PDA

View Full Version : Obama Guantanamo will not close by January


wild1
09-26-2009, 10:37 AM
Morning Edition | Meredith Simons
Guantanamo May Not Close by January

One of President Obama's first promises upon taking office in January was that he would shut down the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year. But on Friday, administration officials acknowledged for the first time that the president's deadline may not be realistic anymore.

They say Obama is still committed to closing the facility, but gathering complete information on its 220 detainees and deciding whether and how to try them and what to do with them after they've been tried has consumed more time than officials expected it to. Government attorneys had to spend months compiling complete files about each detainee, information that had previously been scattered among various intelligence agencies.

But even with files on the detainees complete, there is still conflict over who needs to be held indefinitely and who needs to be tried, and among those individuals, whether they should be tried in civilian or military courts. But the most politically explosive question is where detainees should go after they've been tried. The administration has struggled to find foreign countries willing to accept those who have been acquitted, and American lawmakers have dug in their heels against the idea of transferring convicted terrorists to high-security prisons in the United States.

Read original story in The Associated Press | Saturday, Sept. 26, 2009

patteeu
09-26-2009, 11:56 AM
Obama fabricates, Gitmo won't open it's gates. Not quite bumper sticker material.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-26-2009, 12:02 PM
I have to say i'm shocked gimme some more O-Kool-aid!

max sleeper
09-26-2009, 02:57 PM
He closes it---the right bitches! He keeps it open----the right bitches! Pick a side and stick with it! Go Chiefs!

HonestChieffan
09-26-2009, 03:38 PM
Im on the right and i wont bitch if he keeps it open and keeps stocking it with more muslims.

patteeu
09-26-2009, 03:39 PM
He closes it---the right bitches! He keeps it open----the right bitches! Pick a side and stick with it! Go Chiefs!

The "right" isn't bitching about this, they're laughing. At you and the rest of the Obama faithful who believe Obama's promises.

Saul Good
09-26-2009, 04:13 PM
The "right" isn't bitching about this, they're laughing. At you and the rest of the Obama faithful who believe Obama's promises.

Exactly. There's nothing for the right to bitch about. It's just funny watching Obama trip over his dick in a situation that doesn't crash the economy or screw with my health care.

petegz28
09-26-2009, 04:14 PM
He closes it---the right bitches! He keeps it open----the right bitches! Pick a side and stick with it! Go Chiefs!

go smoke another one...

Bwana
09-26-2009, 04:22 PM
The "right" isn't bitching about this, they're laughing. At you and the rest of the Obama faithful who believe Obama's promises.

Bingo

http://www.quinnsquantumtechnologies.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/obaaama.jpg

memyselfI
09-26-2009, 04:53 PM
Wlell, well, well another CHANGEd promise.
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
09-26-2009, 07:35 PM
Wlell, well, well another CHANGEd promise.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yeah, shocking, isn't it?

***SPRAYER
09-26-2009, 08:46 PM
The "right" isn't bitching about this, they're laughing. At you and the rest of the Obama faithful who believe Obama's promises.

QFT

***SPRAYER
09-26-2009, 08:46 PM
He closes it---the right bitches! He keeps it open----the right bitches! Pick a side and stick with it! Go Chiefs!

But enough about me, let's talk about you!

:drool:

KILLER_CLOWN
09-26-2009, 11:23 PM
He closes it---the right bitches! He keeps it open----the right bitches! Pick a side and stick with it! Go Chiefs!

CLOSE IT DOWN! What would you like to see? Whatever the current flip/flop from dear leader is?

blaise
09-26-2009, 11:36 PM
He closes it---the right bitches! He keeps it open----the right bitches! Pick a side and stick with it! Go Chiefs!

The issue isn't that he's keeping it open, it's that he made a show and an issue about closing it, he patted himself on the back over and it was bullshite.
The hypocrisy is his.

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 12:35 AM
Gitmo was a quagmire created by Bush, and continues to be a quagmire under Obama.

Any useful evidence has been tarnished so bad that we face the choice of violating the Constitution by denying due process, or by letting bad guys go. Meanwhile we can't find a way to really get rid of the people who ARE innocent. And 200 prisoners have absorbed thousands and thousands of hours of government bureaucratic manuvering.

This is what happens when you create legal black holes. This is why the Founders created due process in the Constitution that guides our law.

Because it consumes all of us in the reckoning of what the fuck to do about it. It's unconsitutional and it's impossible. The decision he makes, no matter what it will be, will be dreaded and unacceptable to a whole lot of people. I hope he just comes around, mans up, and makes the right decision, the toughest decision: to grant due process to everyone in that prison, and to accept the results as the consequences of a free society.

Until then, civil libertarians such as myself will continue to light the way in hopes he'll come to his senses.

blaise
09-27-2009, 12:47 AM
Gitmo was a quagmire created by Bush, and continues to be a quagmire under Obama.

Any useful evidence has been tarnished so bad that we face the choice of violating the Constitution by denying due process, or by letting bad guys go. Meanwhile we can't find a way to really get rid of the people who ARE innocent. And 200 prisoners have absorbed thousands and thousands of hours of government bureaucratic manuvering.

This is what happens when you create legal black holes. This is why the Founders created due process in the Constitution that guides our law.

Because it consumes all of us in the reckoning of what the **** to do about it. It's unconsitutional and it's impossible. The decision he makes, no matter what it will be, will be dreaded and unacceptable to a whole lot of people. I hope he just comes around, mans up, and makes the right decision, the toughest decision: to grant due process to everyone in that prison, and to accept the results as the consequences of a free society.

Until then, civil libertarians such as myself will continue to light the way in hopes he'll come to his senses.

If he does it won't be until after he's elected to a second term. From a strategic standpoint he already got what he wanted because if you polled the public I bet the majority his supporters from the last election believe the problem is actually solved- that he closed it and it's all fine and dandy now. I'm not saying that as a slam on the awareness of people voting for the left, but rather the state of most voters in America on either side; they have a superficial knowledge I think.
There's no real reason from a reelection standpoint for him to change anything about it now. It gains him nothing to give them due process. Let's face it, most people that want that are going to vote for him anyway, so what's he lost if he doesn't? If he really believes that's the right thing to do he'll stall until he's reelected. Then he might do something. Until then I wouldn't hold your breath.

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 12:59 AM
If he does it won't be until after he's elected to a second term. From a strategic standpoint he already got what he wanted because if you polled the public I bet the majority his supporters from the last election believe the problem is actually solved- that he closed it and it's all fine and dandy now. I'm not saying that as a slam on the awareness of people voting for the left, but rather the state of most voters in America on either side; they have a superficial knowledge I think.
There's no real reason from a reelection standpoint for him to change anything about it now. It gains him nothing to give them due process. Let's face it, most people that want that are going to vote for him anyway, so what's he lost if he doesn't? If he really believes that's the right thing to do he'll stall until he's reelected. Then he might do something. Until then I wouldn't hold your breath.

You might have a point, I don't know. I don't care about the reelection perspective as much as I care about the rule of law, and our government blatantly embracing policies that violate the Constitution.

From a reelection standpoint, if I were Obama and I honestly had to care, I'd definitely close the prison well before 2012. Keeping it open through 2012 only threatens to stall enthusiasm on the left, which he clearly generates. And closing it leading up to or during the Republican primaries only adds fuel to the opposition's fire.

Do it now. Not only would it be the most politically astute manuver, it has the added benefit of being the right thing to do.

And DON'T just relocate them to another black hole (i.e. Bagram).

blaise
09-27-2009, 01:11 AM
You might have a point, I don't know. I don't care about the reelection perspective as much as I care about the rule of law, and our government blatantly embracing policies that violate the Constitution.

From a reelection standpoint, if I were Obama and I honestly had to care, I'd definitely close the prison well before 2012. Keeping it open through 2012 only threatens to stall enthusiasm on the left, which he clearly generates. And closing it leading up to or during the Republican primaries only adds fuel to the opposition's fire.

Do it now. Not only would it be the most politically astute manuver, it has the added benefit of being the right thing to do.

And DON'T just relocate them to another black hole (i.e. Bagram).

I guess know one can tell exactly what the benefits would play out to be from a reelection standpoint, but I disagree with your opinion. I think most of the voters that were swayed by the enthusiasm he generated don't know anything beyond him saying he would close it, and him signing some paper when he took office. People like you know the actual situation, but I just don't think most people do. Most think it's just closed, I think.

blaise
09-27-2009, 01:17 AM
And I'll say one other thing about it as far as reelection strategy. If he does give them process, and houses them here instead of somewhere like Bagram, it's going to give him a black eye if there's any stories of prisoner violence against correctional officers, or escaping, or of some terrorist attack on a federal prison. That's a bad story. You want to talk about giving the other side fuel for the fire? If those things happen they'll (his opponents) have plenty to kindle it. Especially if you mention things like the perceieved apologies to other nations, him appointing people like Van Jones and John Walker Lindh's defense attorney. It could be dangerous ground from a PR standpoint.

Smed1065
09-27-2009, 02:12 AM
WOW!

Smed1065
09-27-2009, 02:15 AM
omg bUSH HAD A MOTIVE, tHE mUSLIM DOES NOT?

LOL

aSSES, NOT MY WAY THE BLOW WAY..

Bwana
09-27-2009, 06:21 AM
omg bUSH HAD A MOTIVE, tHE mUSLIM DOES NOT?

LOL

aSSES, NOT MY WAY THE BLOW WAY..

:spock:

WTF? Good God! :shake:

http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/shop/images/tees7/1506_0L.jpg

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 09:18 AM
I guess know one can tell exactly what the benefits would play out to be from a reelection standpoint, but I disagree with your opinion. I think most of the voters that were swayed by the enthusiasm he generated don't know anything beyond him saying he would close it, and him signing some paper when he took office. People like you know the actual situation, but I just don't think most people do. Most think it's just closed, I think.

Honestly if I were to wager a guess, most people probably don't know what Gitmo is, other than a really tough prison. I bet they don't even know it's in Cuba, which is a sick wrinkle that I think would color a lot of people's opinions on the matter.

HonestChieffan
09-27-2009, 09:25 AM
Honestly if I were to wager a guess, most people probably don't know what Gitmo is, other than a really tough prison. I bet they don't even know it's in Cuba, which is a sick wrinkle that I think would color a lot of people's opinions on the matter.

why?

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 09:30 AM
why?

Because that's the primary argument the Bush adminstration made for setting it up, and the primary argument Obama makes for continuing it: because it's not on US soil, we don't have to apply American law.

That's literally why we have a prison in Cuba. And, for that matter, Afghanistan. And black sites across the globe. Because we're embracing this misguided belief that physical location actually matters somehow when a prisoner is in our custody.

HonestChieffan
09-27-2009, 10:02 AM
Oh Ok, thats your spin.

I thought you were making some point about us having a base in Cuba. Its been there a Long long time.

Would you not have a prison in Iraq or Afganistan even though we are supposedly at war in those places? What would you do, fly the poor devils here?

Don't you think our militray obeys the law?

patteeu
09-27-2009, 10:04 AM
Gitmo was a quagmire created by Bush, and continues to be a quagmire under Obama.

Any useful evidence has been tarnished so bad that we face the choice of violating the Constitution by denying due process, or by letting bad guys go. Meanwhile we can't find a way to really get rid of the people who ARE innocent. And 200 prisoners have absorbed thousands and thousands of hours of government bureaucratic manuvering.

This is what happens when you create legal black holes. This is why the Founders created due process in the Constitution that guides our law.

Because it consumes all of us in the reckoning of what the **** to do about it. It's unconsitutional and it's impossible. The decision he makes, no matter what it will be, will be dreaded and unacceptable to a whole lot of people. I hope he just comes around, mans up, and makes the right decision, the toughest decision: to grant due process to everyone in that prison, and to accept the results as the consequences of a free society.

Until then, civil libertarians such as myself will continue to light the way in hopes he'll come to his senses.

This is ridiculous. It wasn't a quagmire under Bush, it was a solution. It's become a quagmire for Obama only because he boxed himself in with his own bold, uninformed, incompetent, and anti-legal statements. There isn't a constitutional problem with Gitmo. At worst, there are constitutional issues that we've been sorting out over time and that may well have been completely resolved before the last election.

The only real problem with Gitmo under Bush was the PR problem that it became, but that never should have been a show stopper.

dirk digler
09-27-2009, 11:02 AM
First I will say that Pete was right and I was wrong.

Second, SecDef Gates says he was one of the people that advocated for a deadline.

During an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Gates recalled that during a national security team meeting with the Obama transition team on December 7, the topic of closing Guantanamo by executive order was discussed.

"And the question was, should we set a deadline?" Gates told George Stephanopoulos. "Should we pin ourselves down? I actually was one of those who said we should because I know enough from being around this town that if you don't put a deadline on something, you'll never move the bureaucracy. But I also said and then if we find we can't get it done by that time but we have a good plan, then you're in a position to say it's going to take us a little longer but we are moving in the direction of implementing the policy that the president set.


Third I still believe Gitmo will be closed though it is admittedly tougher to close because of the political and legal problems.

Tiger's Fan
09-27-2009, 11:15 AM
YOU LIE! (again)

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 08:44 PM
Oh Ok, thats your spin.

I thought you were making some point about us having a base in Cuba. Its been there a Long long time.

Would you not have a prison in Iraq or Afganistan even though we are supposedly at war in those places? What would you do, fly the poor devils here?

I'm okay with having a prison wherever, but the same laws must apply everywhere.

Direckshun
09-27-2009, 08:46 PM
There isn't a constitutional problem with Gitmo.

Due process.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2009, 10:30 PM
Due process.

No Judge, No Jury held without charges and often tortured.

Simplex3
09-27-2009, 11:11 PM
Due process.

Except these aren't criminals, they're not even prisoners of war, though that would probably be the closest they could get to making a claim for due process under US law. You're talking about enemy combatants who were not in uniform.

patteeu
09-28-2009, 06:35 AM
Due process.

Due process is already built into the Gitmo experience.

patteeu
09-28-2009, 06:36 AM
I'm okay with having a prison wherever, but the same laws must apply everywhere.

That's not how our system works.

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 10:15 AM
Except these aren't criminals, they're not even prisoners of war, though that would probably be the closest they could get to making a claim for due process under US law. You're talking about enemy combatants who were not in uniform.

Um, we declared WAR on enemy combatants who were not in uniform.

So yes, they are prisoners of war.

patteeu
09-28-2009, 11:54 AM
Um, we declared WAR on enemy combatants who were not in uniform.

So yes, they are prisoners of war.

That's not the definition of "prisoner of war". If you want to call them prisoners of war in a colloquial sense, I have no problem with it, but when you do, don't try to attach any legal significance to it.

wild1
09-28-2009, 12:08 PM
Um, we declared WAR on enemy combatants who were not in uniform.

So yes, they are prisoners of war.

If you're going to play semantics, then where was the declaration of this WAR?

According to your side, even though there was an authorization of force there was no authorization to use force. I'm interested to see where you think the WAR is constituted from.

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 12:18 PM
If you're going to play semantics, then where was the declaration of this WAR?

According to your side, even though there was an authorization of force there was no authorization to use force. I'm interested to see where you think the WAR is constituted from.

Our invasion of Afghanistan was an assault on Al Qaeda.

mlyonsd
09-28-2009, 12:23 PM
As a money saver I'd take down and reuse the 'Gitmo' sign hanging over the front gate when they eventually do move the camp.

It will end up being just a symbolic gesture because we'll be transferring a good share of Gitmo's inhabitants somewhere and nothing else will change.

Direckshun
09-28-2009, 05:36 PM
That's not the definition of "prisoner of war". If you want to call them prisoners of war in a colloquial sense, I have no problem with it, but when you do, don't try to attach any legal significance to it.

That's ridiculous. You're following the law to ridiculous conclusions.

The only thing separating these folks from prisoner of wars from the letter of the law is the fact they're not wearing matching jackets.

That's not enough for me to deny them human rights.

Chocolate Hog
09-28-2009, 05:59 PM
Gitmo should be closed so what it isnt closing by January?

KCWolfman
09-28-2009, 06:37 PM
Gitmo should be closed so what it isnt closing by January?
I was hoping Pelosi would step up and offer Alcatraz. This is the first time she has ever shut up about anything.
Posted via Mobile Device

Donger
09-28-2009, 07:15 PM
Because we're embracing this misguided belief that physical location actually matters somehow when a prisoner is in our custody.

Misguided belief?

patteeu
09-28-2009, 09:00 PM
That's ridiculous. You're following the law to ridiculous conclusions.

The only thing separating these folks from prisoner of wars from the letter of the law is the fact they're not wearing matching jackets.

That's not enough for me to deny them human rights.

They aren't being denied human rights. The issue is whether or not they are offered the special rights afforded to people who fall into the technical category of Prisoner of War as defined by treaty. The fact that they aren't wearing "matching jackets" is a fundamental breach of the law of war that sets up the special treatment of POWs in the first place. It's not just a fashion statement.

vailpass
09-29-2009, 12:57 PM
It's funny how some people know almost nothing about how things work in the world.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-29-2009, 02:18 PM
It's funny how some people know almost nothing about how things work in the world.

I'm well aware that evil does exist all over the world even here.