Obama in "final stages" of closing Gitmo plan

[eohrnberger]

Obama could.. he could free them as easily as George Bush incarcerated them.

But power corrupts.. and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Again.. you are placing your trust in government and that Obama as the commander in chief.. will do the right thing..

That's what it boils down to.

The fact that Obama hasn't already invalidates your claim. Do you think that he wouldn't if he could? He's pushed just about every other boundary and constraint thought to be imposed on the office.

No, there's integrity and honor in the military, and it extends to the military judges and military advocates that are conducting the military tribunals.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Interesting.. you demonstrate the ignorance that you complain about.

Lets see.. Roosevelt had absolutely no evidence to doubt the local Japanese.. and certainly not anymore than the GERMAN Population or the ITALIAN population who were also on our borders and with German U boats sinking ships right off the Gulf coast.

Single Japanese agent that worked out of the Japanese Embassy.. is a reason to lock up Japanese children whose fathers were serving in the 442.. to date one of the most decorated regiments in American military history.




Hey.. but how does that compare to one JAPANESE.. not American.. but JAPANESE SPY working in the JAPANESE EMBASSY..

Oh wait.. and a fisherman on a remote island in the pacific....

Hey.. more than 19,000 volunteers FROM AN INTERNMENT CAMP... whose families were rounded up and imprisoned against their will... form the most decorated unit of WWII...

You sir talk about ignorant of the facts...? Hmmmm...

Seriously? In order to stay in the debate you have to compare something from 75 years ago?

 

[Fearandloathing]

The fact that Obama hasn't already invalidates your claim. Do you think that he wouldn't if he could? He's pushed just about every other boundary and constraint thought to be imposed on the office.

No, there's integrity and honor in the military, and it extends to the military judges and military advocates that are conducting the military tribunals.

He has indeed pushed every boundary but this one. On this file he is getting the kind of push back that doesn't budge, and that has to be either military or security or both.

 

[DA60]

Yeah...and I am in the final stages of solving cold fusion.

A day late and a dollar short Barack...get it done.

Gitmo is one of the most disgusting chapters in American history...and you have been talking about closing it for years.

Just shut up and do it.

 

[Grant]

Gitmo is one of the most disgusting chapters in American history...and you have been talking about closing it for years.

You appear to advocate a 'Catch and Release' program. That might be a good idea is some areas but Islamic Terrorists are not an endangered species.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yeah...and I am in the final stages of solving cold fusion.

A day late and a dollar short Barack...get it done.

Gitmo is one of the most disgusting chapters in American history...and you have been talking about closing it for years.

Just shut up and do it.

You appear to advocate a 'Catch and Release' program. That might be a good idea is some areas but Islamic Terrorists are not an endangered species.

I'd be more in favor of 'catch and release' than bringing them onshore. I think this would be the case for most of the electorate.

 

[jaeger19]

The fact that Obama hasn't already invalidates your claim. Do you think that he wouldn't if he could? He's pushed just about every other boundary and constraint thought to be imposed on the office.

No, there's integrity and honor in the military, and it extends to the military judges and military advocates that are conducting the military tribunals.

The fact that he hasn't proves my point. When government gets power.. it tends to keep it.

funny.. I had never taken you for such a "big government is our friend" kind of fellow.

Who knew.

 

[jaeger19]

Seriously? In order to stay in the debate you have to compare something from 75 years ago?

"those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"...

 

[Shadowless]

Nobody besides a true fascist/authoritarian would say we should keep people locked away if we can't charge them with anything. This is insane, Gitmo needs to be closed immediately.

 

[Boo Radley]

Better to trot out national security information (means and methods) to the public? To the detriment of national security? I'm thinking not.

Even in a civilian courtrooms such information is withheld from the public. Isn't this typically presented in judge's chambers with both attorney's present?

Clearly you have no trust for the military, whereas I do have some.

No, better to have rule of law. And we know they had innocent people, and even caused innocent people to die. It's not about trust, it's about protecting the innocent and having just procedures.

 

[eohrnberger]

No, better to have rule of law. And we know they had innocent people, and even caused innocent people to die. It's not about trust, it's about protecting the innocent and having just procedures.

Well yeah Boo, better to have rule of law, but that's the whole conundrum in that entire situation. Which rule of law? Hell, which laws?

From what I understand, the Militant Islamic Fundamentalists what they do, and how they do it, all don't really fall into a category of combatant previously defined by any international convention, unforeseen and slipped through the cracks as it were.

Their countries of origin don't want them back, and the electorate here don't want them on US soil either. They are truly men without a country. What to do with them?

Sure, you can say federal trials, but that's going to end up being little more than a show trial which will turn into a monkey court, with their gaining even more notoriety among their peers strengthening their cause, a cause that Western world is shocked as to their methods of operation which they condemn.

There is no 'good' solution here.

As I've said, I'd rather see them all turned lose rather than show trial for the reasons I've given in this post and previous posts.

 

[Boo Radley]

Well yeah Boo, better to have rule of law, but that's the whole conundrum in that entire situation. Which rule of law? Hell, which laws?

From what I understand, the Militant Islamic Fundamentalists what they do, and how they do it, all don't really fall into a category of combatant previously defined by any international convention, unforeseen and slipped through the cracks as it were.

Their countries of origin don't want them back, and the electorate here don't want them on US soil either. They are truly men without a country. What to do with them?

Sure, you can say federal trials, but that's going to end up being little more than a show trial which will turn into a monkey court, with their gaining even more notoriety among their peers strengthening their cause, a cause that Western world is shocked as to their methods of operation which they condemn.

There is no 'good' solution here.

As I've said, I'd rather see them all turned lose rather than show trial for the reasons I've given in this post and previous posts.

It's one of the problems with calling it a war. We prosecute such people and do so without it being a "show trial," which implies a fake one. We also have imprisoned them with no real issues. There is no reason we couldn't do this. It would have been better had we already did this, but we were hell bent to be imperial invaders functioning outside our normal role and outside our own laws.

 

[braindrain]

What does that have to do with anything? Appeal to emotion is not rational argument. Most of those detained in GITMO were not picked up on some battlefield, but turned in for bounty. There was never any system in place to ensure that those we threw into GITMO were actually terrorists.

If there was, then sure, you'd have a better argument. But as it stands, you don't. Posting links to ISIS doesn't mean that the population of GITMO was solely ISIS terrorists. Duh.

The majority of them were turned in for bounties they had because they were known bad guys. The military didn't just say turn in random people and we will give you money. If they were known to the military enough to have a bounty placed on them it's because they were dirt bags.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's one of the problems with calling it a war. We prosecute such people and do so without it being a "show trial," which implies a fake one. We also have imprisoned them with no real issues. There is no reason we couldn't do this. It would have been better had we already did this, but we were hell bent to be imperial invaders functioning outside our normal role and outside our own laws.

Once a terrorist is on US soil, and / or committed their terrorist acts on US soil, there is no choice but to try them in the US criminal court system. We've seen this with the 13th 9/11 hijacker (13th?) as well as the shoe bomber.

But then, there's that pesky significant difference between these situations and the situations in which the Gitmo detainees were detained by US forces. Yes, admittedly some of those situations were far from clear cut, some Afghans turning over other Afghans for bounty and such, but still far away from US soil and far away from the US criminal justice system.

I suppose the entire lot could have dispatched to The Hague for their judgement in international criminal court, but then 20/20 hindsight is always perfect. Maybe next time that'll be how to handle these situations more effectively. Since we aren't nearly done with Militant Islamic Terrorism or terrorists, perhaps we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Grant]

Once a terrorist is on US soil, and / or committed their terrorist acts on US soil, there is no choice but to try them in the US criminal court system. We've seen this with the 13th 9/11 hijacker (13th?) as well as the shoe bomber.

But then, there's that pesky significant difference between these situations and the situations in which the Gitmo detainees were detained by US forces. Yes, admittedly some of those situations were far from clear cut, some Afghans turning over other Afghans for bounty and such, but still far away from US soil and far away from the US criminal justice system.

I suppose the entire lot could have dispatched to The Hague for their judgement in international criminal court, but then 20/20 hindsight is always perfect. Maybe next time that'll be how to handle these situations more effectively. Since we aren't nearly done with Militant Islamic Terrorism or terrorists, perhaps we'll find out soon enough.

The question of whether these people are military combatants working outside of the Geneva Convention will also have to be raised and whether or not they should be treated as such. If they continue to be tried as domestic terrorists rather than those fighting for a religious ideology then Congress may have to look at new laws to cover this evolving situation.

 

[eohrnberger]

The question of whether these people are military combatants working outside of the Geneva Convention will also have to be raised and whether or not they should be treated as such. If they continue to be tried as domestic terrorists rather than those fighting for a religious ideology then Congress may have to look at new laws to cover this evolving situation.

True enough. However, I'd point out that given the inherent international nature of Militant Islamic Fundamentalists, spanning many countries, it's something that would be best if it also included the UN and / or The Hague in what would have to be international agreements, treaties and alliances.

Picture the situation where every nation in the UN has a treaty, a commitment, of every other nation in the UN coming to their aide should a Militant Islamic Fundamentalist group come to attack. The forces assembled and the resources committed would surely outmatch any Militant Islamic Fundamentalist group, and may well serve as a MAD deterrent to further Militant Islamic Fundamentalist activities, or perhaps not. Regardless the scourge that is Militant Islamic Fundamentalism would soon be removed, and I think that would be a good thing.

 

[le bouffon]

Their countries of origin don't want them back, and the electorate here don't want them on US soil either. They are truly men without a country. What to do with them?

In our Constitution, we cannot hold prisoners indefinitely without a trial. So, we can no longer keep these "suspects" in Guantanamo Bay, since it would be illegal. Ship them back where they came from. Simply said.

 

[eohrnberger]

In our Constitution, we cannot hold prisoners indefinitely without a trial. So, we can no longer keep these "suspects" in Guantanamo Bay, since it would be illegal. Ship them back where they came from. Simply said.

If you read the thread, that's pretty much what I already said. I'd much rather they be set free rather than coming to US soil for whatever imagined court proceeding sure to turn into a very expensive circus with no benefit to the nation.

 

[le bouffon]

If you read the thread, that's pretty much what I already said. I'd much rather they be set free rather than coming to US soil for whatever imagined court proceeding sure to turn into a very expensive circus with no benefit to the nation.

And it's not expensive to keep them at Guantanamo Bay?

Also, a trial is not a "very expensive circus". It's a judicial proceeding, where a verdict is rendered.

 

[eohrnberger]

And it's not expensive to keep them at Guantanamo Bay?

There is a cost for this, yes.

Also, a trial is not a "very expensive circus". It's a judicial proceeding, where a verdict is rendered.

It is, but it'll be turned into a circus as soon as the Gitmo detainees demand to represent themselves and go off on Islamic fundamentalist propaganda tirades that have nothing to do with the trial at hand. We've already seen this.

And yes, federal trials are expensive, and more so in these cases with the needed additional security.

Come on now!

 

[le bouffon]

There is a cost for this, yes.

There is a cost for everything, obviously. You didn't answer my question.

It is, but it'll be turned into a circus as soon as the Gitmo detainees demand to represent themselves and go off on Islamic fundamentalist propaganda tirades that have nothing to do with the trial at hand. We've already seen this.

And yes, federal trials are expensive, and more so in these cases with the needed additional security.
Come on now!

That is mere conjecture. You don't know the Gitmo detainees will represent themselves, or go on tirades. Trials are expensive, but they're part of due process.

 

[eohrnberger]

There is a cost for everything, obviously. You didn't answer my question.



That is mere conjecture. You don't know the Gitmo detainees will represent themselves, or go on tirades. Trials are expensive, but they're part of due process.

Foreign nationals detained on foreign soil in a combat theater, not having tread even once on US soil are entitled to US court proceedings how exactly?

The reality is that by any international agreement they've fallen through the cracks of the definition, or, if you prefer, have evolved asymmetric conflict beyond the established international treaties and agreements.

So the point still stands. How is it that you believe that these Gitmo detainees are entitled to US court proceedings?

If their countries of origin don't want them back, turn them lose someplace other than US territory, preferably some desert bound oasis in the Middle East. I'm OK with that. Better that than bringing them on US soil, that's for sure.

 

[Boo Radley]

Once a terrorist is on US soil, and / or committed their terrorist acts on US soil, there is no choice but to try them in the US criminal court system. We've seen this with the 13th 9/11 hijacker (13th?) as well as the shoe bomber.

But then, there's that pesky significant difference between these situations and the situations in which the Gitmo detainees were detained by US forces. Yes, admittedly some of those situations were far from clear cut, some Afghans turning over other Afghans for bounty and such, but still far away from US soil and far away from the US criminal justice system.

I suppose the entire lot could have dispatched to The Hague for their judgement in international criminal court, but then 20/20 hindsight is always perfect. Maybe next time that'll be how to handle these situations more effectively. Since we aren't nearly done with Militant Islamic Terrorism or terrorists, perhaps we'll find out soon enough.

It's not that large a difference. And there were options as you suggested. But not having foresight, not listening to those with better judgement, not considering rule of law well before you begin doesn't justify the 20/20 hindsight comment. We over reacted all around, and this is just part of the consequences for being reckless.

 

[fmw]

How can you folks not see the overall picture? The prez is in a hurry to give Gitmo back to his new friends, the Cubans. He doesn't want to be bested by prez Carter who gave the Panama Canal that we built to Panama.

 

[fmw]

It's not that large a difference. And there were options as you suggested. But not having foresight, not listening to those with better judgement, not considering rule of law well before you begin doesn't justify the 20/20 hindsight comment. We over reacted all around, and this is just part of the consequences for being reckless.

I just wanted to drop in to comment on Goolsbee's quote. I never agree with him politically but he is dead right about what he says here. I always chuckle when I read about people thinking a new president will bring economic bliss as though he could do that if he wanted. Even the media buys into such nonsense. Government is part of the economy. It certainly doesn't manage it and it certainly can't fix it when it turns south. Yes, the government can do little things here and there but, basically, it rides along just like the rest of us. Good quote.

As for the detainees, we would do well never to bring them to America. If we are in a rush to give Gitmo back to Cuba, then send the terrorists home where they can terrorize at a distance. Or leave them in Gitmo when we give it back to the Cubans and let them deal with them.