Obama Seeks Halt to Guantanamo Trials

[Lueda Alia]

I can't express how happy this makes me. All I can say is: thank you, Obama!

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - Hours after taking office on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/barackobama) ordered military prosecutors in the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals to ask for a 120-day halt in all pending cases.

Military judges were expected to rule on the request on Wednesday at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, an official involved in the trials said.

The request would halt proceedings in 21 pending cases, including the death penalty case against five Guantanamo prisoners accused of plotting the September 11 hijacked plane attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Prosecutors said in their written request that the halt was "in the interests of justice."

Read the rest here (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50K0S620090121).

[Jason Tate]

:appl: :appl: :appl:

:-d

[WarpSpeedChewy]

This is how it's done. Plus it's just the beginning too.

[patpratt]

Honestly I know nothing abut gitmo. Someone wanna explain why it should be shut down?

[Mitch]

Awesome.

[Paulb-182]

i also heard about this on the news this morning, and i also dont know why it needs to be shut down.. i thought it was a prison for people who worked for terrorist organisations? thats what i gathered anyway

[Mitch]

Honestly I know nothing abut gitmo. Someone wanna explain why it should be shut down?

Look stuff up about it. Really one of the easiest things to find criticism of, and even easier to understand it.

What I don't understand about this, however, is what will happen to the detainees--including the confessed terrorists. Would they be extradited or what?

[paper halo]

i also heard about this on the news this morning, and i also dont know why it needs to be shut down.. i thought it was a prison for people who worked for terrorist organisations? thats what i gathered anyway

You perhaps need to read a bit more about it.

I thought the controversy surrounding Guantanamo was fairly common knowledge.

[paper halo]

Look stuff up about it. Really one of the easiest things to find criticism of, and even easier to understand it.

What I don't understand about this, however, is what will happen to the detainees--including the confessed terrorists. Would they be extradited or what?

I did read somewhere that they will be sent back to their home countries, I'll try to find the article.

[Machu505]

i also heard about this on the news this morning, and i also dont know why it needs to be shut down.. i thought it was a prison for people who worked for terrorist organisations? thats what i gathered anyway

Lots of prisoner abuse and torture happens at Gitmo. A quick google search will result in pictures.

And I am so fucking happy.

[boykosaurus]

I did read somewhere that they will be sent back to their home countries, I'll try to find the article.

That is if the country wants them back.

[1Roth4]

I have mixed emotions about this decision. Perhaps a step in the right direction.

[loveisdead]

Awesome news. Glad he got right to work.

[1Roth4]

Awesome news. Glad he got right to work.

I think the man deserves to sleep in. He's has a hectic couple years. And another 4 more to come.

[loveisdead]

I think the man deserves to sleep in. He's has a hectic couple years. And another 4 more to come.
It's amazing to see how much he aged from when he announced he was running til now. The election really took a toll on him.

[1Roth4]

It's amazing to see how much he aged from when he announced he was running til now. The election really took a toll on him.

Oh for sure. He's getting some grey in him.

[captainhampton]

so are these prisoners going to eventually be released or will they just be having their trials in the US?

[Lueda Alia]

so are these prisoners going to eventually be released or will they just be having their trials in the US?
If they're found guilty, they would not be released. I'd think that's pretty obvious. We just don't know where and when their new trials will take place, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. I doubt the new administration would be doing this so quickly if they did not already have a plan.

[captainhampton]

fair enough

[boxingwithstars]

awesome news. i think it was a great idea to make this his first action as president, because it sends a message to the world that this administration is going to be different.

[splitsecond]

I am for shutting down the jail and some of the torture methods, but I am not OK with affording terrorists our constitutional rights and putting them through the regular judicial system. International law allows them to be tried by military tribunal, and that is where they should be tried.

[Lueda Alia]

Switzerland (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/1/21/13157/9736) and Ireland (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LL68636.htm) are offering to take some of the detainees. Nice.

[J.C.]

Honestly I know nothing abut gitmo. Someone wanna explain why it should be shut down?

offshore prisons where you can detain people without trial = a tad hypocritical coming from a country that overthrew Iraq in the name of spreading freedom and democracy

[uhaul610]

The situation at/of Guantanamo Bay has severely hindered the credibility of the United States all around the world. The human rights abuses that have been going on in this "prison for terrorists groups" are atrocious and make me cringe every time I end up reading an article discussing Guantanamo Bay and, trust me, I've read my fair share. I'm glad Obama is actually planning on shutting down the base. It makes me happy that our NEW president will do something to prevent US credibility from sinking even further (it hasn't hit the bottom yet, in my own opinion) and preventing outrageous human rights abuses.

However, I read earlier this week that the Guantanamo Bay situation will not be implemented during the first week of Obama's presidency and will be delayed? Has anyone else heard this?

[uhaul610]

I am for shutting down the jail and some of the torture methods, but I am not OK with affording terrorists our constitutional rights and putting them through the regular judicial system. International law allows them to be tried by military tribunal, and that is where they should be tried.

Well, to my knowledge, over 80% of those held in Gitmo aren't terrorists and are no where near being considered a terrorist (although, they might consider terrorism after their unjust stint in Gitmo) - from what I hear, those who actually have terrorist background would be tried while the others being let go. Don't quote me, I'm not 100% sure

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

he is saying that they fall into the ambiguous "enemy combatants" category. which depending on how you interpret it also us to place them in "custody"

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Honestly I know nothing abut gitmo. Someone wanna explain why it should be shut down?

BBC 's Gtimo FAQs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5134328.stm)

[patpratt]

BBC 's Gtimo FAQs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5134328.stm)

thank you

[singyoutocoma]

Thank God.

[lew_1987]

A lot of people will be unhappy about this, but I think this is good news on the whole.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Full text of order to close Gitmo:


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:


Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.
(b) "Geneva Conventions" means:
(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);
(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and
(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).
(c) "Individuals currently detained at Guantánamo" and "individuals covered by this order" mean individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants.
Sec. 2. Findings.
(a) Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at Guantánamo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500 such detainees from Guantánamo, either by returning them to their home country
more
(OVER)

2
or by releasing or transferring them to a third country. The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo are eligible for such transfer or release.
(b) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have been there for more than 6 years, and most have been detained for at least 4 years. In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facilities without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at Guantánamo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo.
(c) The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.
(d) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all individuals currently held at Guantánamo, and of whether their continued detention is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated with detentions at Guantánamo require a comprehensive interagency review.
(e) New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo.
(f) Some individuals currently detained at Guantánamo may have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted. It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted.
(g) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the circumstances of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo who have been charged with offenses before military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military commission process more generally.
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities,
more

3
they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another
United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantánamo Detentions.
(a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of each individual currently detained at Guantánamo (Review) shall commence immediately.
(b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials:
(1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;
(2) the Secretary of Defense;
(3) the Secretary of State;
(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(5) the Director of National Intelligence;
(6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and
(7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.
(c) Operation of Review. The duties of the Review participants shall include the following:
(1) Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all information in the possession of the Federal Government that pertains to any individual currently detained at Guantánamo
and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of any such individual. All executive branch departments and agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the Attorney General to provide information in their possession or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney General may seek further information relevant to the Review from any source.
(2) Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine, on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect to the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo, whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests
more
(OVER)

4
of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals for whom release or transfer is possible.
(3) Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United States law, the cases of individuals detained at Guantánamo not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such determinations.
(4) Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any individuals currently detained at Guantánamo whose disposition is not achieved under paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection, the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.
(5) Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo to facilities within the United States, and the Review participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation that may be appropriate.
Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary and appropriate to implement this order.
Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at Guantánamo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantánamo to ensure full compliance with this directive. Such review shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall be implemented immediately thereafter.
Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military
more

5
commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.
Sec. 8. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 22, 2009.

[loveisdead]

A lot of people will be unhappy about this, but I think this is good news on the whole.
Just as many people that are unhappy about it will be happy about it. Maybe even more.

[lew_1987]

Just as many people that are unhappy about it will be happy about it. Maybe even more.

I would say it's likely that there are more, yeah.

[loveisdead]

I would say it's likely that there are more, yeah.
I think between that and the likely international praise this will receive that it was a great move on Obama's part.

[lew_1987]

I think between that and the likely international praise this will receive that it was a great move on Obama's part.

It might earn him (some) favour in the Middle East, which is probably a good thing.

[pennie]

About time this happened.A fair trial is needed. Even though some of the prisoners being held have admited to being terrorists,you just don't know why they have admited to it.After being tortured for so long,people will admit to anything to make it stop.

Also, go on Ireland for taking some of em in! lol

[Machu505]

I love that people automatically assume that everyone in the detention camp is a terrorist. They seem to have forgotten that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

[Nevuk]

And those people were kept there for years.

[alaskan]

What are we going to do with captured terrorists? Now, with that facility slated for closure, the question arises once more.

It arose, in fact, in Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' first press conference today. I found this exchange somewhat amusing:

QUESTION: Robert, how can you say the executive order on Guantanamo Bay -- you can say clearly made America safer today, when it doesn't seem like you really have a plan yet about where the detainees are going to go?

GIBBS: Well, one of the -- I think one of the things that the commission and one of the things that the executive orders does is begin the process whereby the current administration can examine what exactly is going on and who exactly is there. ...

That's why I was careful in saying that the process by which this will undertake over the course of up to one year will determine, as Greg laid out, who's involved in what status of detainee, which group that they're involved in, and ultimately study how best to -- to deal with them in a way that protects our country, protects our values, and administers justice.

QUESTION: So these are terror suspects, and the American people are hearing, "Washington's going to study it." They're going to find out for a few more months, what are we going to do with these detainees? So what...

GIBBS: Well, it is day two. ...

QUESTION: No, but he was talking about it on the campaign for months, on Guantanamo Bay.

QUESTION: But the bottom line is that you've been talking about it -- the president talked about it on the campaign trail. People have studied this for a long time. And you're now signing the executive order without a plan for where the detainees will be. What assurances can you give the...

GIBBS: No. No, we've signed an executive order to establish the plan for what happens.

QUESTION: But what assurance can you give the American people that these detainees just won't wind up out on the streets, won't go back to their home countries and launch new terror attacks?

GIBBS: I can assure them that that -- all of -- all of what you just enumerated will be undertaken and studied as part of a commission to look into these very complex, very detailed questions.

So, in other words, Obama's order accomplishes nothing other than to kick the can down the road. The question of what to do with the terrorists will be "studied"--and, by the way, it's now a "very complex, very detailed question."

Obama also ordered that the CIA be limited in its interrogations of captured terrorists to the small menu of techniques identified in the Army's Field Manual. This makes little sense; the Field Manual is intended to instruct soldiers with little or no training as interrogators in questioning enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield, conditions that have nothing to do with the highly specialized case of trained CIA experts trying to get potentially life-or-death information from leaders of al Qaeda and similar groups.

This topic, too, came up in today's press conference, when a reporter asked, in effect, Are you kidding?

QUESTION: Just so the American people have an understanding, if, for example, U.S. forces were to capture Osama bin Laden or someone less well known, but of operational significance, are they to understand, the American people, that only the Field Manual and the Field Manual only will be the interrogation method used to interrogate a target as valuable potentially as Osama bin Laden or someone of that operational significance?

GIBBS: Well, as it relates to your first question, let me get some guidance from -- from Greg and members of the NSC.

Today's executive order can charitably be described as meaningless, but it could go really well. Time will tell or tear us apart.

[modlife]

Someone is gonna get a LOT OF CRITICISM if this is closed down and another 9/11 happens.

I'm all for its closure.. but this could leave him looking weak - when the public are scared silly again, and human rights is the last thing on their minds.

[perceptrons]

Someone is gonna get a LOT OF CRITICISM if this is closed down and another 9/11 happens.

I'm all for its closure.. but this could leave him looking weak - when the public are scared silly again, and human rights is the last thing on their minds.
He would only look weak in the eyes of a rather unintelligent person.

[modlife]

He would only look weak in the eyes of a rather unintelligent person.

That's a lot of people.

Humans are irrationally emotional and prone to hysteria.. the same morons who are over-the-top hopeful in Obama right now, will be the same people who will feel completely betrayed if shit happens.

[captainhampton]

Someone is gonna get a LOT OF CRITICISM if this is closed down and another 9/11 happens.

you're right. It will be Bush's fault.

[saysmydoctor]

you're right. It will be Bush's fault.
Bingo. If you buy into the "we're safer" rhetoric, you are even more unsafe than the rest because you are also incredibly naive.

[perceptrons]

That's a lot of people.

Humans are irrationally emotional and prone to hysteria.. the same morons who are over-the-top hopeful in Obama right now, will be the same people who will feel completely betrayed if shit happens.
That is a lot of people, bummer eh? Those things tend to happen when you have a large swath of the country trying to teach completely stupid ideas to children (eg. ID).

As a side note, completely overhauling Alcatraz and reopening it would be slightly cool. That prison had such a badass nature to it.

[TangledUp]

While I may think Gitmo needs to be shut down, my concern is where all of these prisoners end up going. Has Obama said where they would end up once he shuts down Guantanamo?

[HashHolly]

While I may think Gitmo needs to be shut down, my concern is where all of these prisoners end up going. Has Obama said where they would end up once he shuts down Guantanamo?

My assumtion is that they would be brought here, more than likely to a specially built prison just for such suspects. I know at first glance its like, "ZOMG terrorist on our soil bad idea", but i would imagine as long as security was top notch, it wouldnt be a big deal.

[Justin_stacy]

While I may think Gitmo needs to be shut down, my concern is where all of these prisoners end up going. Has Obama said where they would end up once he shuts down Guantanamo?

Nope, that's why he had to buy himself time with the vague 'with in the year' time frame. He's got basically three options and none of them are very appealing (or likely).

Leaving Gitmo in a mess was basically a big FU to Obama by Bush. Although Obama didn't need to make it worse by announcing its closure it without a well defined plan.

[more heart]

Obama ftw!

[alaskan]

My assumtion is that they would be brought here, more than likely to a specially built prison just for such suspects. I know at first glance its like, "ZOMG terrorist on our soil bad idea", but i would imagine as long as security was top notch, it wouldnt be a big deal.

We can all disagree ideologically on the idea of interrogation and what is torture, but I think opening a new prison might be silly. Something Obama said today in a meeting with congressional Republicans echoes, and should be taken to heart. I Won. He is hoping to be workable with both sides of the aisle, and he isn't getting a lot of support from the right. After realizing this, he told them to get on board or be left behind, because I Won. Shutting down harsh interrogation and torture is totally within scope of what he can do, and he should do that, because the people that wanted him in office wanted the practice to stop.

So why not just stop the harsh interrogation but keep Gitmo as a prison. We shouldn't have to move the prisoners to somewhere on the mainland here, it has done a fine job of keeping them there. They can be held and wait for their trials and things there, and it's not too bad. Shutting down Gitmo is obviously symbolic that the "last 8 years are over," and that "we are exercising out smart power through diplomacy," but we could just use it for its purpose and cut harsh interrogations.

Doesn't that seem feasible? That way we don't have to move them, have them a special prison, or anything weird, just leave them and stop the practice. I disagree with what is considered torture, but he can do what he wants. I just don't think shutting it down is anything more than symbolism, because Gitmo stands for that practice.

[lew_1987]

That would be a fairly pointless exercise.

[TangledUp]

Theoretically, couldn't Obama keep Guantanamo but just change its policies and procedures? Wouldn't that cost less money than building a new facility? I don't know. I don't mean to be stingy, but considering our economy is in shambles, I think his administration should try to solve problems spending the least amount of money as possible. Obviously the way people were treated there needed to change, but I'm not sure building a new prison here in the US was the answer. :shrug: But I trust in his admin to make the right decision.

[alaskan]

Theoretically, couldn't Obama keep Guantanamo but just change its policies and procedures? Wouldn't that cost less money than building a new facility? I don't know. I don't mean to be stingy, but considering our economy is in shambles, I think his administration should try to solve problems spending the least amount of money as possible. Obviously the way people were treated there needed to change, but I'm not sure building a new prison here in the US was the answer. :shrug: But I trust in his admin to make the right decision.

pretty much what i said two posts ago, good idea i think, but gitmo is a symbol, and most people wouldnt realize the change without the act.

I always like to think of v for vendetta,"the building is a symbol, with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world."

in Obama's case, closing the building.

[Justin_stacy]

That's exactly it, the action was pure symbolism.

All this really means is that a new prison is going to be built in another country, when we had a perfectly good one already standing in Gitmo. But the image of Gitmo was so tarnished that even a major clean up and over view, wouldn't be enough to satisfy its biggest critics or change the 'all important' world opinion.

[Machu505]

I'm not necessarily against Obama's decision. However, where are the prisoners going to be sent?

Other prisons. Ireland and Switzerland have offered to take some.

[Lueda Alia]

That's exactly it, the action was pure symbolism.

All this really means is that a new prison is going to be built in another country, when we had a perfectly good one already standing in Gitmo. But the image of Gitmo was so tarnished that even a major clean up and over view, wouldn't be enough to satisfy its biggest critics or change the 'all important' world opinion.
All important doesn't need to be in quotes.

[J.C.]

http://i38.tinypic.com/15exwrb.jpg

"health of the mother"

[Justin_stacy]

All important doesn't need to be in quotes.

...yes it does.

[IXI CHEWIE IXI]

That's a lot of people.

Humans are irrationally emotional and prone to hysteria.. the same morons who are over-the-top hopeful in Obama right now, will be the same people who will feel completely betrayed if shit happens.

i agree with you right there.

Is the entire base being shutdown for good or just the whole prison? i think we should at least keep the land and use it as an airfield and port for ships.

But granted that torture happened, we probably got some information that was critical in operations in the middle east, who knows we may have gotten wind of another attack somewhere else. Im not agreeing with torture but some things are just necessary for a government to fulfill its duty for defense of the nation.

[|adr3naLine|]

I was all for Obama during the election, then once he was elected, and started to make some of his cabinet picks, it looked like he was just going to fall into the category of the same ole same ole. But I have to admit, I love the fact that he came out swinging and is getting shit done. I couldn't give you the list of what he's done, because I'm really not as political as a lot of people on here.

As for Gitmo, thank god it's finally ending. From the basic knowledge I know about it, the place was basically the opposite of what America is based on. "Torture" doesn't need to end completely, but their definitely needs to be some serious restrictions on it. Theirs a fine line between good tactics on getting info, and just physical abuse, and Bush ignored it a lot of times.

[Lueda Alia]

...yes it does.
Having that mindset surely works for countries these days.

[Justin_stacy]

Having that mindset surely works for countries these days.

That's to be expected.

[Justin_stacy]

Other prisons. Ireland and Switzerland have offered to take some.

European nations have offered to take those that are cleared for release but who can't be safely returned to their countries of origin, which is commendable. The question is what to do with the 50 or so that can't be fairly tried or released, due to actions of their own and/or the previous administration.

[oldwirehands]

This was the most exciting thing I've read in the news in a long time.

[alaskan]

Other prisons. Ireland and Switzerland have offered to take some.
Well mostly. they have started talking, a little excerpt-
Ireland has joined Portugal, France, Germany and Switzerland in saying it probably would participate in an EU-organized plan that might take shape at a summit of foreign ministers Monday in Brussels.
But it already appears likely that Europe will leave some of Guantanamo's inmates in limbo behind a policy of: No terrorists please.
Irish Foreign Minister Micheal Martin said European Union members should agree on terms and conditions for housing at least some of the 50 "as a logical consequence of our arguing for the closure of Guantanamo."
He emphasized, however, that "no one is talking about terrorists or anything like that coming to EU countries. We're talking about non-combatants — people who clearly have no history of any terrorist activity."
Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said in a written statement to The Associated Press that all EU countries thinking of taking ex-prisoners "will have to have regard to difficult security issues which arise."
Diplomatic and security officials across Europe acknowledge that in the Obama era their nations risk exposure of double standards — complaining of American injustice, but presuming that ex-Guantanamo prisoners are too hot to handle themselves. Most nations in the 27-country bloc remain in the position of waiting for an EU request that they might prefer never comes.
Italy, whose conservative government long supported former President George W. Bush's "war on terror," is among those skeptical that Europe will easily embrace fugitives from Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Chad, China, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
"Here we have the first example of how this new Obama politics will demand more of Europe — not less — than Bush's so-called unilateralism," said Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, who declined to add Italy to the list of willing destinations for ex-Guantanamo inmates. "America will probably ask some European countries to take in these people, who will no longer be at Guantanamo but won't be free to wander the streets of New York."
Switzerland, which has made positive public comments about an EU-wide initiative, now cautions that such a decision is really up to authorities within its individual cantons. And those local authorities are sounding cool on the idea.

[Machu505]

European nations have offered to take those that are cleared for release but who can't be safely returned to their countries of origin, which is commendable. The question is what to do with the 50 or so that can't be fairly tried or released, due to actions of their own and/or the previous administration.

And that, my friend, is why a year has been given to figure this out and a taskforce is being assembled to tackle this issue.

[Justin_stacy]

Seems like a short time period to tackle such a topic. But we'll see, I still say he's going about it backwards.

[Posthardcore]

:-|

[nfgrocker16]

i agree with you right there.

Is the entire base being shutdown for good or just the whole prison? i think we should at least keep the land and use it as an airfield and port for ships.

But granted that torture happened, we probably got some information that was critical in operations in the middle east, who knows we may have gotten wind of another attack somewhere else. Im not agreeing with torture but some things are just necessary for a government to fulfill its duty for defense of the nation.

I think the point that should be made when it comes to torture is saying it's OK for us to do it is giving permission for other countries who we oppose for one reason or another to use torture themselves. It sets up a double standard against ourselves that says "we are a country who believes in fairness and fair trials yet we torture to get information."

I think the closing of the prisons at Gitmo is an incredible statement that shows the rest of the world we're willing to comply with not only our own sense of democracy but are prepared to fall in line with the rest of the world. We're holding ourselves to the standards that the rest of the world wants to see us hold ourselves to.

[IXI CHEWIE IXI]

I think the point that should be made when it comes to torture is saying it's OK for us to do it is giving permission for other countries who we oppose for one reason or another to use torture themselves. It sets up a double standard against ourselves that says "we are a country who believes in fairness and fair trials yet we torture to get information."

I think the closing of the prisons at Gitmo is an incredible statement that shows the rest of the world we're willing to comply with not only our own sense of democracy but are prepared to fall in line with the rest of the world. We're holding ourselves to the standards that the rest of the world wants to see us hold ourselves to.

Are you saying that we are setting a bad example for other countries? Like the other countries see us torture so they think it ok to do it? Because that does make some sense.

I do think we should keep the base though as a military outlet though

[nfgrocker16]

Are you saying that we are setting a bad example for other countries? Like the other countries see us torture so they think it ok to do it? Because that does make some sense.

I do think we should keep the base though as a military outlet though

Yeah, pretty much.

They are keeping it open as a military outlet.

I think proclaiming to the world that we are the beacon of democracy, freedom, and equality, and yet using techniques that deny people these freedoms we tout so much makes us look hypocritical. That's like saying its OK if we do it because we're the most powerful nation in the world but if you do it it isn't just.

I also think Obama made a really good point when he said that just because its the hard way to do things doesn't mean its not that right way.

[TangledUp]

Based on past presidents, I am slightly surprised (in a good way) that Obama has already really proven his leadership and has started to address some of the important issues he talked about on the campaign trail. I'm proud of him. A lot of presidents were all talk and no action and Obama seems to be the opposite of this.

[IXI CHEWIE IXI]

Yeah, pretty much.

They are keeping it open as a military outlet.

I think proclaiming to the world that we are the beacon of democracy, freedom, and equality, and yet using techniques that deny people these freedoms we tout so much makes us look hypocritical. That's like saying its OK if we do it because we're the most powerful nation in the world but if you do it it isn't just.

I also think Obama made a really good point when he said that just because its the hard way to do things doesn't mean its not that right way.
ahh i get ya then.

But there is the point also when you have a known criminal such as a terrorist who potentially could have information that could save lives. Its a tough decision to find information that could be so important for lives but yet you have to harm someone to gain it. There are always gong to be varied opinions

[TranslateTheNam]

(g) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the circumstances of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo who have been charged with offenses before military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military commission process more generally.
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities,
more

3
they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another
United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.




This excerpt alone turns this "Executive Order" into confetti for the super bowl. The bolded part is my fav. I actually feel bad for Obama. Hes kinda caught in a lose/lose situation. Close gitmo and risk an attack of ANY type (foriegn or domestic) from a former detainee, and it would only take one to cause a complete failure in his decision, or have to justify its existence in some form or another, in turn supporting Bush's policey on gitmo.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Military Judge Denies Obama Request to Suspend Guantanamo Hearings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012902021.html?hpid=topnews)

[xLifer6x]

Lots of prisoner abuse and torture happens at Gitmo. A quick google search will result in pictures.

And I am so fucking happy.

And I'm the sure the terrorists and insurgents have tea parties and play dressup with captured servicememn overseas.

[J.C.]

And I'm the sure the terrorists and insurgents have tea parties and play dressup with captured servicememn overseas.

DADDY, WHY CAN'T WE BEHAVE LIKE THE TERRORISTS?

[Machu505]

And I'm the sure the terrorists and insurgents have tea parties and play dressup with captured servicememn overseas.

So you're suggesting that we stoop to terrorist levels while claiming we're morally above them?

[xLifer6x]

So you're suggesting that we stoop to terrorist levels while claiming we're morally above them?

I see your point, but aren't some of them -at least the radical Moslem ones- claiming they're morally above us? After all, we are the infidels and we need to be slain in order to acheive eternal paradise.

I didn't say that we should starve or torture the inmates in Guantanamo Bay, but I think we should at least take a stand against enemies of our nation. Putting them on our soil can only mean trouble.

[Machu505]

I see your point, but aren't some of them -at least the radical Moslem ones- claiming they're morally above us? After all, we are the infidels and we need to be slain in order to acheive eternal paradise.

So what? This shouldn't be an "eye-for-an-eye" situation.

I didn't say that we should starve or torture the inmates in Guantanamo Bay, but I think we should at least take a stand against enemies of our nation. Putting them on our soil can only mean trouble.

It's not as if they're anymore dangerous than Charles Manson and company. If we can keep the schemers we already have locked up in, why can't we keep terrorists in?

[xLifer6x]

Some of the inmates in Gitmo (like the mastermind behind the USS Cole bombing) are just as bad as Charles Manson? Terrorists and members of Al-Qaeda like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are locked up in there. I believe he was charged for the mass murder of innocent civilians. To my knowledge, Charles Manson only planned the murder of Sharon Tate.

[Machu505]

Some of the inmates in Gitmo (like the mastermind behind the USS Cole bombing) are just as bad as Charles Manson? Terrorists and members of Al-Qaeda like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are locked up in there. I believe he was charged for the mass murder of innocent civilians. To my knowledge, Charles Manson only planned the murder of Sharon Tate.

I still fail to see why locking up criminals on US soil is a bad idea. White supremacists/religious fucks will make life Hell for them in jail.

[xLifer6x]

Like the blacks and hispanics won't?

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

I still fail to see why locking up criminals on US soil is a bad idea. White supremacists/religious fucks will make life Hell for them in jail.

the problem with that is this:
the judicial system is a joke. most of the evidence against gitmo prisoners would be considered inadmissable in an american court and be thrown out on a technicality.
guilty or not, these men would then be released.
if you COULD lock them up like you said, it'd be fine. but that simply can't happen.
are there innocent people detained there? im sure. but how many al-Shirhi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_al_qaida)s would you be releasing on the world?

[Machu505]

Like the blacks and hispanics won't?

Just giving examples.

the problem with that is this:
the judicial system is a joke. most of the evidence against gitmo prisoners would be considered inadmissable in an american court and be thrown out on a technicality.
guilty or not, these men would then be released.
if you COULD lock them up like you said, it'd be fine. but that simply can't happen.
are there innocent people detained there? im sure. but how many al-Shirhi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_al_qaida)s would you be releasing on the world?

If we don't have any evidence against them, why keep them in prison?

[SLOWPOKE LOPEZ]

If we don't have any evidence against them, why keep them in prison?
it isnt that we dont have evidence. its the judicial system not allowing the evidence on technicalities. thats why you cant keep them on U.S. soil.

[zion the lion]

I dont get why some people are so against putting them in maximum security prisons. When was the last time someone escaped one of those? Its not like they are going to be released, and if they are, then I highly doubt they'll be working at walmart taking pictures of babies with santa, and they wont be running for office or anything (like one politician said would happen). They'll be in maximum security for life.

I know other Alaskans will oppose this but Alaska would be the perfect place for them. Anyone who lives here knows there are maybe 3 actual cities and the rest are little towns all pocketed in the south central area (other than Fairbanks). They could put the prisoners up north near barrow. Although that could be seen as torture since the sun doesnt set for 4 months of the year and then it wont rise for 5 months.

We need to show the people who are against us that we are a civilized country, one all about being fair. Gitmo has honestly become a recruiting ground for terrorists, and we seem like cowards for putting them in a prison in Cuba instead of finding a place here. And alcratraz would be a bad spot for them since its become a tourist hotspot.

[nfgrocker16]

I see your point, but aren't some of them -at least the radical Moslem ones- claiming they're morally above us? After all, we are the infidels and we need to be slain in order to acheive eternal paradise.

I didn't say that we should starve or torture the inmates in Guantanamo Bay, but I think we should at least take a stand against enemies of our nation. Putting them on our soil can only mean trouble.

We compensate our own principles if we act above our own laws. A symbol can be a strong thing to the world, and right now we need the rest of the world. If we truly wish to stand for freedom and for democracy we need to treat everyone as if they were our own, without compensation.

[ArTkY_]

I see your point, but aren't some of them -at least the radical Moslem ones- claiming they're morally above us? After all, we are the infidels and we need to be slain in order to acheive eternal paradise.

I didn't say that we should starve or torture the inmates in Guantanamo Bay, but I think we should at least take a stand against enemies of our nation. Putting them on our soil can only mean trouble.
Spell Muslim right first and then people will listen to you.

I don't see why putting them on our soil will be a problem, we've tried many criminals here who've done terrible things.

The worst thing about Guantanamo is the amount of innocent people who were sent there from here... only to be sent back here months later to come back to ruined lives. Being a Muslim of Indian/Pakistani descent I've seen this happen to people first hand. I'm so glad that place is closing.

[nfgrocker16]

Spell Muslim right first and then people will listen to you.

I don't see why putting them on our soil will be a problem, we've tried many criminals here who've done terrible things.

The worst thing about Guantanamo is the amount of innocent people who were sent there from here... only to be sent back here months later to come back to ruined lives. Being a Muslim of Indian/Pakistani descent I've seen this happen to people first hand. I'm so glad that place is closing.

All you have to do is look at Ahmed Rassam and realize that he was tried, in our court system, without torture, and provided vital information, again, without being tortured. Our system has been proven to work. Why not use it?

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

The Obama administration has secured commitments from nearly a dozen countries willing to accept detainees from Guantanamo Bay. The Washington Post reports that “four E.U. countries have (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32487436/ns/politics-washington_post/) privately told the administration that they are committed to resettling detainees, and five other E.U. nations are considering taking some.”

[Mercy Medical]

The Obama administration has secured commitments from nearly a dozen countries willing to accept detainees from Guantanamo Bay. The Washington Post reports that “four E.U. countries have (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32487436/ns/politics-washington_post/) privately told the administration that they are committed to resettling detainees, and five other E.U. nations are considering taking some.”
Thank God...

[ohioforlovers]

I am inbetween on this one, yes I would love for them to shut it down so my buds don't have to guard it and hate their lives. But on the other hand, what about those who were involved in the 9/11 attacks, just let them go back to Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are still fighting, and let them plan another terrorist attack, they don't care if they die or not, so they will just continue to try.

[perceptrons]

I am inbetween on this one, yes I would love for them to shut it down so my buds don't have to guard it and hate their lives. But on the other hand, what about those who were involved in the 9/11 attacks, just let them go back to Iraq and Afghanistan, where we are still fighting, and let them plan another terrorist attack, they don't care if they die or not, so they will just continue to try.
Unless you're a fan of holding people for something they might do in the future, we have to let them go.

[MyNameIsRoss]

Plus there is no evidence that the planners of 9/11 are/were ever in Afghanistan or Iraq...
besides that any "terrorist" could plan a "terror attack" in a Motel 6....you don't need a whole fucking third world country to do so...

[Midget Pirates]

Plus there is no evidence that the planners of 9/11 are/were ever in Afghanistan or Iraq...


"Once selected, Mihdhar and Hazmi were sent to the Mes Aynak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mes_Aynak) training camp in Afghanistan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Mihdhar

"Afterwards, Nawaf returned to Afghanistan along with his brother Salem, and Mihdhar. In Afghanistan, they fought alongside the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) against the Afghan Northern Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Northern_Alliance), and joined up with Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda). "

"In the autumn of 1999, these four attended the Mes Aynak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mes_Aynak) training camp in Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan), which provided advanced training. Hazmi went with the two Yemenis, Tawfiq bin Attash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawfiq_bin_Attash) (Khallad) and Abu Bara al Yemeni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bara_al_Yemeni), to Karachi, Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi,_Pakistan) where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed), the plot's coordinator, instructed him on western culture, travel, as well as taught some basic English phrases. Mihdhar did not go with him to Karachi, but instead left for Yemen. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed then sent Hazmi and the other men to Malaysia for a meeting. Before leaving for Malaysia, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed doctored Hazmi's Saudi passport in order to conceal his travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and make it appear that Hazmi had come to Malaysia from Saudi Arabia via Dubai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai).[5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_al-Hazmi#cite_note-911-ch5-4)"

"Mohammed fled to Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan), where he renewed his relationship with Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and formed a working relationship with the newly migrated bin Laden later that year."

"The 9/11 Commission Report notes on page 149 that Mohammed moved his family from Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) to Karachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi), Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) in 1997. That same year, he attempted without success to join mujahideen leader Ibn al Khattab in Chechnya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya), another area of special interest to Mohammed. He was apparently unable to travel to Chechnya, and so he instead returned to Afghanistan, where he gradually gained stature in Al Qaeda and ultimately accepted bin Laden's invitation to move to Kandahar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar) and join the organization as a full-fledged member (although he claims that he still refused to swear a formal oath of loyalty to bin Laden)."[/URL]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_al-Hazmi#cite_note-911-ch5-4)

[ohioforlovers]

Plus there is no evidence that the planners of 9/11 are/were ever in Afghanistan or Iraq...
besides that any "terrorist" could plan a "terror attack" in a Motel 6....you don't need a whole fucking third world country to do so...

I am not saying anything about the entire country, I have been there and visited many villiages in Afghanistan so I know that most of the country is against the al qada. and yes we know where they were from, that's what our Intel is payed to make sure of, because if not then we are in the wrong country for no reason? That doesn't make any sense.

[MyNameIsRoss]

"Once selected, Mihdhar and Hazmi were sent to the Mes Aynak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mes_Aynak) training camp in Afghanistan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Mihdhar

"Afterwards, Nawaf returned to Afghanistan along with his brother Salem, and Mihdhar. In Afghanistan, they fought alongside the Taliban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban) against the Afghan Northern Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Northern_Alliance), and joined up with Al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda). "

"In the autumn of 1999, these four attended the Mes Aynak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mes_Aynak) training camp in Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan), which provided advanced training. Hazmi went with the two Yemenis, Tawfiq bin Attash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawfiq_bin_Attash) (Khallad) and Abu Bara al Yemeni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bara_al_Yemeni), to Karachi, Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi,_Pakistan) where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed), the plot's coordinator, instructed him on western culture, travel, as well as taught some basic English phrases. Mihdhar did not go with him to Karachi, but instead left for Yemen. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed then sent Hazmi and the other men to Malaysia for a meeting. Before leaving for Malaysia, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed doctored Hazmi's Saudi passport in order to conceal his travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and make it appear that Hazmi had come to Malaysia from Saudi Arabia via Dubai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai).[5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nawaf_al-Hazmi#cite_note-911-ch5-4)"

"Mohammed fled to Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan), where he renewed his relationship with Abdul Rasul Sayyaf and formed a working relationship with the newly migrated bin Laden later that year."

"The 9/11 Commission Report notes on page 149 that Mohammed moved his family from Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) to Karachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi), Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) in 1997. That same year, he attempted without success to join mujahideen leader Ibn al Khattab in Chechnya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya), another area of special interest to Mohammed. He was apparently unable to travel to Chechnya, and so he instead returned to Afghanistan, where he gradually gained stature in Al Qaeda and ultimately accepted bin Laden's invitation to move to Kandahar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar) and join the organization as a full-fledged member (although he claims that he still refused to swear a formal oath of loyalty to bin Laden)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

first of all, I don't have much knowledge of the origin of the hijackers. so, yes that was a blanket statement I made.

but still, refer to my second point.

[Midget Pirates]

first of all, I don't have much knowledge of the origin of the hijackers. so, yes that was a blanket statement I made.

but still, refer to my second point.

when you don't have knowledge, don't make blanket statements.

[ohioforlovers]

when you don't have knowledge, don't make blanket statements.

:)

[MyNameIsRoss]

when you don't have knowledge, don't make blanket statements.


thanks, 23 posts. yeah, i went there..

[saysmydoctor]

We're still talking about this useless torture facility?

[GeeBee]

when you don't have knowledge, don't make blanket statements.

Says the guy who just got pwned in another thread for doing JUST that...:rolleyes:

[alice+interiors]

As of February 2011, 172 detainees remain at Guantanamo. Disgusting.

[loveisdead]

It's not really Obama's fault.
President Barack Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center has switched from In the Works to Stalled and back again (and again). All that movement reflects a simple dynamic: Obama really wants to close the center. But Congress really doesn't.

The latest turn of events was the law authorizing defense spending for 2011. In addition to funding the military for the year, members of Congress attached several stipulations about Guantanamo. The law says no funds canbe used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States, and no funds can be used to transfer detainees to the custody of foreign countries, unless specific conditions are met about how the prisoners will be held.
Link. (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/)

[jawstheme]

"Despite my strong objection to these provisions, which my Administration has consistently opposed, I have signed this Act because of the importance of authorizing appropriations for, among other things, our military activities in 2011," Obama said in the statement. "Nevertheless, my Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future."

He really has no backbone sometimes.

[loveisdead]

He hardly ever has a backbone. Not many democrats do.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

He hardly ever has a backbone. Not many democrats do.

They have the same "I just want everybody to like me" personality that entertainers and stand up comedians have.