Obama To Order Closing Of Gitmo
Tweet
Just one part of making America into America again.
President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to issue an executive order his first week in office — and perhaps his first day — to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, according to two presidential transition team advisers.
It’s unlikely the detention facility at the Navy base in Cuba will be closed anytime soon. In an interview last weekend, Obama said it would be ‘a challenge’ to close it even within the first 100 days of his administration.
But the order, which one adviser said could be issued as early as Jan. 20, would start the process of deciding what to do with the estimated 250 al-Qaida and Taliban suspects and potential witnesses who are being held there. Most have not been charged with a crime.
39 Responses to “Obama To Order Closing Of Gitmo”
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Romney Biographer: Candidate Grew Up In A “Series Of Bubbles”
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
So it’s a symbolic gesture and won’t that won’t accomplish much of anything.
Got it.
Close Gitmo. Ok, now what?
Were are we going to put the bad guys? Maybe we should just let them go?
It’s kind of a wacky idea, I know, but maybe we could hold trials to see if they are in fact bad guys? Of course, being held indefinitely without any charges against them and without any legal standing might have turned some into bad guys, but that’s the price we pay for Protecting Freedom(tm).
You’re right, Joaquin… fuck them brown people. They’re bad people because I trust Bush to know that they’re bad people. Sure, we don’t need to try them in court – just look at them! They LOOK like terrorists, am I right? So let’s just hold them indefinitely without trial, because that’s the only way to keep America safe.
We should open up a whole bunch of new prisons too, and herd up all the Muslims, and lock ‘em up and throw away the key. Fuck them. If they didn’t want to be imprisoned unfairly then they should have been born white Christians.
You fucking asshole.
Lefties accross the spectrum must be cheering at this news instead of asking “What do we do with the detainees?”
* Let them go? Sure, just don’t start whining if suicide bombings jump 35% next month.
* House them somewhere on the mainland? Not even Berkley would resist becoming NIMBYs.
I await your unicorn-filled solution with baited (and somewhat stinky) breath…
I realize it’s a wacky idea, but try them under the rule of law? See, not that complicated.
Farris, as usual, you’re an idiot. But then I should expect nothing less.
You give the detainees their day in court. Try them. If they’re found guilty of terrorist activity, then throw them in jail. If they’re not, you have to let them go.
This isn’t fucking rocket surgery. This is simple. Fuck, how can you possibly advocate holding people in prison without knowing whether they’re guilty of anything? You actually think it’s a good idea for the government to decide who they can and cannot imprison on a whim. Explain this to me.
These folks aren’t American citizens, you know. Why are you conferring upon them rights not afforded by either the Constitution nor the Geneva convention? Most, if not all, of those rights are inapplicable on a battlefield: if confronted by someone wielding an RPG, a soldier isn’t going to stop and Mirandize their attacker before taking them into custody.
Plus, holding proceedings in open court brings up all sorts of National Security issues. Since we’re not releasing the names of the folks at Gitmo, al Zawahiri and the gang can only guess as to who’s been captured and who’s been killed. But once you make things a matter of public record, they now know who’s been captured (and what future plans will have to be scuttled for fear of intelligence gathering). An open proceeding is tailor-made for captured criminals to pass off coded messages to their handlers back home.
If we were holding millions of Arabs on the shores of Cuba, I might be inclined to buy into the argument that the US is indiscriminatly rounding up “brown people”. But the article states that we’re only talking about 250 folks: not quite the epidemic it’s being made out to be. Plus, there’s this:
“…and others could be sent back to their native countries and held there. But many nations have resisted Bush administration efforts to repatriate the prisoners back home.”
If they’re home countries don’t feel its safe to house them on their shores, what makes you feel safe about housing them on *ours*?
Gitmo was an imperfect solution to an unwieldy problem. If Obama’s got a better idea, I’m all ears. But the simplistic “just give ‘em a day in court” is impractical on so many levels as to be nothing more than immature twaddle.
“These folks aren’t American citizens, you know. Why are you conferring upon them rights not afforded by either the Constitution nor the Geneva convention?”
Because sometimes when you’re protecting freedom and civilization, it’s nice to go above and beyond the bare minimum. Kinda helps the rest of the world see that you’re worth supporting and emulating.
“But once you make things a matter of public record, they now know who’s been captured (and what future plans will have to be scuttled for fear of intelligence gathering).”
If the bosses haven’t heard from them in five years, I really doubt they’re stupid enough to consider them still part of the plan.
This isn’t fucking rocket surgery. This is simple.
Really. Seriously. I find it amazing that the right wingers in this thread are acting as if no one in the Obama administration has even thought of these questions. Read the actual article at the link, guys. They’re well ahead of you.
Second, the right’s answers to these questions would suggest they think there are only two options: Either we all die in a flurry of terrorist attacks from suddenly released Gitmo detainees or we keep these people in jail forever without charges or a trial.
We’ll just forget the ridiculous notion that Farris thinks he could actual posit a percentage estimate of increased terrorism as a result of the first option and focus on the second.
The idea of holding people indefinitely without charges or trial is so anathema to any and every tradition of justice in a liberal democracy it’s still shocking that this is exactly what the Bush administration seemed intent on doing when it turned to Gitmo a detention center in the first place.
Add to that the fact that we’ll be likely housing them in a stateside jail until their trial. Consistently amazes me how many basic fundamental constitutional rights that wingnuts are willing to give up (for someone else) to get some illusion of security.
Wingnuts are cowards. Plain and simple. So cowardly they are willing to give up the very IDEA of America.
if confronted by someone wielding an RPG, a soldier isn’t going to stop and Mirandize their attacker before taking them into custody.
Certainly not. they are going to shoot them. But that isn’t where a majority of the detainees came from, is it? A lot of them were turned in by people with grudges and axes to grind.
Jay: So it’s a symbolic gesture and won’t that won’t accomplish much of anything.
Got it.
Uh, no you don’t.
Would that the crimes of Bush et al could be swept away in a day. Alas, some messes are so big they take a bit of time to sort out. But at least the process to actually doing it will begin.
I await your unicorn-filled solution with baited (and somewhat stinky) breath…
We liberals were hoping you chickenhawks would finally back up your tough blog comment talk and enlist so you could help protect America from the worst of the worst (except for the ones we released).
SaveFarris: Lefties accross the spectrum must be cheering at this news instead of asking “What do we do with the detainees?”
First, “Lefties accross the spectrum” ???
Second, yeah, most of the folks I’ve spoken with are asking that question. But usually as part of the sentence “Why didn’t Bush figure out what do we do with the detainees when he first started this mess?”
Last, what exactly is your suggestion Farris? Continue to hold them indefinitely without any charges being filed?
mambochicken: You give the detainees their day in court. Try them. If they’re found guilty of terrorist activity, then throw them in jail. If they’re not, you have to let them go.
Exactly right. And those who are freed we may very well have turned into enemies who, although guilty of nothing before, may now turn around and try to atack us. But part of the rule of law (at least in the US (supposedly)) is not arresting people for crimes they have not yet committed.
Our chickens are likely to come home to roost. It’s something we’ll have to guard against but a direct consequence of our “leaders” breaking laws in the first place. Are we now to continue to break the laws to make things better? Yeah, that always works.
SaveFarris: These folks aren’t American citizens, you know. Why are you conferring upon them rights not afforded by either the Constitution
I must have missed to place where the Constitution says “These laws apply only to citizens. Non-citizens shall have no legal rights whatsoever.”
SaveFarris: Since we’re not releasing the names of the folks at Gitmo, al Zawahiri and the gang can only guess as to who’s been captured and who’s been killed. But once you make things a matter of public record, they now know who’s been captured (and what future plans will have to be scuttled for fear of intelligence gathering).
You’re an idiot. We’ve held these people for up to 5 years. Do you really think they have any useful info as to current plans? And I suppose if you were running a terrorist group you’d say to yourself “Someone who knows my plans is missing. Maybe they’ve been captured. I dunno. But no problem. I won’t change a thing.” but then you’re stupider than the average terrorist.
Save Farris: If we were holding millions of Arabs on the shores of Cuba, I might be inclined to buy into the argument that the US is indiscriminatly rounding up “brown people”. But the article states that we’re only talking about 250 folks
Ah. So, one million is too many but 250 isn’t enough to get bothered about. Please enlighten me. How many people need to be involved before it becomes a problem? 500? 5,000? Does it not matter until it gets into the 5-digit number range?
Shorter SaveFarris: We need some sort of final solution for these vermin.
Yup, let’s give them their day in court. Nothing could be simpler!
As SaveFerris pointed out, were they properly Mirandized? If not, that’often grounds for immediate release.
Will they have the right to confront their accusers? If so, then we better be prepared to bring the troops that actively captured them (or received them from allied groups) on hand to testify. As well as any people from those allied groups who caught them and turned them over. And any and all people involved in the intelligence behind their capture?
What will they be charged with in a US court? Will their attorneys bring up the notion that one is not subject to American laws in, say, Afghanistan? Does the US judicial system cover non-Americans committing acts in places that do not fall subject to American law, and do not violate the local laws that hold sway?
What will the world say if we start arguing that some guy in Afghanistan who has never set foot in the United States is tried and convicted of violating American laws for deeds committed in the hinterlands of Afghanistan? Will they see this as the United States declaring that our laws supersede the laws of other nations within their own borders?
Should a number of detainees be released and return to waging jihad (as has happened numerous times) and US troops get flown back stateside to testify in trials, will they decide that taking prisoners is more of a pain in the ass than they’re worth?
Just a few simple questions…
J.
“If not, that’often grounds for immediate release.”
Unlike you Jay, many judges are highly educated people who would be able to handle the complexities of these different cases. We know for a fact that many of the prisoners in Gitmo are completely innocent, having been caught up in “dragnet” style arrests. People ratted each other out for hundred dollar bills. Giving them proper trials isn’t tantamount to “letting them go,” as much as you’d like to think it is.
Personally, as a firm believer in American values like “innocent until proven guilty” and all that flim-flam that you and your fellow torture-mongers like to talk tough about, Gitmo remains a huge stain on American integrity and idealism. But we have an adult, competent president now who’s going to do the right thing and shut it down. It might take a while, but we’re dealing with eight years of Republican damage to the Constitution. It’ll take some time to set things right.
I know it’s hard to believe that we now have a leader who can deal with complexity, but get used to it.
Shorter Jaim: “I got nothing, but I hate Bush and I love Obama, so it’ll all be better.”
J.
We already did try and convict some guy in Afghanistan for deeds committed in the hinterlands of Afghanistan, Tea. Bin Laden’s driver was sentenced to time served, if I remember correctly. Try to keep up with the news. It was in all the papers.
When Jaim says that “Unlike you, many judges are highly educated people who would be able to handle the complexities of these different cases,” it doesn’t mean, “I got nothing.” See, some people really ARE qualified to deal with this stuff.
Others are only qualified to be Bush-apologist hacks who will say anything to defend actions they imagine are keeping them safe in their urine-soaked sheets at night.
Last October, the son of former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor was convicted in US court of crimes committed in Liberia and Sierra Leone, under a US law that has been on the books since 19fuckin94.
So please take your finely honed legal arguments to Wizbang.
I’m for letting them all go. Let’s just scatter them across US cities. Some in Philly. Some in Atlanta. Some in Boston. It will all be fine.
I’m for letting them
all goenlist to fill the ranks. Let’s just scatter them acrossUS citieshot zones. Some inAtlantaBasra. Some inBostonKabul. It will all be fine.Fixed.
J.T. Just a few simple questions…
That should have been asked of Bush BEFORE opening the can of worms, correct?
Don’t blame me. I was trying to ask them.
J.T. Yes, we may have to release people who didn’t hate us before we abused them for years, but now have sworn lifelong enmity.
Sometimes democracy is messy.
For myself, one innocent is too many; not in combat, but in the justice system, where things can be (but evidently haven’t been) more discriminate. Well done, Mr. new-President.
—
“Incapable of imitating examples of barbarity and forgetting recent provocations, the soldiers spared every man who ceased to resist.” – Alexander Hamilton
“Not only your Officers, and Soldiers have been treated with a Tenderness due to Fellow Citizens, & Brethren; but even those execrable Parricides [traitors] whose Counsels & Aid have deluged their Country with Blood, have been protected from the Fury of a justly enraged People.” – George Washingon, to the British
“I’m for letting them all go. Let’s just scatter them across US cities. Some in Philly. Some in Atlanta. Some in Boston. It will all be fine.”
You are the only person in this thread who has suggested that, shit-for-brains.
Jay Tea: “Yup, let’s give them their day in court. Nothing could be simpler!
As SaveFerris pointed out, were they properly Mirandized? If not, that’often grounds for immediate release.”
You have no fucking clue how the system works, do you?
Yet you feel compelled to give your opinions on these matters in a public forum.
That’s fascinating to me. Simply fascinating.
Jay Tea: As SaveFerris pointed out, were they properly Mirandized? If not, that’often grounds for immediate release.
Will they have the right to confront their accusers? If so, then we better be prepared to bring the troops that actively captured them (or received them from allied groups) on hand to testify. As well as any people from those allied groups who caught them and turned them over. And any and all people involved in the intelligence behind their capture?
[etc.]
Shorter JT: Following the rule of law is too hard. Let’s not bother.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed and 43 suspected of “returning to the fight.”
He said the figures, updated at the end of December, showed a higher rate of recidivism than seen in a previous report showing 37 former detainees as active militants.
He provided no details about the detainees or their countries of origin.
“The overall known terrorist re-engagement rate has increased to 11 percent” from about 7 percent, Morrell said.
The numbers were generated by the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency based on fingerprints, photographs and intelligence reports, he said.
“The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody.”
Worst.
Administration.
Ever.
Shorter JT: Following the rule of law is too hard. Let’s not bother.
This basically sums it up. Only to add that, as others have pointed out, the right decided that figuring out how to handle detainees from these wars was deemed “too hard” before they even started. The Bush administration had no plan for detainees and then came up with the worst of all possible plans: to keep detainees in prison forever, without charges or trial, and throw in a little torture for good measure.
It’s astonishing really that Jay Tea is concerned about miranda rights now but had no problem endorsing torture as a means of gaining evidence or confessions.
It’s also astonishing that legal eagle Jay Tea is raising questions about American jurisdiction while simultaneously, I can only assume, opposing any sort of international court system or international jurisdiction.
The larger point being that many of challenges that Gitmo raises are challenges created by right wing lack of planning and opposition to international courts and treaties, not mention its appalling support for things like torture.
That said, the answer to it all, remains: charge them, put them on trial and either imprison them in the US or let them go.
Working out the difficulties of that is something that our legal system — judges, lawyers, lawmakers — is perfectly capable of doing.
emphasis added
Returned? Were they actually terrorists before or only after their detention and treatment in US hands? And if they were before, then why were the cases against them so weak that they were released from custody?
Anyone? Anyone?
Only the Bush administration is capable of releasing the bad ones and keeping the innocent ones.
Your cut-and-paste job pretty much proves my point, joaquin. We need the rule of law, but we need it _done properly_.
Like I said, you’ve got shit for brains.
So, 11 percent of these detainees have “returned” to terrorism after being repatriated. That means that 89% have gone home to pick up the shattered pieces of their lives without turning to terrorism r threatening the U.S.
According to the some, it is therefore perfectly reasonable to lock 554 other human beings away for the rest of their lives, without charging them with any crime or putting them on trial, due to the actions of these 61 individuals.
Not to mention the fact that the Pentagon’s figure has been thoroughly debunked by Professor Mark P. Denbeaux if Seton Hall Law School in testimony before Congress