yes, the Nazi comparison is hyperbole. No, it isn't very reasonable but there are a few parallels and people love them some Godwin.

      Gitmo is, for all intents and purposes, a concentration camp. Auschwitz was also a concentration camp, but is most famous for its death camp add-on, and a Nazi concentration camp is not the same as every other concentration camp. The greater point though, "concentrations camps are bad," that still applies.

    61. Re:Give it back? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they were and I'm sure a lot of people would be, but if Britain has no legal right to use force to give them it then why is it Britain's job anymore than anyone elses, particularly theirs, to fight for it?

      As usual Britain would be in a lose-lose situation, bitched at if we don't, and bitched at if we do, so taking the option that minimises casualties, and prevents deterioration of international stability is the most sane choice.

      If people are concerned about the people's right to democracy and think a military solution is the answer then maybe they could write to their own governments to demand they intervene militarily? We've spilt more than our fair share of blood over the years doing exact that and the people of Hong Kong have everything they need to maintain their own democracy - we've given them a far better head start than most nations lacking it have had, both those that were British colonies and those that were not.

    62. Re: Give it back? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You begin to show promise, my friend.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    63. Re: Give it back? by haruchai · · Score: 1

        Here are 200 from Afghanistan. Satisfied?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    64. Re: Give it back? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      The people on the *winning* side are fine with calling it a war. I suspect the millions who've lost their homes, their loved ones of all ages and their livelihoods think of their country as being invaded not being at war. A lot of them probably didn't have a clue as to what the World Trade Center is or thought it was some kind of giant open bazaar.
      Not long ago, I was mentoring a student from India, from a farming community of a few thousand in the Punjab. Most of his relatives have no fucking clue where America really is or how big. His mom thinks he's a few days away by car and ferry and he's given up explaining to her how airplanes work and why we need them.
      Most of the dead Afghani civilians likely did not have a much more sophisticated worldview, until their world came crashing down.
      Some of the "soldiers" in the early conflict had single-shot muskets and blunderbusses, FFS.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  2. I have a different proposal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems like the ideal population to use for human experimentation - things that would not be normally allowed under US Law. Genetic experimentation, pain thresholds, drug toxicity, experimental vaccines, and similar. I don't see any reason we cannot turn lemons into lemonade here.

    1. Re:I have a different proposal. by retchdog · · Score: 1

      god fucking dammit. six minutes late to post, and i don't even have mod points.

      ah well, at least i have anonymous company.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:I have a different proposal. by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      [...] things that would not be normally allowed under US Law.

      I think the symbolic point is to stop doing that.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:I have a different proposal. by butzwonker · · Score: 2

      Since "Guantanamo" also has obtained a somewhat unpleasant ring to it (why? no idea!), let's just give it a new name, too. Perhaps something fitting based on classic literature, like "Island of Dr. Moreau".

    4. Re:I have a different proposal. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It is a concentration camp already after all, so why pretend it ain't...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:I have a different proposal. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think Unit 731 might be a bit more appropriate.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:I have a different proposal. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Windscale...Sellafield...

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    7. Re:I have a different proposal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess: For the same reasons why Hollywood accepted the script of "Pearl Harbour".

    8. Re:I have a different proposal. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      It is a concentration camp already after all, so why pretend it ain't...

      Maybe your definition is different, but it doesn't match mine.

      concentration camp
      noun
      noun: concentration camp; plural noun: concentration camps
      a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  3. its not that convenient. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to Redeem Guantanamo Prison Camp...

    there is no redemption in a torture camp. Auschwitz and Dachau didnt find salvation in an agricultural or a climate research institute. Instead they perist in silence, discipline, and remorse as a sterling reminder of some of the most profound human genocide mankind has ever committed. Many israeli jews, including new IDF troops, make a pilgrimage to these sites yearly to remember.

    Prisoners at Guantanamo have been beaten, waterboarded, subjected to forced intubation and rectal feeding, extreme temperatures, and have experienced some of the most brutal and least reported abuse under the US governments authority that any human has seen in the 21st century outside of Darfur. Some prisoners have been kidnapped from their home countries under extraordinary rendition, and others simply scooped up during the occupation campaign in Iraq. Once theyre free, many are in limbo as their home countries no longer want them and no foreign nation will consider them for immigrant status.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:its not that convenient. by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Guantanamo is not a source of pride for many Americans, and yet, the bulk of the human rights violations that did exist there were flushed out by the American people and the US press.

      Yes. Obama was unable to fulfill that campaign promise, and the base should be converted to something else, but comparing this to the WWII concentration camps is a bit much.

      These people are being held without American constitutional protection, but they are, by and large bad guys, and they were not indiscriminately rounded up man, woman, and child because of their race.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all fine. But I always wonder why nobody talks about all the murders and lives ruined by the dictator Castro?

    3. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It's the wrong approach.

      Take the people responsible, all the way up to Cheney or whoever did this and give them a fair trial Guantanamo style on the premises. I'm sure people in the administration can cough up a couple of punishable offenses against the American people if your pour a bit of water in them.

      Joking aside - it would really, really be a slimeball move to try to wash away the shame without having helped the people who suffered, and tried the people who were responsible.

    4. Re:its not that convenient. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Equating the naval base at Guantanamo Bay to Auschwitz and Dachau is one of the main reasons that people turn their brains off when people like you start shouting and spewing spittle. If you had a more reasoned argument, maybe it would make some headway and people would listen. But freaking Auschwitz? The sad part is, I don't even think you and your left-wing progressive friends understand what I'm talking about, and you really think the two places are the same. :(

      I notice that not a word has been said about the dissidents that Cuba rounded up before Obama arrived in order that they might not protest. What would happen if Castro visited Miami? Would our secret police do the same? Who is really the villain here, Obama for keeping Guantanamo open, or Castro for his actions today?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:its not that convenient. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, technically, the big single thing that's missing to be a good ol' Nazi KZ is the human experiments.

      But since they're now planning to make it a research facility, hey, ain't too late for that yet!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:its not that convenient. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's all fine. But I always wonder why nobody talks about all the murders and lives ruined by the dictator Castro?

      I always wonder why nobody talks about the fact that the United States represents 4 percent of the world's population but has 22 percent of the world's prisoners.

      Who's your dictatorship now, Moses?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:its not that convenient. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because it's irrelevant in the context?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ho ho, who'd have thought that the chinese guy would condone human rights violations..

    9. Re:its not that convenient. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I always wonder why nobody talks about the fact that the United States represents 4 percent of the world's population but has 22 percent of the world's prisoners.

      While we shouldn't be leading the league in this category,

      remember that we are descended from Puritans deemed too vile for Europe, refugees from everywhere, and a race of native Americans so tough they often went to war with no clothes on.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    10. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to Redeem Guantanamo Prison Camp...

      there is no redemption in a torture camp.

      Arrests and trials of those who ordered, authorized, allowed, or participated in the torture would be a nice start.

    11. Re:its not that convenient. by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "most brutal and least reported abuse under the US governments authority that any human has seen in the 21st century"
      And this is why nothing happens with Guantanamo. Serious discussions are impossible when the starting point is such ridiculous hyperbole.

      FIRST:
      It's almost inevitable that you'd go straight to Godwin the thread, of course. But I'd remark there's a pretty substantial gulf in agency and innocence between Nazi death camps (where people all the way down to children were rounded up and ultimately exterminated solely because they were Jewish, gay, or any number of other 'negative elements' in the Nazi schema) and a US detention facility which was largely used for COMBATANTS seized in what is effectively a war zone, but whose status was questionable as they chose not to wear uniforms.

      BIG fucking difference, in fact.

      I agree Guantanamo should have been closed a long, long time ago. I felt from the start that the US was wrong to take and hold prisoners in such a conflict; by the rules of the Geneva Convention, combatants seized in such circumstances should have been wrung for information and then summarily executed as they were nothing more than bandits, having failed to comply with the characteristics b, c, and d that would have required them to be treated as captured POWs:
      (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
      (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; ---
      (c) That of carrying arms openly; ---
      (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. ---
      Had they done those things, they would have been entitled to treatment as POWs. For the Bush administration to allow them to persist in this gray area left the US vulnerable to these ongoing histrionics.

      SECOND: "...most brutal and least reported abuse ...that any human has seen in the 21st century"
      Not even close to true.
      You must have missed ISIS, then? Or did I miss the mass executions at Guantanamo? The videotaped beheadings?

      THIRD:
      You might want to review that list of inhumanities; the forced intubation and rectal feeding had to do with prisoners hunger-striking. Should they have been allowed to kill themselves instead? Extreme temperatures: people working minimum-wage jobs in the US regularly suffer worse conditions.
      NONE of the what, 9 deaths at Guantanamo have been caused by the US government. 7 were suicides, 1 was heart attack, and 1 was cancer (and those last to I almost guarantee got BETTER health care and end-of-life care than they'd have gotten in whatever pestilential 3rd world country they came from).
      Ultimately, it's pretty clear that as prisons go, the Cuban ones outside Guantanamo's walls have been FAR worse for 50 years. Curious that you haven't complained about that?

      FOURTH:
      You skip quickly past the point that many (2 score) are in fact free today. They can leave BUT THEIR HOMES DON'T WANT THEM, NEITHER DOES ANY OTHER COUNTRY - even countries inimical to the US like Venezuela or North Korea. Why do you suppose that is? These are troublemaking, BAD people.

      Again, I agree with you in the basic point: Guantanamo should never have been used as a detention camp. That was ridiculously dumb. What you fail to recognize is that camp is in fact probably the only reason those men remain alive today. It wasn't "whistling a merry happy tune at the playground" vs "internment at Guantanamo"; it was "be shot dead" or "internment". I'd have strongly recommended the former on the basis of costs and long term policy impact on the US.

      --
      -Styopa
    12. Re:its not that convenient. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      remember that we are descended from Puritans deemed too vile for Europe, refugees from everywhere, and a race of native Americans so tough they often went to war with no clothes on.

      Australians are descended from the inmates of a literal penal colony and a race of native Australians so tough they often went to war with no clothes on, and walked 500 miles there and back in >100 degree temperatures through a land where even the goddamn butterflies are trying to kill you in order to fight those wars. And then came back and partied for five straight days.

      And they still only have about 1/4th the incarceration rates of the United States.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, I'd say a new biodiversity lab -- staffed entirely by former Islamic militants (with positions guarantee for a life-time), and their US military supervisors and administrators -- will be something in which Americans can have real pride!! And for Obama, a promise fulfilled ...

    14. Re:its not that convenient. by KGIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd say the mass killing, slavery, burning, starvation (we definitely won't let them starve), lack of health-care, etc... Nah, there's still a whole lot of differences.

      That doesn't mean that I like it - it just means you're minimizing the hell out of the WWII era NAZI concentration camps when you compare the two. I don't give two shit but I suspect somewhere there are people who'd be either appalled or angry with your doing so. I've been to two of the old camps and I've seen a lot of documentaries as well as read a bunch of books.

      Maybe you just don't know what happened in them? They're not even remotely similar. Not really. That doesn't mean this isn't a tragedy in and of itself but, c'mon now... That's pretty hyperbolic, don't you think? Or do you really not know what went on in them?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you've heard, but Obama, and Bush before him, have both been accused of suppression and tyranny against dissent, and even before that, Timothy McVeigh was making such claims, and of course, we can consider what Oliver North did, and even the repression of the Bonus Army.

      But fuck, even returning a child to his father was a political bruhahah.

    16. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something you're missing - actually it's something only a myopic idiot could possibly miss, is the concept of intention. The intention of Nazi camps was to annihilate "undesirables" either to kill them outright or to kill them by working them to death. The intention of Guantanamo was to detain terrorist suspects, enemy combatants and their associates, to either gain intelligence from them or simply to get them out of circulation.

      If you want to find a non- fucking idiotic analogy, the prison camps across the US and UK for POWs during World War II would be more appropriate.

    17. Re:its not that convenient. by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      they are, by and large bad guys.

      Are they now? And you know this how? If there ever was a case of [citation required]...
      I think for most of them, no one even knows why they are being held. I mean, check out this list. If entries such as "Determined to be innocent. Still detained" or "Ruled innocent. Claims beating crippled him" do not scare you, I don't know what will.

      Considering that they are not guaranteed access to evidence against them or proper access to lawyers, the fact that some were still ruled innocent, implies that majority of them are likely innocent.

      Not to mention that after someone had been detained for 5-10-15 years without trial in terrible conditions, may just become a terrorist in response to such treatment.

    18. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, its talked about a lot. A lot of people in other countries make fun of us and also stand in awe about it. The primary reason some countries don't have as many prisoners as the US is simply they couldn't afford it.

      In that way, it is very impressive that the US can feed & cloth so many people in prison and outspend the next 10 countries combined in defense. Yet it is still considered an economic power house in the global system.

    19. Re:its not that convenient. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Judaism is not a race.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    20. Re:its not that convenient. by fredrated · · Score: 0

      Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for not being personally responsible for Guantanamo, because you are. Remember democracy? You and I and the rest of the American people elected the scum that did this and so you and I are personally responsible, nice try to wiggle out of it.

    21. Re:its not that convenient. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

      I stopped reading after 'executed'. You are a psycho.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    22. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. Of course the descendants of prisoners would have fewer prisons.
      The US Puritans were too vile for Europe, but weren't prisoners (not that there's anything wrong with that).

    23. Re:its not that convenient. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      A lot of people in other countries make fun of us and also stand in awe about it. The primary reason some countries don't have as many prisoners as the US is simply they couldn't afford it.

      So, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is, "Our enormous prison population has the highest standard of living in the world, because freedom! We're Number One!"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judaism is not a race.

      Huh? A lot of Jews (not all, Jews - like most people - will violently disagree with each other just because the sun came up) would beg to differ.

    25. Re:its not that convenient. by hey! · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone actually believes in any kind of ethical calculus where having a nice research facility makes it OK to have tortured people. I think what's up for PR grabs is whether it's OK to still have a base there. So what the pitch here is that it'll be a like concealer makeup on a black eye.

      Welcome to the world of diplomacy, where a lie isn't a lie because everyone knows it's a lie.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:its not that convenient. by Mitreya · · Score: 2
      I don't think I know where to start...

      US detention facility which was largely used for COMBATANTS seized in what is effectively a war zone, but whose status was questionable as they chose not to wear uniforms.

      Keeping combatants would have been fine if someone bothered to check carefully if they are, in fact, combatants. They have no access to evidence against them or proper access to lawyers. If someone was not a combatant, what do you think they can do to prove it?
      "effectively a war zone" I believe covers all of the countries where we had a military operation at one time? I have heard numerous statements that include United States territory as the "war zone" in "war on terror". Considering that the new definition seems to include almost every place, being captured in a war zone no longer has the same ring to it. Your "chose not to wear uniforms" status also heavily relies on assuming that once you are in Guantanamo, you are by definition a combatant. Why would you assume that? Even with very poor access to legal defense, quite a few were deemed innocent and released after years of detention.

      combatants seized in such circumstances should have been wrung for information and then summarily executed as they were nothing more than bandits

      Oh, good. Summarily executed, huh? You do realize that many were captured based on someone else pointing a finger at them (often for a reward). Wouldn't you want to at least have a trial before execution?

      SECOND: "...most brutal and least reported abuse ...that any human has seen in the 21st century"

      Not even close to true. You must have missed ISIS, then? Or did I miss the mass executions at Guantanamo? The videotaped beheadings?

      You are focusing on most brutal and you have a point. However, they might still have a valid point regarding the least reported abuse. A lot of them tried to go on hanger strike and were force-fed. To me, that indicates much has gone unreported.

      NONE of the what, 9 deaths at Guantanamo have been caused by the US government. 7 were suicides

      What kind of asinine logic is that. They are locked up for years without trial, but their suicides were not caused by US government? They were just depressed people, with a pre-existing condition?

      1 was cancer (and those last to I almost guarantee got BETTER health care and end-of-life care than they'd have gotten in whatever pestilential 3rd world country they came from).

      So as long as they got better health care, it is ok to lock them up? Not very relevant.

      as prisons go, the Cuban ones outside Guantanamo's walls have been FAR worse for 50 years. Curious that you haven't complained about that?

      They are not maintained by United States, which makes them somewhat different from the prisons that are.

      They can leave BUT THEIR HOMES DON'T WANT THEM, NEITHER DOES ANY OTHER COUNTRY - even countries inimical to the US like Venezuela or North Korea. Why do you suppose that is? These are troublemaking, BAD people.

      So is that an excuse? It's ok to keep them there as long as no one likes them?
      Perhaps they should have been tried somehow. With an actual trial outcome proving their innocence (or at least not-proving guilt), perhaps some countries would take them.

      Have you considered the possibility that their homes don't want them because they were held, for years, without trial in the scary worst-of-the-worst "terrorist prison"?

    27. Re:its not that convenient. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Judaism is not a race.

      In many ways, it is. Remember that Judaism is a tribal religion. While there is a process for people to convert to Judaism, it's typically inherited from your parents - if your parents are members of the tribe, then so are you. Particularly relevant to this thread, the Nazis considered someone Jewish if they had even a single recent ancestor that was Jewish, regardless of what religion that person practiced.

    28. Re:its not that convenient. by dcw3 · · Score: 1
      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    29. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These people are being held without American constitutional protection, but they are, by and large bad guys...

      Listen to yourself:
      "The pedophile was investigated without constitutional protection, but he was, by and large a bad man"
      "The civil rights activist was investigated without constitutional protection, but he was, by and large a bad man"
      "The political dissident was investigated without constitutional protection, but he was, by and large a bad man"

      I've never had a conversation with a boiling frog before so I'd like to take this opportunity to ask: "Hows the water temperature?"

    30. Re:its not that convenient. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for not being personally responsible for Guantanamo, because you are. Remember democracy? You and I and the rest of the American people elected the scum that did this and so you and I are personally responsible, nice try to wiggle out of it.

      Oh, since we're on /. let's try a car analogy...
      The car I purchased has a brake failure, and runs over a dozen kids at the bus stop. It's my fault because I chose the car.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    31. Re:its not that convenient. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Nazis in the 21st century?

      Also you don't forcefeed anyone rectally. Digestion literally doesn't work that way.

    32. Re:its not that convenient. by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      Not even that. For one thing, in the USA, putting a prisoner in total isolation for years is considered routine, while elsewhere it's considered torture.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
    33. Re:its not that convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm sure they're bad guys because they have been found guilty in a fair trial, right? I'm sure since they're "bad" we're "good" because we torture them and teach them the error of their ways? Anyone in the USA who isn't ashamed is worse than the prisoners.

    34. Re:its not that convenient. by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Also you don't forcefeed anyone rectally. Digestion literally doesn't work that way.

      South Park begs to differ!

    35. Re:its not that convenient. by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      The intention of Guantanamo was to detain terrorist suspects, enemy combatants and their associates, to either gain intelligence from them or simply to get them out of circulation.

      Nope, the intention of Guantanamo was to terrorize. The goals you put forward would have been fulfilled more efficiently with regular, lawful, procedures and standard interrogation techniques. But the point wasn't to gather intelligence. It was to terrorize. Guantanamo is a terrorist enterprise.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
  4. chagos marine protected area by sittingnut · · Score: 1

    and chagos marine protected area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was created to protect marine life. ha!

  5. The area is a military base by ThatBeDank · · Score: 2

    The US military isn't giving that real estate up period. Obama said he would close it and failed to do so. The next president will do the same. Where do you think the extremists will go for their rightfully deserved enhanced information gathering sessions?

    1. Re:The area is a military base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, if Obamas Supreme Court nomination is anything to go by, he's in full support of the place. Christ, why nominate a guy who is against giving those people a federal trial unless you support it.

    2. Re:The area is a military base by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Congress has made it nearly impossible to transfer captives elsewhere.

      Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that at least a fourth of the detainees the United States has released from Guantanamo were confirmed or suspected of later engaging in terrorism or insurgent activity.

      ISIL has taken hold in Yemen, the very country where the Obama administration had planned to transfer many detainees.

      Please keep in mind the folks these prisoners are fighting for are beheading their prisoners, while the men at Guantanamo are eating three meals a day, watching cable, and working out in gyms.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:The area is a military base by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, then drop the detainees there and throw a few bombs afterwards for good measure and be done with it.

      Jeesh, you Americans are always so complicated, things are so much easier in mother Russia...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:The area is a military base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      things are so much easier in mother Russia...

      Thanks comrade.

  6. Better idea: associate it with justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you really want to redeem it you have to give it justice. Sentence every last war criminal to life in prison there. From every president to every private. Of course nobody has the gonads to actually stand up for justice.

    1. Re:Better idea: associate it with justice by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      But wait... isn't your proposal un-American? That would be bad!

    2. Re:Better idea: associate it with justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what do you do with the detainees, many of whom are real terrorists who have killed lots of people and will do so again if allowed to leave? I suppose they get a full pardon and a plane ticket to Germany, where Angela Merkel will personally give them each a free blowjob and a free pass to rape and kill German citizens at will.

    3. Re:Better idea: associate it with justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is not threatened by terrorists. We have 350 million people and the best military the world has ever seen. Who gives a shit how many people these "terrorists" can kill? If they do a real good job with their bombings, we will nuke their country into glow-in-the-dark glass. If they have committed some sort of crime, try them and execute them. If not, release them. It's pretty fucking simple, unless you're a coward who also hates justice.

    4. Re:Better idea: associate it with justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The prisoners are enemy combatants at best. They are a threat to the US, our forces or our allies. They have no right to treatment based on our constitution. They deserve no treatment based on the Geneva conventions. They declared themselves our enemies and are our enemies.

      Our enemies were our enemies before any "mistreatment" at Guantanamo and they will remain our enemies long after Gitmo closes. They give us no quarter and they deserve no quarter.

    5. Re:Better idea: associate it with justice by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      Human rights are universal, but the thing is that even if you don't believe in them (which is apparently what you're suggesting) then it's simply a matter of basic human decency and minimal empathy to guarantee any kind of prisoners either receive due process or a halfway humane treatment as prisoners of war. The US has treated the worst Nazi war criminals way better than the inmates of Guantanamo. That really has made many people wonder what happened to your country's basic values. Think about it, why would such a great nation with the largest and most powerful military resort to kidnapping and kidnapping? It makes no sense and has without any doubt made your country worse off than before, both in terms of your human rights records and your safety against terrorism. It makes no sense.

    6. Re:Better idea: associate it with justice by Schmorgluck · · Score: 1

      Nobody's talking about releasing everyone. You suck at comprehension. Go fuck yourself.

      --
      There's nothing like $HOME
  7. Primarily a Naval Base by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Informative

    Guantanamo Bay is primarily a U.S. Navy Base. It is only secondarily, if that, a prison camp for those who made war against the U.S. outside of the boundaries of the Geneva Convention (this may not be true of all of those imprisoned there, but that is the justification for the prison camp aspect).

    Guantanamo Bay is the best harbor in the Caribbean for Naval operations and the U.S. has retained control over it for that reason.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:Primarily a Naval Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough with the stupid colonialism. We shouldn't take chunks of other countries just because it looks nice. Pretty simple.

    2. Re:Primarily a Naval Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough with the stupid stupidity. It was acquired through an aggressive showing of currency, not force. Extremely simple.

    3. Re:Primarily a Naval Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As with most large naval bases it is severely polluted. Any biodiversity in the bay was killed long ago.

    4. Re:Primarily a Naval Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole country was established with colonialism. What makes any parcel obtained with one colonial act special from any other?

    5. Re:Primarily a Naval Base by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, more like taking chunks of other countries' colonies...

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Primarily a Naval Base by jittles · · Score: 1

      Well, more like taking chunks of other countries' colonies...

      Indeed. I believe we liberated Cuba in the Spanish American war and agreed to let the people of Cuba rule themselves outside of overt US influence if they would let us set up a naval station at Gitmo. It's been a while since I've studied the history though, so don't me on that.

  8. I propose unicorns! by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    I mean, since we're dreaming.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  9. Obama can't close Guantanamo due to military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama can't close Guantanamo prison camp, the military is blocking it with administrative hurdles, blocking interviews with prisoners from their prospective receiving countries diplomats. Refusing to release their IDs to diplomats, or release medical records. Any obstacle they can use to prevent it happening they're using:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcQxAsoEh6g

    The low level military won't do anything without top brass military orders, so some unknown General has given the order to the grunts in Guantanamo to block release of these, and those soldiers have followed that General rather than the Commander in Chief.

    As long as Republican Lawmakers will side with the military, then it doesn't matter what the chain of command is, it only matters who controls the military.

    1. Re:Obama can't close Guantanamo due to military by PPH · · Score: 1

      Obama can't close Guantanamo prison camp

      Obama is Commander In Chief. He can actually order the troops of the base. What would happen to the prisoners is the big question. Last marine out unlocks the cells and the front gate. And Cuba has to deal with them. Republican lawmakers can't do squat if Obama issues a direct order. Their military buddies will either comply or get their own orange jumpsuits in Leavenworth, KS.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Obama can't close Guantanamo due to military by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      He can order all he wants, but the money to pay for things isn't controlled by him. Good luck paying for that.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:Obama can't close Guantanamo due to military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't BRAC. There would be no slots for those troops to go to other bases. And what about the TRANSCOM/Navy assets and additional funding approved by Congress needed to move the troops and equipment and reassignment? POTUS can't suddenly redirect Congressional budget line items for Guantanamo for other purposes - Congress has to approve. The POTUS can't release prisoners without Congressional approval and if he gives the orders, those troops who obey could be charged under Punitive Article 96 for releasing prisoners without authorization and Article 113 quitting posts without being properly relieved. May not affect them under this POTUS, but imagine down the line getting denied a star or court martialed. Probably not charged under Article 85 for desertion... probably...

      Cuba wouldn't want it as an ecological research center - that's a US bias. Cuba would want the US to clean it up and then they would make it a port/tourist resort.

    4. Re:Obama can't close Guantanamo due to military by PPH · · Score: 1

      Paying for what? When you rotate personnel out of a base, you just don't send any replacements in. Those funds already exist, and I suspect that Congress would have to completely defund the military to prevent personnel from being moved.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Obama can't close Guantanamo due to military by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You suspect incorrectly. Let me give you a civics lesson then.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    6. Re:Obama can't close Guantanamo due to military by PPH · · Score: 1

      That article is talking about closing just the prison and transferring the prisoners somewhere else. Funds for that are indeed restricted. I'm talking about closing the entire Guantanamo base. Returning the Navy and marine personnel and weapons to the USA and just unlocking the prison doors on the way out.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    7. Re:Obama can't close Guantanamo due to military by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The distinction you're trying to make doesn't matter. Congress controls the purse strings, and can refuse to pay for whatever it wishes.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Obama can't close Guantanamo due to military by PPH · · Score: 1

      Congress controls the purse strings, and can refuse to pay for whatever it wishes.

      When the last marine leaves, there will be nothing to pay for regardless.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  10. Let the empty Guantanamo prison camp remain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just like Auschwitz, as a constant reminder of the wrongs that were done, and by whom.

    1. Re:Let the empty Guantanamo prison camp remain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      just like Auschwitz, as a constant reminder of the wrongs that were done, and by whom.

      The difference being that those that were responsable for Auschwitz at all levels were and continue to be prosecuted to this day. The US has a very big democratic deficit in that it says "we're sorry we did this and that" but never ever brings charges against the men who did the atrocities and those who put up the whole institutional torture program for more than a decade. I mean George Bush, Chenney, Wolfowitz, some DOJ officials and a good part of the military leadership basically redefined torture to be not torture and got off scot-free ? This is banana republic shenanigans.
      Think about that when we hear talking about the US and how just it is. Justice and the rule of law isn't just some abstract concept that applies in some cases and not others. No one should be above the rule of law. And that is simply not the case in the US. No one protects its own monsters better than the US.

  11. And yet, Obama hasn't closed Gitmo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either Candidate Obama lied about his intentions, or President Obama found that the world isn't a simple place.

    Where do you put people willing to break any and all international rules of war in order to conduct jihad? And that's a REAL WORLD problem.

    1. Re:And yet, Obama hasn't closed Gitmo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Where do you put people willing to break any and all international rules of war in order to conduct jihad? And that's a REAL WORLD problem"

      Yes, what to do about America's war machine momentum and it's 'save the children' cover is a real problem.

    2. Re:And yet, Obama hasn't closed Gitmo... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Where do you put people willing to break any and all international rules of war in order to conduct jihad? And that's a REAL WORLD problem.

      Kill them, or put them in prison. Not military prison, not "secret" "interrrogation" facilities like Gitmo. Just plain, regular, federal prison. Solitary of course, like you would any provably dangerous (to themselves, society, other inmates, and staff) criminal. If you treat them like anything but especially violent criminals you are not just legitimizing them and their grievances, but also providing them with powerful propaganda. The word is already getting out there that living in ISIS controlled territory isn't as great as it was originally made out to be (they've cut pay for fighters substantially, limited use of vehicles, etc). Allow their potential recruits to see that and the fact that the fate that awaits is most likely either a painful death or many long, boring years of isolation in prison and the ISIS appeal begins to fade, especially for those that are slowly being converted.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  12. Adorable Sentiment But... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 0

    ...where else will the U.S. have a romper room to abuse human rights outside of international conventions, answer me that!

    Maybe we can move Sea World's orca breeding program there and let them flog their dolphins in peace.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Adorable Sentiment But... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Umm... Romania, Poland, Israel, ... all you really have to do is ask nicely, it ain't like we'd say no...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave it open, let the terrorists rot.

  14. Posting from Germany... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > Auschwitz and Dachau [...] perist in silence, discipline, and remorse as a sterling reminder of some of the most profound human genocide mankind has ever committed [...]

    And rightly so. And it seems to have helped for a while. But seeing the emerging things like Pegida and AfD, I have the impression that such things lose their effect after 70+ years. Sadly.

    1. Re:Posting from Germany... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But seeing the emerging things like Pegida and AfD

      /sarcasm What do Auschwitz and Dachau have to do with Pegida? Pegida isn't against jews, gays or political enemies. It is just against parasites, criminals and other unwanted persons with the focus on protecting the German people. /sarcasm

      Sadly many people will repeat history because they cannot see the similarity in their actions. Made worse by the prohibition of Nazi propaganda over an open discussion and warning against the talking points used to drive the hate.

  15. Why the f not? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    At least the terrorists may have won ...by having passengers take off their belts and shoes prior to boarding, ...by 3-hour long security and frisking measures even if your name is not even the least bit shadowed by a hint of an arabic-sounding name, ...by making us turn off our phones before the movie starts,

    but they will NOT DENY US A BIO DIVERSITY LAB while I sip my Coronas catching some rays at Guanta-frickin-mo bay! Where I can surfboard while you waterboard...

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:Why the f not? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of stupid comments in this thread already but this is the winner for -1 Offtopic, -1 Troll, -1 Unfunny, and -1 Overrated all in the same 500 characters. That's actually pretty hard to do.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  16. Millions of biodiversity labs already underground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're called septic tanks!

  17. If Gore had won in 2000... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Gore had won, it would be a place of great honor, a national shrine. Or, if we had an honest media... But we don't, so it is evil, because Bush.

    Keep in mind that the legal status of nearly all internees there is essentially "deferred summary execution", and none of the "torture" that happened there (or at Abu Ghraib, for that matter) would even rise to the level of hazing at a decent frat.

    Those of you that are paying attention may have noticed that the lugenpresse hasn't said a damn thing about Obama's drone execution and collateral damage killing spree. In about 11 months, expect them all to decide that the war on terror is suddenly a bad thing again.

  18. It's warm and fluffy by tomhath · · Score: 1

    "A parcel of the land, perhaps on the developed southeastern side of the base, could become a 'Woods Hole of the Caribbean,' housing research and educational facilities dedicated to addressing climate change, ocean conservation, and biodiversity loss. With genetics laboratories, geographic information systems laboratories, videoconference rooms — even art, music, and design studios — scientists, scholars, and artists from Cuba, the United States, and around the world could gather and study. The new facilities could strive to be carbon neutral, with four 80-meter wind turbines having been installed on the base in 2005, and designed to minimize ecological damage to the surrounding marine and terrestrial ecosystems"

    It would be nirvana, heaven on Earth: diverse, socially and environmentally conscious. All it needs is some magic pixie dust to make it a reality.[/sarcasm]

    1. Re:It's warm and fluffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kumbaya will be played constantly over the PA system.

  19. Return Guantánamo to Cuba by ferespo · · Score: 1

    And let them take care of it. After all it is their territory.

  20. As though it's the only choice by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Right. Because there aren't dozens of other locations in the Caribbean to build a research lab.

  21. Here We Go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue up all the Castro apologists and Che admirers.

    History is about to be rewritten again.

    1. Re:Here We Go by haruchai · · Score: 2

      They have far less to apologize for than those who supported Fulgencio Batista.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  22. Re looks nice by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Time to free the Sandwich islands eh? But we get to keep them awesome rolls right?

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  23. danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never mix science with politics; you end up with neither...

    1. Re:danger by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Never mix science with politics; you end up with neither...

      Kennedy, lunar mission, discuss.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  24. Where else to put filthy terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama wants to put them in the general prison population. That's a stupid idea unless you're a radical leftist who wants to create a lawsuit since now you're confusing normal prisoners with stateless terrorists.

    Release them? Well, the Spanish security forces caught a released Gitmo detainee as part of an ISIS cell.

    So, uh, good luck with that.

    1. Re:Where else to put filthy terrorists? by fredrated · · Score: 1

      "Spanish security forces caught a released Gitmo detainee as part of an ISIS cell."

      And damned right too. If I was taken against my will, held without trial or evidence and tortured you can bet your bottom dollar I would do everything I could to get back at the people who did this to me. So would you.

  25. ...its not that easy to explain by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    We're an interesting, fundamentally diverse people... the melting pot, if you will. We're insecure, racist, xenophobic, and given to tribalism.

    We're also brilliant, clever, optimistic, and still one of the most desirable places to relocate if you were born somewhere else.

    How do you attract the best and the brightest, while simultaneously punishing the poorest in numbers not seen anywhere else on the planet? A self righteous penchant for punishing minorities combined with Draconian drug laws, if I had to guess.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  26. RETURN IT by AndyCanfield · · Score: 1

    Castro should tell Obama "Your lease is up. As of 00:00 AM January 1 2020, it reverts to Cuban internal territory. Being Cuba, INTERnational law does not count, only INTRAnatinal (Cuban) law counts. We will mortar the power plant, poison the ground water, sink tankers, put holes in the runway. Get all your junk out of here. Until the end of 2019 ships and planes LEAVING Guantanamo will not be interfered with."

    Quantanamo is one of the most shameful things in U.S. history. Why weren't those prisoners taken to Florida? Because the Pentagon didn't want them to have any legal rights.

  27. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are talking about it's function. The rest of us are talking about reputation.

    The worldwide reputation of Guantanamo Bay is now as a prison camp and center for torture. The die is cast; you never get a second chance to make a first impression. The average citizen of the world had never even heard of Guantanamo Bay until the terror suspects were taken there and stories of torture started to emerge.

    That's why those scientists are working in vain. Probably well-meaning and all, but really. They aren't going to be able to remove the taint of torture.

    1. Re:Nope by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Why should I care what the "worldwide reputation" of Guantanamo Bay is?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison