PDA

View Full Version : Obama Gitmo is not going to close at all. Relocating the 'prolong detainees.'


memyselfI
05-21-2009, 07:43 PM
This fraud is going to move them from Cuban soil and the place called Gitmo but is going to continue with the same policies. Obots will herald his actions as 'change' and a promise kept and call it good. :shake:

I never thought I'd see Democrats become bigger hypocrites than Republicans but they are getting there....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

Obama Endorses Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Some

President Obama, Dick Cheney Deliver Dueling Speeches
Minutes after President Obama defended his policies on wanting to close Guantanamo Bay and his strategy for fighting terrorism, former Vice President Dick Cheney gave a rebuttal and defended Bush-era policies on why enhanced interrogation techniques were necessary and justified.

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 22, 2009

President Obama acknowledged publicly for the first time yesterday that some detainees at Guantanamo Bay may have to be held without trial indefinitely, siding with conservative national security advocates on one of the most contentious issues raised by the closing of the military prison in Cuba.

"We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country," Obama said. "But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."

Some human rights advocates criticized Obama for adopting the idea that some detainees are not entitled to a trial. Others said the president was boxed in by cases inherited from the Bush administration in which possible prosecution had been irretrievably compromised by coercive interrogation.

The president stopped short of saying he would institutionalize indefinite detention for future captives.

"The issue is framed pretty exclusively in terms of existing Guantanamo detainees," said Tom Malinowski, the head of Human Rights Watch's Washington office. "There is a big difference between employing an extraordinary mechanism to deal with legacy cases compromised because of Bush administration actions and saying we need a permanent national security regime."

But Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said employing preventive detention simply because some cases at Guantanamo are too difficult to prosecute involves the kind of legal expediency that Obama said was a hallmark of his predecessor's policies.

"My question is not only 'What happens to those people who may be perpetually in prison?' but 'What kind of precedent does that set for the future?' " Ratner said. "It's not one I find constitutional or acceptable. Opening that door even for a few Guantanamo detainees is anathema. He is closing Guantanamo physically, but he's repackaging it with a little more legal gloss."
ad_icon

Obama did not lay out the legal underpinnings of preventive detention yesterday, speaking only of "a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight." He could hold detainees under a law of war theory that they are combatants or, more radically, create a national security court under domestic legislation to back such a detention system. The Supreme Court has already ruled that detainees are entitled to a judicial review of their detention.

Even advocates of indefinite detention backed by judicial review, such as Jack Goldsmith, head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush administration and now a law professor at Harvard University, recognize that such a system is deeply controversial because the war against al-Qaeda is indefinite, the likelihood of mistaken identity is much higher than in traditional warfare in which combatants wear uniforms, and many of those detained are citizens of allied countries that do not view the conflict as a war and regard terrorism as an exclusively criminal matter.

"I don't think that those reasons argue for ending the detention rationale, I think they argue for being a hell of a lot more careful with the detention rationale, for making sure that we minimize mistakes, that we don't have erroneous long term detentions," Goldsmith said at a seminar this month with reporters at the Center for the Constitution at James Madison's Montpelier in Virginia.

Obama said any system of detention "must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified." Goldsmith and other scholars have said such oversight could include annual or bi-annual reviews by a national security court in which the government's burden of proof to extend detention increases over time.

An interagency panel led by the Justice Department is examining long-term detention policy and is expected to report this summer.

Apart from those who cannot be tried but must be held, Obama laid out four other categories that would apply to the 240 detainees remaining at Guantanamo: those who can be tried in federal court, those who will be brought before revamped military commissions, those ordered released by U.S. courts, and those who can be transferred to other countries.

Obama described preventive detention as the most difficult issue raised by Guantanamo. "Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al-Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans," he said.

He did not say why those offenses could not be prosecuted, but legal scholars have previously said that some intelligence may be too raw for court, and that some offenses now considered material support for terrorism were not crimes until counterterrorism laws were expanded after Sept. 11, 2001.

Another major constraint is evidence tainted by the abuse of prisoners. In the case of Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who allegedly planned to participate in the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon official in charge of referring detainees to trial before military commissions decided not to prosecute. Susan G. Crawford, a Bush appointee, told The Washington Post in January that "his treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case."

banyon
05-21-2009, 07:48 PM
what did you want to happen?

Hydrae
05-21-2009, 07:51 PM
My only concern at this point is that I thought our prisons were overcrowded already. Where are we going to put our pot smokers if we fill our domestic prisons with terrorists?

memyselfI
05-21-2009, 08:00 PM
what did you want to happen?

It's not what I want to happen. It's what should happen according to our laws and constitution. The Congress made a HUGE mistake giving so much power to the president to detain individuals without addressing what to do with them once they are detained. We could pretend this wasn't an issue when it was just Bush abusing the power. We figured it was his evil character or Republican corruption but that a different president would follow the law.

We have a feakin constitutional lawyer as POTUS and he's continuing and EXPANDING policies that have been deemed questionably legal and in some cases outright illegal.

memyselfI
05-21-2009, 08:00 PM
My only concern at this point is that I thought our prisons were overcrowded already. Where are we going to put our pot smokers if we fill our domestic prisons with terrorists?

Bahaha. Good question. Those pot smokers absolutely are a dangerous lot.

banyon
05-21-2009, 08:05 PM
It's not what I want to happen. It's what should happen according to our laws and constitution. The Congress made a HUGE mistake giving so much power to the president to detain individuals without addressing what to do with them once they are detained. We could pretend this wasn't an issue when it was just Bush abusing the power. We figured it was his evil character or Republican corruption but that a different president would follow the law.

We have a feakin constitutional lawyer as POTUS and he's continuing and EXPANDING policies that have been deemed questionably legal and in some cases outright illegal.

So, you don't know what you want to happen, but whatever happens, you'll be ready with a way to criticize the plan, right?

memyselfI
05-21-2009, 08:07 PM
So, you don't know what you want to happen, but whatever happens, you'll be ready with a way to criticize the plan, right?

I know what I want to happen. I want these people tried and convicted and incarcerated or put to death if that is the sentence. I want the laws of this country followed to the 'T." I want all "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed so that there will be no doubt that our country maintained it's moral, legal, and ethical high ground and dignity even when, especially when, dealing with people who were undeserving of it.

That is what I want Do I believe many people in this country have the backbone to want to see this happen and deal with the consequences when it does? Hell no. The Democrats claimed they did when it was Bush. Now that it's there guys bending and breaking the laws they are singing a different tune.

WoodDraw
05-21-2009, 08:10 PM
I know what I want to happen. I want these people tried and convicted and incarcerated or put to death if that is the sentence. I want the laws of this country followed to the 'T." I want all "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed so that there will be no doubt that our country maintained it's moral, legal, and ethical high ground and dignity even when, especially when, dealing with people who were undeserving of it.

That is what I want Do I believe many people in this country have the backbone to want to see this happen and deal with the consequences when it does? Hell no. The Democrats claimed they did when it was Bush. Now that it's there guys bending and breaking the laws they are singing a different tune.

If they can't be convicted in our civilian courts, should they be released even if we had inadmissible evidence that proves they're guilty?

dirk digler
05-21-2009, 08:14 PM
I know what I want to happen. I want these people tried and convicted and incarcerated or put to death if that is the sentence. I want the laws of this country followed to the 'T." I want all "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed so that there will be no doubt that our country maintained it's moral, legal, and ethical high ground and dignity even when, especially when, dealing with people who were undeserving of it.

That is what I want Do I believe many people in this country have the backbone to want to see this happen and deal with the consequences when it does? Hell no. The Democrats claimed they did when it was Bush. Now that it's there guys bending and breaking the laws they are singing a different tune.

Denise the reality is some of those guys will be impossible to go to trial in a US Federal Court for the simple reason they have had EIT\torture done to them.

Would you rather them become free or detained? Also the ones we are talking about are the worst of the worst.

BigMeatballDave
05-21-2009, 08:15 PM
These are not American citizens. They do not deserve due process under our billl of rights. I consider them prisoners of war. And, since the war is ongoing in Iraq, we can detain them without violating The Geneva Convention.

WoodDraw
05-21-2009, 08:24 PM
These are not American citizens. They do not deserve due process under our billl of rights. I consider them prisoners of war. And, since the war is ongoing in Iraq, we can detain them without violating The Geneva Convention.

Yep.

My problem with the previous policy has always been the judicial neverland that the prisoners were kept in. But, they don't automatically get access to our civilian judicial system. In a perfect scenario, that's what you'd like. But given the complexities and judicial lapses already, I have no problem with military tribunals. Just make the fair, and relatively open. Tell us why they are being tried by the military and not civilians.

If that happens, I have no problem with it.

KC Dan
05-21-2009, 08:49 PM
Would you rather them become free or detained? Also the ones we are talking about are the worst of the worst.
I'll take this for $200, Alex.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 09:55 PM
I know what I want to happen. I want these people tried and convicted and incarcerated or put to death if that is the sentence. I want the laws of this country followed to the 'T." I want all "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed so that there will be no doubt that our country maintained it's moral, legal, and ethical high ground and dignity even when, especially when, dealing with people who were undeserving of it.

That is what I want Do I believe many people in this country have the backbone to want to see this happen and deal with the consequences when it does? Hell no. The Democrats claimed they did when it was Bush. Now that it's there guys bending and breaking the laws they are singing a different tune.

I bet you are happy Obama stopped the practice of waterboarding so that we don't have anymore detainees who's cases are so legally f'ed up that they can't possibly be successfully legally prosecuted under out laws.

I'm curious what you would do with any of these detainees, particularly the handful of clear terrorists, if they can't be prosecuted successfully under our laws?

I tend to agree with you on this issue, but to banyon's point, I don't see an alternative that doesn't amount to setting free Osama Bin Laden.

Any suggestions?

jAZ
05-21-2009, 10:07 PM
Yep.

My problem with the previous policy has always been the judicial neverland that the prisoners were kept in. But, they don't automatically get access to our civilian judicial system. In a perfect scenario, that's what you'd like. But given the complexities and judicial lapses already, I have no problem with military tribunals. Just make the fair, and relatively open. Tell us why they are being tried by the military and not civilians.

If that happens, I have no problem with it.

I continue to have a problem with it, but I can't see any other way.

Unlike with Bush, I think this has to be applied to only those that can't be handled any other way.

I'd rather have denise explalin the perfect solution that doesn't involve putting Osama Bin Landen on a airplane and sending him back to Paikistan.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 10:23 PM
These are not American citizens. They do not deserve due process under our billl of rights. I consider them prisoners of war. And, since the war is ongoing in Iraq, we can detain them without violating The Geneva Convention.

Not true. The Constitution protects all "persons" citizens and foreigners in our country and in our jurisdictions. There's precedent on it too. If a foreigner commits a crime here they have the same rights to due process. Further the US govt has a track record of prosecuting terrorism as a crime too. They should be treated as criminals or POWs. We should declare war to clear the latter up better.

BucEyedPea
05-21-2009, 10:24 PM
[QUOTE=memyselfI;5784846]I know what I want to happen. I want these people tried and convicted and incarcerated or put to death if that is the sentence. I want the laws of this country followed to the 'T."[ /QUOTE]

That's exactly what I want too.

HonestChieffan
05-21-2009, 10:27 PM
I bet you are happy Obama stopped the practice of waterboarding so that we don't have anymore detainees who's cases are so legally f'ed up that they can't possibly be successfully legally prosecuted under out laws.

I'm curious what you would do with any of these detainees, particularly the handful of clear terrorists, if they can't be prosecuted successfully under our laws?

I tend to agree with you on this issue, but to banyon's point, I don't see an alternative that doesn't amount to setting free Osama Bin Laden.

Any suggestions?

How many people were waterboarded? Are they at Gitmo?

Id support a plan that Obo proposes if he proposes we leave them at Gitmo. Tell me, what do we gain by moving them from Gitmo to a different prison in a different place?

jAZ
05-21-2009, 10:44 PM
How many people were waterboarded? Are they at Gitmo?

Id support a plan that Obo proposes if he proposes we leave them at Gitmo. Tell me, what do we gain by moving them from Gitmo to a different prison in a different place?

Supposedly 3 and yes, they are at Gitmo. There is more to the story than just waterboarding. For example, the guy who's testical's were sliced during our renditition program, would seem unlikely to be able to be prosecuted. I think he was ultimately repleased, but I'm sure there are situations like that with people who weren't waterboarded, but also were mistreated and it interfears with their legal prosecution.

jAZ
05-21-2009, 10:51 PM
That's exactly what I want too.
I'm open to that outcome. Of course, that's like supporting motherhood and apple pie.

The question I'm not seeing anyone try to answer is how to make that happen successfully, and what to do with the cases where that outcome is impossible.

What do you do in that case?

dirk digler
05-21-2009, 10:54 PM
How many people were waterboarded? Are they at Gitmo?

Id support a plan that Obo proposes if he proposes we leave them at Gitmo. Tell me, what do we gain by moving them from Gitmo to a different prison in a different place?

HCF it is just not waterboarding it is any EIT that was used since they violate at least 3 amendments to the Constitution.

Gitmo is a paradise compared to a max or supermax prison.

memyselfI
05-22-2009, 06:12 AM
If they can't be convicted in our civilian courts, should they be released even if we had inadmissible evidence that proves they're guilty?

People are convicted all the time IN THIS COUNTRY due to evidence illegally obtained or otherwise tainted. We like to pretend trials are 100% fair but they are not. That is why this whole exercise of pretending they can't get a 'fair' trial in this country is such a joke. They can get what every other person who goes through our system is entitled to. Defense, their day in court, luck of the draw...

The ONLY reason they do not want these folks tried in open court is because their treatment will be made public and the war crimes committed will then have to be addressed. That is the ONLY FRIGGIN REASON anyone in our government does not want these folks tried in US courts.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 09:08 AM
It's not what I want to happen. It's what should happen according to our laws and constitution. The Congress made a HUGE mistake giving so much power to the president to detain individuals without addressing what to do with them once they are detained. We could pretend this wasn't an issue when it was just Bush abusing the power. We figured it was his evil character or Republican corruption but that a different president would follow the law.

We have a feakin constitutional lawyer as POTUS and he's continuing and EXPANDING policies that have been deemed questionably legal and in some cases outright illegal.

On at least a couple of different occasions, Congress came up with processes involving military commissions for determining the ultimate fate of these detainees.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 09:16 AM
Denise the reality is some of those guys will be impossible to go to trial in a US Federal Court for the simple reason they have had EIT\torture done to them.

Would you rather them become free or detained? Also the ones we are talking about are the worst of the worst.

That's not the reality as reported in this OP article:

He did not say why those offenses could not be prosecuted, but legal scholars have previously said that some intelligence may be too raw for court, and that some offenses now considered material support for terrorism were not crimes until counterterrorism laws were expanded after Sept. 11, 2001.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 09:17 AM
I bet you are happy Obama stopped the practice of waterboarding so that we don't have anymore detainees who's cases are so legally f'ed up that they can't possibly be successfully legally prosecuted under out laws.

More mythology.

Cannibal
05-22-2009, 09:17 AM
I want these people tried and convicted and incarcerated or put to death if that is the sentence. I want the laws of this country followed to the 'T." I want all "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed so that there will be no doubt that our country maintained it's moral, legal, and ethical high ground and dignity even when, especially when, dealing with people who were undeserving of it

Despite MEMEME being a mammoth twat. I agree with her here.