Maybe GITMO wasn't such a bad idea?

[akv]

Ironic?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...of+the+Ticket)

Now that the Obama administration's Justice Department appears ready to deny the publicity-seeking self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, his alleged cohorts and their defense attorneys the brightly-lit global stage of Broadway and the Big Apple for the trials, the debate begins over where best to hold them.

Chicago's South Side Hyde Park doesn't seem to be on the list of possibles. Nor Eric Holder's neighborhood.

Gee, if only the United States had a secure military-type prison 90 miles offshore where it could not only safely house these accused possessed evildoers but try them as well.

Now comes a new Rasmussen Reports poll that could make President Obama hit his forehead with the palm of his hand: Why didn't we think of this?

Rasmussen found 44% of U.S. voters suggesting the trials of Guantanamo Bay prisoners be held in a place called Guantanamo Bay, which is 90 miles offshore on the island called Cuba.

Thirty-three percent don't like that idea, but weren't volunteering their town. And 23% couldn't decide.

Nineteen months ago, 54% of Americans thought these foreign guys should be tried by military tribunals on account of their allegedly being involved in a military conflict against the United States and its people.

As a result, the Obama administration decided to try them instead in civil courts as if the accused were American citizens full of rights. This decision can't be changed because Holder's Justice Department already dropped the military charges before placing the civil ones.

So now today, more than two-thirds of Americans (67%) think military tribunals are or would have been the route to go.

There's another homemade Obama catch. During the 2008 presidential campaign, as part of his change platform, the ex-community organizer promised to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility because it had a bad reputation. As opposed to, say, any other prison on the planet, which typically are so well-thought-of that the facilities must have barbed wire all around to keep people from breaking in.

Guantanamo was especially ill-thought of among millions of people overseas who can't vote in the U.S.

In fact, despite warnings that it was more difficult than it seemed from Springfield, on his second day in office before he'd even found all the White House bathrooms, Obama signed a real Executive Order ordering the Guantanamo prison closed by the end of 2009.

He couldn't follow his own Executive Order. Missed the deadline. Completely blew it.

In fact, it was more difficult than it seemed from Springfield, or anywhere else for that matter. Turns out, few of the other countries that were so eager to have Guantanamo closed were so eager to imprison its inhabitants on their soil. And it also turns out that, if released, about 1 in 5 of these guys went right back into combat against American and allied troops, which is a dangerous thing.

So despite the promises and the Executive Order, in fact, there's still no new or maybe firm date for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Although, by golly, it will be closed. Believe in it.

In the meantime, however, the secure facility is still there. Still secure. So are the prisoners. And the best part is, Guantanamo has no member of Congress to get his/her behind shot off by angry voters in this fall's midterm elections. As The Ticket pointed out here could happen in Illinois Tuesday.

-- Andrew Malcolm

[Richard]

A true 'Tar Baby' of a situation for the current administration...interesting graphic...and so it goes...

Richard's $.02

Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority
NYT, 25 June 2010

Stymied by political opposition and focused on competing priorities, the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013.

When the White House acknowledged last year that it would miss Mr. Obama’s initial January 2010 deadline for shutting the prison, it also declared that the detainees would eventually be moved to one in Illinois. But impediments to that plan have mounted in Congress, and the administration is doing little to overcome them.

“There is a lot of inertia” against closing the prison, “and the administration is not putting a lot of energy behind their position that I can see,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and supports the Illinois plan. He added that “the odds are that it will still be open” by the next presidential inauguration.

And Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who also supports shutting it, said the effort is “on life support and it’s unlikely to close any time soon.” He attributed the collapse to some fellow Republicans’ “demagoguery” and the administration’s poor planning and decision-making “paralysis.”

The White House insists it is still determined to shutter the prison. The administration argues that Guantánamo is a symbol in the Muslim world of past detainee abuses, citing military views that its continued operation helps terrorists.

“Our commanders have made clear that closing the detention facility at Guantánamo is a national security imperative, and the president remains committed to achieving that goal,” said a White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt.

Still, some senior officials say privately that the administration has done its part, including identifying the Illinois prison — an empty maximum-security center in Thomson, 150 miles west of Chicago — where the detainees could be held. They blame Congress for failing to execute that endgame.

“The president can’t just wave a magic wand to say that Gitmo will be closed,” said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking on a sensitive issue.

The politics of closing the prison have clearly soured following the attempted bombings on a plane on Dec. 25 and in Times Square in May, as well as Republican criticism that imprisoning detainees in the United States would endanger Americans. When Mr. Obama took office a slight majority supported closing it. By a March 2010 poll, 60 percent wanted it to stay open.

One administration official argued that the White House was still trying. On May 26, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, sent a letter to the House Appropriations Committee reiterating the case.

But Mr. Levin portrayed the administration as unwilling to make a serious effort to exert its influence, contrasting its muted response to legislative hurdles to closing Guantánamo with “very vocal” threats to veto financing for a fighter jet engine it opposes.

Last year, for example, the administration stood aside as lawmakers restricted the transfer of detainees into the United States except for prosecution. And its response was silence several weeks ago, Mr. Levin said, as the House and Senate Armed Services Committees voted to block money for renovating the Illinois prison to accommodate detainees, and to restrict transfers from Guantánamo to other countries — including, in the Senate version, a bar on Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. About 130 of the 181 detainees are from those countries.

“They are not really putting their shoulder to the wheel on this issue,” Mr. Levin said of White House officials. “It’s pretty dormant in terms of their public positions.”

Several administration officials expressed hope that political winds might shift if, for example, high-level Qaeda leaders are killed, or if lawmakers focus on how expensive it is to operate a prison at the isolated base.

A recent Pentagon study, obtained by The New York Times, shows taxpayers spent more than $2 billion between 2002 and 2009 on the prison. Administration officials believe taxpayers would save about $180 million a year in operating costs if Guantánamo detainees were held at Thomson, which they hope Congress will allow the Justice Department to buy from the State of Illinois at least for federal inmates.

But in a sign that some may be making peace with keeping Guantánamo open, officials also praise improvements at the prison. An interagency review team brought order to scattered files. Mr. Obama banned brutal interrogations. Congress overhauled military commissions to give defendants more safeguards.

One category — detainees cleared for release who cannot be repatriated for their own safety — is on a path to extinction: allies have accepted 33, and just 22 await resettlement. Another — those who will be held without trials — has been narrowed to 48.

Still, the administration has faced a worsening problem in dealing with the prison’s large Yemeni population, including 58 low-level detainees who would already have been repatriated had they been from a more stable country, officials say.

The administration asked Saudi Arabia to put some Yemenis through a program aimed at rehabilitating jihadists but was rebuffed, officials said. And Mr. Obama imposed a moratorium on Yemen transfers after the failed Dec. 25 attack, planned by a Yemen-based branch of Al Qaeda whose members include two former Guantánamo detainees from Saudi Arabia.

As a result, the Obama administration has been further entangled in practices many of its officials lamented during the Bush administration. A judge this month ordered the government to release a 26-year-old Yemeni imprisoned since 2002, citing overwhelming evidence of his innocence. The Obama team decided last year to release the man, but shifted course after the moratorium. This week, the National Security Council decided to send the man to Yemen in a one-time exception, an official said on Friday.

Meanwhile, discussions have faltered between Mr. Graham and the White House aimed at crafting a bipartisan legislative package that would close Guantánamo while bolstering legal authorities for detaining terrorism suspects without trial.

Mr. Graham said such legislation would build confidence about holding detainees, including future captures, in an untainted prison inside the United States. But the talks lapsed.

“We can’t get anyone to give us a final answer,” he said. “It just goes into a black hole. I don’t know what happens.”

In any case, one senior official said, even if the administration concludes that it will never close the prison, it cannot acknowledge that because it would revive Guantánamo as America’s image in the Muslim world.

“Guantánamo is a negative symbol, but it is much diminished because we are seen as trying to close it,” the official said. “Closing Guantánamo is good, but fighting to close Guantánamo is O.K. Admitting you failed would be the worst.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us...Fi+sxy+PpqfhOA

[Dusty]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110108/...namo_detainees

[Oldrotorhead]

I am not impressed with Obama's DOJ ability to prosecute anyone where there is a possibility political fall out, think Philly's Black Pussies. I was not impressed with Bush's handling of those nice people in Gitmo either. Seven years of no action from Bush then 2 more from Obama. Bernie Madoff should have been a Muslim murderer rather than a Jewish thief.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Oldrotorhead

I am not impressed with Obama's DOJ ability to prosecute anyone where there is a possibility political fall out, think Philly's Black Pussies. I was not impressed with Bush's handling of those nice people in Gitmo either. Seven years of no action from Bush then 2 more from Obama. Bernie Madoff should have been a Muslim murderer rather than a Jewish thief.

"...not impressed with Bush's handling..."? Why not?

[Peregrino]

Given that the only SANE alternative is summary execution, either on the battlefield or against a berm (after extracting any information of intel value by whatever means necessary), my moral compass kind of likes indefinate incarceration at Club Gitmo. Reminds me of the average maximum security prison in the States - inmates live longer and better incarcerated than they ever would on the streets. Since enemy combatants aren't citizens why do we care. Truthfully they aren't even entitled to most LLW protections (UN "freedom fighter" clauses aside).

Bottom line - Sounds like Congress gave him an opportunity to save face with his base. One of the reasons I dislike our current method of getting bills through Congress. I would have liked to see this go through on its own - just to see what he would do if forced to address it directly.

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by Dusty

"...not impressed with Bush's handling..."? Why not?

There were no trials, for any of these people that are in Gitmo. After 6,7,or 8 years what possible intel. could they provide? Military tribunal works for me and I think pass muster with Geneva Conventions as well as other international agreements about dealing with these people. Of those released about 25% are believed to have returned to the fight according to recent news articles. If there is ever a good cause for a death penalty I think some of these people should qualify. What is the down side of killing some of these people? The big issue I have is that in seven years George Bush was in charge their status and condition remained the same. No executions, no prison sentences just getting fat at Gitmo.
This has continued for the first 2 years of Obama and likely will be the same for the next 2 years. If they are being held for the "duration" of hostilities just state that as our intentions and be done wit it.
I am not married to this opinion, if you disagree I'm open to listen to anyone with a logical argument. I realize my first post was short and did not explain my reason for the opinion, and I apologize for not making opinions clear.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Oldrotorhead

There were no trials, for any of these people that are in Gitmo. After 6,7,or 8 years what possible intel. could they provide? Military tribunal works for me and I think pass muster with Geneva Conventions as well as other international agreements about dealing with these people. Of those released about 25% are believed to have returned to the fight according to recent news articles. If there is ever a good cause for a death penalty I think some of these people should qualify. What is the down side of killing some of these people? The big issue I have is that in seven years George Bush was in charge their status and condition remained the same. No executions, no prison sentences just getting fat at Gitmo.
This has continued for the first 2 years of Obama and likely will be the same for the next 2 years. If they are being held for the "duration" of hostilities just state that as our intentions and be done wit it.
I am not married to this opinion, if you disagree I'm open to listen to anyone with a logical argument. I realize my first post was short and did not explain my reason for the opinion, and I apologize for not making opinions clear.

Remember this?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5521062

[lindy]

Originally Posted by Oldrotorhead

After 6,7,or 8 years what possible intel could they provide?

To whom? How does the US handle its own when POW/captives return?

Originally Posted by Oldrotorhead

Of those released about 25% are believed to have returned to the fight according to recent news articles.

Personally, I think the numbers are higher but regardless; is that acceptable? Is this really a war of attrition?

I am aware of two kinds of jihadists. (Note: I believe there is a distinct difference between a Muslim and a jihadist.)

1) diehards that really believe they are working on behalf of Allah and Islam. They have swallowed the "72 virgin" thing hook, line, and sinker. The only way to convince them otherwise is to grant them their wish and kill them before they kill Americans or our allies.

2) opportunists who are in it for influence, power, and/or money. Based on my limited experience, these people are DEFINITELY affected by extreme, public violence. Such violence creates the idea they WILL be hunted any time, any place and a safe haven does not exist. These people can be converted or convinced to lay down their arms. "Did you see what they did to Abu? Yeah, I am going back to selling pomegranates and you can keep your jihad. I'm out."

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Remember this?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5521062

This was almost 5 years ago, and offered a course of action that would pass muster.

Below taken from your NYT article.


"Essentially, Justice Stevens said that the - yes, the president can order military tribunals under the uniform code of military justice, but unless he gets specific authorization from Congress or makes some sort of showing of necessity - which he didn't do here - he can't deviate in a substantial way from the way military trials are normally conducted. And the president has done that here."

So what is the problem with a Military Tribunal?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Oldrotorhead

This was almost 5 years ago, and offered a course of action that would pass muster.

Below taken from your NYT article.


"Essentially, Justice Stevens said that the - yes, the president can order military tribunals under the uniform code of military justice, but unless he gets specific authorization from Congress or makes some sort of showing of necessity - which he didn't do here - he can't deviate in a substantial way from the way military trials are normally conducted. And the president has done that here."

So what is the problem with a Military Tribunal?

Easier to answer would be "what is the problem with Congress and the SCOTUS?"

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by lindy

To whom? How does the US handle its own when POW/captives return?



Personally, I think the numbers are higher but regardless; is that acceptable? Is this really a war of attrition?

I am aware of two kinds of jihadists. (Note: I believe there is a distinct difference between a Muslim and a jihadist.)

1) diehards that really believe they are working on behalf of Allah and Islam. They have swallowed the "72 virgin" thing hook, line, and sinker. The only way to convince them otherwise is to grant them their wish and kill them before they kill Americans or our allies.

2) opportunists who are in it for influence, power, and/or money. Based on my limited experience, these people are DEFINITELY affected by extreme, public violence. Such violence creates the idea they WILL be hunted any time, any place and a safe haven does not exist. These people can be converted or convinced to lay down their arms. "Did you see what they did to Abu? Yeah, I am going back to selling pomegranates and you can keep your jihad. I'm out."

First hostilities may go on for decades. The United States decides when hostilities end. Almost all of these people can be held that long. Why not state that intent ?

Second if or when they are returned the United States has options, Return them to the country where they were captured, or to their native country. Neither place may really want them, but their country of origin would more or less have to take them. Unless they want us to keep them for life.

Third I don't disagree with you on your types of terrorists.

Fourth 25% ( or more) returning to the conflict. That does not say to me that what ever method was used to determine who to release was working very well.

Fifth I agree with your two kinds of terrorists. But those that may be captured a second time are we just to send them back to Gitmo or release them again into the wild?

Your points are well made, but I still question both presidents handling of these people. Over all I think George Bush was a good President, I believe he is an honest man that in most things acted in the best interest of our Country in mind. I voted for him twice and do not question that those votes were correct. I just think that the prisoners could have been handled more quickly and in some better way.

[Oldrotorhead]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Easier to answer would be "what is the problem with Congress and the SCOTUS?"

Overall I don't think Congress and SCOTUS have an easy answer either.

Congress is changing, maybe for the better. I think. SCOTUS? We can only hope they all live and do not retire in the next 2 years. Hopefully POTUS will change in two years otherwise some of them are older that dirt and will not last 6 years.

In most thing I think George Bush did a good job. I voted for him twice and do not regret those votes for him.

[The Reaper]

Anyone who gets released gets a tracker chip and a microcharge embedded in their mastoid sinus.

Don't want it, stay in GITMO or institute a no prisoners policy.

We could also announce how helpful they were before dumping them back into their society. I doubt that would go over very big with their homies.

TR

[MtnGoat]

Originally Posted by Oldrotorhead

First hostilities may go on for decades. The United States decides when hostilities end. Almost all of these people can be held that long. Why not state that intent ?

Second if or when they are returned the United States has options, Return them to the country where they were captured, or to their native country. Neither place may really want them, but their country of origin would more or less have to take them. Unless they want us to keep them for life.

Third I don't disagree with you on your types of terrorists.

Fourth 25% ( or more) returning to the conflict. That does not say to me that what ever method was used to determine who to release was working very well.

Fifth I agree with your two kinds of terrorists. But those that may be captured a second time are we just to send them back to Gitmo or release them again into the wild?

Your points are well made, but I still question both presidents handling of these people. Over all I think George Bush was a good President, I believe he is an honest man that in most things acted in the best interest of our Country in mind. I voted for him twice and do not question that those votes were correct. I just think that the prisoners could have been handled more quickly and in some better way.

These are some great Points.. I would like to see a public debate over these and these articles.