Failing to close GITMO

[Sonny Limatina]

I would like one. However, GITMO files have been leaked. Maybe something can be gleaned from that.

I read them. They don't take a position either way on whether you are president.

I'm still going with yes, unless someone (Trump?) proves me wrong.

 

[Wok]

In a word, no. You just don't turn the sign around like you do in the front window of the local cafe. You have to do something with the tenants under your charge. Nobody overseas wanted them. And nobody in Congress wanted them either. The operative phrase was, "not in my back yard." And this is just the issue of what to do with them in the interim while awaiting trial. It doesn't begin to address the problems obtaining convictions under civilian criminal procedural rules vs. the military. The acquittal of Ahmed Ghailani on 284 counts of murder and God knows what else sent a signal of just what sort of risks civilian prosecutions could run.

Again, I am no expert, but why all the hoopla about the sudden change of heart regarding the civilian court ordeal?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

By the way, someone remind me tomorrow to post the thing about Trump that I'm not posting tonight.

 

[unregistered]

 

[garbage can]

Making an ad hoc "non-Gitmo" just to house everybody that was in "real" Gitmo in order to close it in face-saving name only instead of verity woulda made shit worse, I reckon.

Not sure what you mean by "real" Gitmo.

But Gitmo is a naval base, that goes back to the Batista days.

To my knowledge, It didn't become a prison till the beginning of the Iraq war.

 

[Wok]

I read them. They don't take a position either way on whether you are president.

I'm still going with yes, unless someone (Trump?) proves me wrong.

I am not following you, but that is alright.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

In short, Obama found out the hard way that he wasn't in tune with the American people, or the political reality they represented. This is a problem that has plagued his administration from the very beginning, and will no doubt put an end to it as well.

Vette. Jesus. Read the article. It's not flattering. But it's also utterly at odds with this big messy plate of cliche-spaghetti you just served up.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Mike_Yates]

Excellent article in Saturday's Washington Post giving a blow-by-blow account of how the Obama administration failed in its efforts to close the terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

Far more than just a treatise on GITMO, however, the article may provide the best look so far at how President Obama has perfected that age-old political maneuver known as "dropping the ball."

There are top-secret prisons within the United States where terror suspects are held and brutally tortured day in and day out. They are called "blacksites."

Blacksites exist all over the world.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Again, I am no expert, but why all the hoopla about the sudden change of heart regarding the civilian court ordeal?

Because it was such a cause celebre with Obama during his campaign and in his first weeks as President. Obama was determined to prove that American justice, with all its protections for the defendant, was sufficient if not superior to a less transparent military tribunal system that some might see as less than objective.

The problem was that many of the defendants were not "taken into custody" by law enforcement officers giving Miranda warnings and protecting a "chain of evidence." They were usually captured by military soldiers either on or off the battlefield.

That difference, among others, makes it far riskier to prosecute military combatants in civilian courts. It was a reckless promise that Obama should have never made.

 

[Wok]

Because it was such a cause celebre with Obama during his campaign and in his first weeks as President. Obama was determined to prove that American justice, with all its protections for the defendant, was sufficient if not superior to a less transparent military tribunal system that some might see as less than objective.

The problem was that many of the defendants were not "taken into custody" by law enforcement officers giving Miranda warnings and protecting a "chain of evidence." They were usually captured by military soldiers either on or off the battlefield.

That difference, among others, makes it far riskier to prosecute military combatants in civilian courts. It was a reckless promise that Obama should have never made.

Ahh, OK. Holder was bemoaning that one when he reversed himself.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Because it was such a cause celebre with Obama during his campaign and in his first weeks as President. Obama was determined to prove that American justice, with all its protections for the defendant, was sufficient if not superior to a less transparent military tribunal system that some might see as less than objective.

The problem was that many of the defendants were not "taken into custody" by law enforcement officers giving Miranda warnings and protecting a "chain of evidence." They were usually captured by military soldiers either on or off the battlefield.

That difference, among others, makes it far riskier to prosecute military combatants in civilian courts. It was a reckless promise that Obama should have never made.

I call foul.

It was a cause celebre among the American people. Gitmo was one more thorn in our collective sides, and we almost universally wanted it to go away.

Obama was not out in front of this issue. He was pandering.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

There are top-secret prisons within the United States where terror suspects are held and brutally tortured day in and day out. They are called "blacksites."

Blacksites exist all over the world.

Not so much anymore, Mike. And they were never in the United States. You're late catching up with the facts.

You may not choose to believe this, but intelligence officers have seen too many of their colleagues careers ruined when they did the questionable bidding of a presidential "finding."

No intelligence officer in his right mind would knowingly violate American law on his own volition. He well understands how quickly he could wind up in jail. And appropriately so.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I call foul.

It was a cause celebre among the American people. Gitmo was one more thorn in our collective sides, and we almost universally wanted it to go away.

Obama was not out in front of this issue. He was pandering.

"We"? "Almost universally?" I'm not buying that. Whatever abuses occurred regarding interrogations or treatment of detainees are issues separate from the existence of the facility itself.

I understand that many people don't understand that. To them, you make the bogeyman go away by burning down his house. But that's horseshit.

There was and still is ample reason to keep the facility open even when the legal premise for its construction has long since gone and all other abuses have been curtailed. One of the best reasons is that's where the detainees are, and there is simply no compelling reason to move them anywhere else unless and until such time as their trials require it.

 

[Mike_Yates]

Not so much anymore, Mike. And they were never in the United States. You're late catching up with the facts.

You may not choose to believe this, but intelligence officers have seen too many of their colleagues careers ruined when they did the questionable bidding of a presidential "finding."

No intelligence officer in his right mind would knowingly violate American law on his own volition. He well understands how quickly he could wind up in jail. And appropriately so.

At "blacksites" ALL laws and even human rights are void. There are absolutely NO RULES, ANYTHING GOES!

You need to watch the straight-to-DVD movie "unthinkable" to understand this. The brutal "black ops" interrogation techniques (torture) are very realistically portrayed.

Quoted from wikipedia,

"A black operation or black op is a covert operation typically involving activities that are highly clandestine and often outside of standard military protocol or even against the law. A key factor in making an operation "black" is that it is carried out with great secrecy; in many cases no official records of the operation are kept".

Guantanamo bay is such blacksite, hundreds if not thousands of people suspected of having ties to terrorism have been brutally tortured in barbaric ways very similar to Vietnam, Saddam's Iraq, North Korea, communist China, the USSR, and so forth.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

"We"? "Almost universally?" I'm not buying that. Whatever abuses occurred regarding interrogations or treatment of detainees are issues separate from the existence of the facility itself.

I understand that many people don't understand that. To them, you make the bogeyman go away by burning down his house. But that's horseshit.

There was and still is ample reason to keep the facility open even when the legal premise for its construction has long since gone and all other abuses have been curtailed. One of the best reasons is that's where the detainees are, and there is simply no compelling reason to move them anywhere else unless and until such time as their trials require it.

You may be misunderstanding.

Public sentiment was against Guantanamo Bay, especially among independents and Democrats (that is, the people whose votes he was gunning for). He wasn't out in front of the issue, he was pandering for those (majority) votes.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 53 percent of Americans said the United States should shutter the controversial facility in Cuba and find another way to deal with the prisoners there....Most Democrats (68 percent) and independents (55 percent) said they would prefer another way to handle the detainees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103652.html

It's an interesting article above, but I have to disagree with your dire analysis of it. If he'd made a crusade of closing Gitmo, the right (and left) would be saying, Why is he focusing on this when there are many more important priorities right now?

From a practical standpoint, that's the timeframe in which he was pushing for HCR. It's not hard to imagine that the calculation might have been, if we're going to spend political capital on anything, it's going to be HCR.

Between the two initiatives, getting HCR passed shows far great fortitude than Gitmo slip shows weakness, imo.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Mike_Yates]

This is total bullshit Mike.

No it isn't...............

 

[unregistered]

 

[Mike_Yates]

Yeah....it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLufgELgjhk

 

[phrodeau]

By the way, someone remind me tomorrow to post the thing about Trump that I'm not posting tonight.

I wonder what that could have been.

Anyways, it seems that there was no possible way for Gitmo to be closed. So it's a bit silly for Trump to command that it remain open. Maybe he'll command the sun to rise tomorrow.

 

[oggbashan]

The problem with GITMO was and is the difficulty it creates for the US's allies and the propaganda it gives to the US's enemies.

Either:

1. Those detained there are prisoners of war and should be treated according to the Geneva Convention, or

2. Those detained there are guilty of criminal acts including terrorism and murder and should be tried by a court for those crimes. If the court doesn't find them guilty? They should go free.

3. If there is no evidence that will stand up in a US court? Those held at GITMO should be released.

4. If they are considered enemy combatants but there is no proof that they have committed war crimes? The Geneva Convention applies.

5. If there IS proof that they have committed war crimes? They should be tried by an international court at The Hague.

GITMO didn't cover any of the five points above. In international law the US has been (and is) acting illegally. That is an embarrassment.

What should have happened is that those detained should have been tried in a US court on US soil with all the protections that US law allows. Almost all would have been released under Habeus Corpus and could have sued the US government for illegal imprisonment.

It was, and is, a fucking mess. Any United Kingdom official involved or implicit in the transfer of anyone being taken to GITMO faces censure at least or a dishonourable discharge for breaching the UK's rules of engagement.