Skip to comments.Petraeus Backs Closing Gitmo
Posted on 05/28/2009 6:27:52 AM PDT by ksen
PRAGUE -- The head of U.S. Central Command, General David Petraeus, has told RFE/RL he thinks that "on balance" the expected closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and abandonment of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques will "help" U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the struggle against transnational extremist violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
So . . . how long till the Democrats start singing General Petraeus' praises?
I'll start. He's wrong. End of discussion.
He’s just saying he’d like to continue in his job. He knows and understands “The Chicago Way.”
If it’s going to be done, how about sending them to “Camp” Alcatraz? There’s already some dedicated “park” money there. Just throw in a little food and you’re good to go.
Of course he serves at the pleasure of the resident, nothing to see here move on
This move puts him in contention to replace either Hillary! or Biden down the road. A Barry/Petraeus ticket would be formidable, and it takes national defense issues off the table, at least as far as the Barry zombies and MSM are concerned.
Interesting that he made this statement there. I hear Prague is nice this time of year. Gets cold in the winter though. Especially if you are wearing sandals.
"Join Me..or Die"
Shiwan Khan--The Shadow
It's alive and well in the USA
As for the "enhanced interrogation techniques", I actually think that Patraeus is saying what all of our uniformed officers should be saying. But, that's why we have a a CIA.
The military should only interrogate prisoners using methods solely outlined in the Army Field Manuel. When something more "creative" needs to be employed, that's when a transfer of custody should occur and the CIA, or whomever the President designates should go to work.
The uniformed military should, in no way, be party to these techniques, nor should they be done on US Military installations. JMHO.
Well, if the General won’t fight for Gitmo, why should we?
Perhaps he’s taken up what Rush said yesterday. If you want to succeed, lie like a Liberal.
How bout Camp David? Maybe they would be welcomed there.
Petraeus, Robert Gates, Peter Pace, Mike Mullan, the military does not want Guantanimo. It makes the war harder and it gets our guys killed.
Great reporting there./sarc. Look carefully at what is parenthetical versus editorialized.
Having to capture these hard core sociopaths alive and treat them with kid gloves- is what makes the war harder and surely gets more of our guys killed.
The ied’s, decapitations and throat slittings will go on regardless of where live prisoners are stowed
Petraeus is a smart guy. Many will interpret this politically, when Petraeus speaks in terms of the military, tactics, and strategy.
So far he’s tried successfully to stay above the political fray. I don’t think he’ll jump into it at this point.
Well, that seems to be the end of that. /no sarc
he’s still in uniform, and can’t be expected to undercut the position of his Commander in Chief, no matter how ludicrous.
Did you notice in the bit I quoted that it’s no longer “terrorism” but “transnational extremist violence” we’re fighting?
The story’s been out there for a couple of days and I’ve yet to hear a retraction by Petraeus or a comment saying he’s being misquoted.
do you have any evidence that he is?
I read the article and he is like everyone else who has gone on record. They support closing the base, but don’t have a solution of where the terrorists and combatants will go. Perhaps when one of these people interviewed come out with a plan of where to send these clowns that sounds reasonable, then I might agree with them. Until then, club Gitmo should be open for business. Have Colonel Jessup code red the ones that won’t cooperate.
Some / a lot of conservatives make the mistake of equating military prowess with “conservative” thought. They believe that a general who excels at his job simply cannot be a socialist...
Very little is known about his ideological bend, although this little bit of information does start to paint that picture.
I would also caution limited government type conservatives against blindly following dick and liz cheney as well. Even though they are strong debaters and strong on national security that does NOT equate to a strong belief in limiting the size and scope of the federal government.
Turned into a tool. What a pity.
winner winner chicken dinner you hit the nail on the head.
Just a comment on the title, which is meant to draw an emotional response versus what the article and quotes actually say. He never said he ‘backs’ closing it in his quotes. His statements are more nuanced. Typical reporting, they tell us what we should think about the statement versus just giving the information and letting us determine what he meant. His statement is pretty neutral and uncontroversial, however, just scanning the headlines, one wouldn’t get that impression.
I’m guessing that’s the writer as it wasn’t in quotes. But even so that’s not the ‘official’ PC phrase. The writer better check his liberal play book.
Note the careful qualifier, "in a responsible manner." He's not saying anything different than President Bush said. There was nothing in there saying he supports Obama's plan.
Not that so called "real conservatives" are going to pay attention. We just LOVE to eat our own. Besides, the timing of this article takes our minds conveniently away from the racist that the Racist in Chief wants to appoint to the SCOTUS, and her 60% decision overturn rate by that very same SCOTUS.
Send them back to the countries they came from and let their governments deal with them.
I agree the title of the article is very misleading.
The points you make are true on one level (*blindly* following) but we are still limited to supporting people who actually exist and who actually step up to the public debate.
Can you name any actual living person, active in politics, that articulates better positions than these? (This is not a flame, it is a serious question. I'm interested.)
Here's my idea of what to do with the Guantanamo detainees. I haven't heard this any where but I think it will work if you must close Guantanamo.
Where is the most secure location in the US? No it's not a supermax Cat 5 prison. Where can guards go in complete anonymity? Where can Red Cross, International Press, or whoever be taken in complete secrecy and not observe anything but the condition of the detainees? Here it is: I recommend that they be taken to some newly constructed facility in Area 51. Think about the isolation and the security of the area. The current people who work there are flown in from McCaren Airport in Vegas. The same thing could be done with the detainees and anybody that's needed for support. Congressional visits, Red Cross and every other human rights organization would be very controlled. They would be flown in and driven by windowless busses to the detainee sight. Anybody see any major flaws with using Area 51 to detain these extremists?
Good response. I think that too many of us are reacting without taking the time to understand why he’s saying what he’s saying. My first reaction is the same as most others on this thread. However, Petraeus has done an excellent job and given that, I want to go the extra mile to understand his thinking here.
I don’t know if hes a demo ,but I know hes a bilderberg
Exactly, what does anyone expect him to say. Notice there was minimal explanation and no discussion of alternatives.
Sorry; I was going to say good point and I heartily agree. Forgot to adtually ADD it :(
I know I would have given a very similar if not verbatim response as the one he did. Words matter. Which is why paying special attention to their usage and context is important.
Well then, by all means, let’s all retrofit our basements for that Adopt an Enemy Combatant program. Heaven know, Islam really was a Religion of Peace before Guantanamo came along. Just ask the embassy workers in Kenya and Tanzania, the crew of the USS Cole, the families of everyone killed on 9/11, etc.
Their positions on what they are currently publicly debating are the best positions.
We have little to no information on what their positions are on the federal governments leap into socialism / marxism.
I believe that calls by conservatives for either Cheney to lead the GOP or run for office are staggeringly premature.
I can agree that any choice today, May 28, 2009, is premature. But you haven't offered any alternatives. Who would you suggest be on the short list of actual human beings to take the leadership role?
I am for closing it too as long as we don’t bring the animals onto American soil. That IS the problem. The American courts will end up releasing them to kill Americans without a second thought. They will suddenly rediscover the constitution when it comes to giving foreigners constitutional rights that Americans have not seen for years now.
We should send them back to their own nations of origin and I do not care what those countries do with them. Liberals would rather have them kill us than take the risk that their governments will kill them.
Sounds like another libtard mantra about the “2 states solution” in the israelo-palestinian conflict!
As if it will happen only by repeating it like a parrot whatever can be the reallity on the ground
They won't take them back. We asked. They told us to pound sand.
It's either Gitmo or the O.J. Simpson Memorial Justice System. There are no other choices.
I nominate Berkley as the site to house them.
This is not a statement without conditions. "In a responsible manner" is the key.
It's only common sense that there can be more than only one solution to a problem like imprisoning terrorists. The problem with keeping them locked up in the US is the ACLU.
I don't think Obama would agree with that.
There would be no more US prisoners out of Afghan and Iraq. I'd think that jurisdiction really shouldn't belong to us anymore since their governments are in place. And I'd return these to those governments.
Dead terrorists don't need tax payer-funded prayer rugs nor bleeding heart LIEberal lawyers.
There are no alternatives at this point.
None... (that I know of) At least as far as the National party and federal offices go... And that is a good thing, as Ill explain.
There are many folks at the state level who share our “angry malcontent right wing extremist” views. Honestly, that is where the focus should be. We are not going to beat the federal government back into the limited size and scope that was intended for it from with the federal government. We are going to do it with the organizational units that originally created the fedgov... the States.
Do I really think it matters that cheney, steel, limbaugh or any other person heads the national GOP or holds some federal position? nope... they are ineffectual anyway. The real danger is in the shift of momentum and focus of the folks on our side away from what can make significant change back to the same old worn out path.
We need to concentrate 100% of our efforts on getting control of as many states as possible with folks who are willing to set those states against the usurpations of the fedgov. Anything else is just a distraction from the main front of this war.
Oh good - another “New World Order”-ist.
I'd rather be blunt about it - these are idealistic, Wilsonian campaigns to trade thousands of American lives and trillions in American treasure for the mere hope that the supposedly transformative powers of democracy will turn large groups of savage neolithic moron thugs into temperate, classically liberal, peaceful societies that will no longer attack America or its allies (ally?) just because they will all get to decide the next few of their leaders by ballot before eventually electing another democracy-ending dictator to offer them the chance at achieving what they almost universally accept will be the Final Solution to all of their problems - all presented under the rubric of "national security" because even the brain-addled sheeple who demand tons magical solutions to problems (like "free everything for everyone forever") retain enough cognitive ability to render a direct appeal to Wilsonianism electorally infeasible. American foreign policy has been the playground of idealists since the early 20th Century, and now we are finally seeing a truthful linguistic evolution for the terms used in the promotion of Wilsonian idiocy.