|
Maybe GITMO wasn't such a bad idea?
1 Attachment(s)
Ironic?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...of+the+Ticket) Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
A true 'Tar Baby' of a situation for the current administration...interesting graphic...and so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin 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 |
Ha ha
|
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. :munchin
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5521062 |
Quote:
Quote:
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." |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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 |
Quote:
|
"a program aimed at rehabilitating jihadists"
What the heck is that? And how does one re-habilitate a religious fanatic who has dedicated his/her life to persuing a holy war to kill all who are not faithful followers of Islam?? I think that we should all pitch in and purchase one-way tickets for these people so that they can become personally acquainted with AQ or the Talibs in order to better flesh out this rehabilitation program of theirs....if they survive and make friends, then our guys come home, right? :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
#1 Then fed to the pigs? #2 Would that mean no Paradise and no virgins? If the answer to question #2 is yes then maybe question #1 is worth considering. Firing squad alone might just help them reach their goal of reaching Paradise, adding the factor of an unclean death I really don't know just asking. I know this would caused problems back in their neighborhood. I know it is an in your face action and I really don't think politicians would consider it. Honest question is it worth considering? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
This one might severely curtail the current administration's 2012 plans when their 'voting base' voices their feelings on it.
And so it goes... Richard :munchin U.S. Prepares to Lift Ban on Guantánamo Cases NYT, 19 Jan 2011 The Obama administration is preparing to increase the use of military commissions to prosecute Guantánamo detainees, an acknowledgment that the prison in Cuba remains open for business after Congress imposed steep new impediments to closing the facility. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is expected to soon lift an order blocking the initiation of new cases against detainees, which he imposed on the day of President Obama’s inauguration. That would clear the way for tribunal officials, for the first time under the Obama administration, to initiate new charges against detainees. Charges would probably then come within weeks against one or more detainees who have already been designated by the Justice Department for prosecution before a military commission, including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the American destroyer Cole in Yemen; Ahmed al-Darbi, a Saudi accused of plotting, in an operation that never came to fruition, to attack oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz; and Obaydullah, an Afghan accused of concealing bombs. Preparations for the tribunal trials — including the circulation of new draft regulations for conducting them — were described by several administration officials familiar with the discussions. A spokeswoman for the military commissions system declined to comment. With the political winds now against more civilian prosecutions of Guantánamo detainees, the plans to press forward with additional commission trials may foreshadow the fates of many of the more than 30 remaining detainees who have been designated for eventual prosecution: trials in Cuba for war crimes before a panel of military officers. The administration is also preparing an executive order to create a parole board-like system for periodically reviewing the cases of the nearly 50 detainees who would be held without trial. Any charging of Mr. Nashiri would be particularly significant because the official who oversees the commissions, retired Vice Adm. Bruce MacDonald of the Navy, may allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty against him — which would set up the first capital trial in the tribunal system. The Cole bombing killed 17 sailors. Mr. Nashiri’s case would also raise unresolved legal questions about jurisdiction and rules of evidence in tribunals. And it would attract global attention because he was previously held in secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons and is one of three detainees known to have been subjected to the drowning technique known as waterboarding. Lt. Cmdr. Stephen Reyes of the Navy, a military lawyer assigned to defend Mr. Nashiri, declined to comment on any movement in the case. But he noted that two of Mr. Nashiri’s alleged co-conspirators were indicted in federal civilian court in 2003, and he made clear that the defense would highlight Mr. Nashiri’s treatment in C.I.A. custody. “Nashiri is being prosecuted at the commissions because of the torture issue,” Mr. Reyes said. “Otherwise he would be indicted in New York along with his alleged co-conspirators.” As a candidate, President Obama criticized the Bush administration’s tribunals. But after taking office, he backed a system in which some cases would tried by revamped military tribunals while others would go before civilian juries. He also pressed to close the Guantánamo prison. But last month, Congress made it much harder to move Guantánamo detainees into the United States, even for trials in federal civilian courthouses. That essentially shut the door for now on the administration’s proposal to transfer inmates to a prison in Illinois and its desire to prosecute some of them in regular court. More than a year ago, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. designated Mr. Nashiri, Mr. Darbi and Mr. Obaydullah for trial in a military commission. But they have lingered in limbo amid administration indecision about broader terrorism prosecution policies. The paralysis followed a backlash against Mr. Holder’s proposal to prosecute suspected conspirators in the Sept. 11 attacks in a Manhattan federal courthouse. Three other detainees were also approved for tribunals by Mr. Holder in 2009. Those cases have progressed — two pleaded guilty last year, and the third is scheduled for trial at Guantánamo next month. But the charges in those cases were left over from the Bush administration. While Mr. Nashiri and Mr. Darbi had also been charged in tribunals in the Bush administration, their cases were later dropped and must be started over. The process of charging Mr. Obaydullah had started under the Bush administration, but it was frozen before completion. Mr. Nashiri would be the first so-called high-value detainee — a senior terrorism suspect who was held for a time in secret C.I.A. prisons and subjected to what the Bush administration called “enhanced interrogation techniques” — to undergo trial before a tribunal. Another former such detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, was convicted in federal civilian court for playing a role in the 1998 Africa embassy bombings. While Mr. Ghailani faces between 20 years and life in prison, many Republicans have pointed to his acquittal on 284 related charges — and a judge’s decision to exclude an important witness because investigators learned about the man during Mr. Ghailani’s C.I.A. interrogation — to argue that prosecuting terrorism cases in federal court is too risky. Mr. Nashiri’s treatment was apparently more extreme than Mr. Ghailani’s. The C.I.A. later destroyed videotapes of some waterboarding sessions. Moreover, the C.I.A. inspector general called Mr. Nashiri the “most significant” case of a detainee who was brutalized in ways that went beyond the Bush administration’s approved tactics — including being threatened with a power drill. Last year, Polish prosecutors investigating a now-closed C.I.A. prison granted Mr. Nashiri “victim status.” An effort to prosecute Mr. Nashiri could also put a sharp focus on one of the crucial differences between federal civilian court and military commissions: the admissibility of hearsay evidence — statements and documents collected outside of court. Much of the evidence against Mr. Nashiri consists of witness interviews and documents gathered by the F.B.I. in Yemen after the bombing. Prosecutors may call the F.B.I. agents as witnesses to describe what they learned during their investigation — hearsay that would be admissible under tribunal rules, but not in federal court. It remains unclear whether the Supreme Court would uphold a tribunal conviction that relied on such evidence. Mr. Nashiri’s case would also test another legal proposition: whether a state of war existed between the United States and Al Qaeda at the time of the Cole bombing — before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the authorization by Congress to use military force against their perpetrators. The United States initially handled the Cole attack as a peacetime terrorism crime, but the government now contends that a state of armed conflict had legally existed since 1996, when Osama bin Laden declared war against the United States. The question is important because military commissions for war crimes are generally understood to have jurisdiction only over acts that took place during hostilities. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/20trials.html |
Executive Order--Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantánamo Bay
PART I OF II
From whitehouse.gov <<LINK>> Quote:
|
Executive Order--Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantánamo Bay
PART II OF II
Quote:
|
+1 TR. Let's direct link them to a drone...
|
Even when the Democrats had absolute power they didn't shut down Gitmo. Probably why it took less then two years for them to lose much of that power. Not that Republicans a great track record either.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:35. |
Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®