I don't know if Gitmo was right or wrong, but I don't think Bush and his advisors would've been so staunch about it for no good reason. There are some really bad dudes in there.


Nobody can prove the extent of the torture -- and yes, I imagine we tortured the poor babies.


But those who rail against Gitmo suggest the torture was rampant. I for one figure it was a non-standard option available to the interrogator, and would imagine it wasn't needed much.


Why not use torture? Well, because you get innaccurate results. They lie, just to make you stop torturing them. It's never been an effective interrogation technique. Ever.


I would guess that most of the intelligence was gotten from more subtle techniques, such as drugging, cross-examining, and passive observation.


Or, if they really wanted some answers quick, they sent these guys to Egypt with a tape recorder and some rope, then asked the Egyptians to return the tape recorder, keep the rope. Those prisons won't get shut down, count on that.


Anyway, closing Gitmo won't help our situation. I'm not sure keeping it open helped, either.


It'll be interesting to see what Obama does with new guys he collects in Afghanistan, though, because he can't exactly turn them loose into the mountains, nor can he bring them to public courts in the US. And if Obama nets Osama (which he probably will), then what the hell are you gonna do with ~that~ guy?


Closing Gitmodoesn't make a lick of sense to me. Hell, I can't believe they told the public in the first place!


It's strictly a political move so Obama can gain more popularity in France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and those in the US who believe the torturing was rampant (which we'll never know for sure).


I don't think it'll change a thing, other than Obama's ratings.


- Saul