It Is Long Past Time to Close Gitmo

[George Costanza]

What is the purpose of closing Gitmo?

If the detainees were not being denied trials and if they were not being "treated badly," there might not be any purpose in closing Gitmo.

I saw Giuliani on the tube last night. He was asked how long are we going to detain these people without giving them a trial. He said, "as long as the war on terror continues." When confronted with the fact that something as vague as the "war on terror" could continue literally for an indefinite period of time, he laughingly minimized such an idea, saying that "it will be over long before you think it will."

Golly, I'm sure the detainees feel much better now.

What makes you think that just because they may be in some supermax prison on the continental U.S. and not in Gitmo they still won't be detained indefinitely? The only thing that would change is the location.

The only reason they are being detained without trial is that they are outside of U.S. jurisdiction while in Gitmo. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to them. Once they are moved to confinement on U.S. soil, the Constitution immediately swings into effect, and they become entitled to all of the rights available to anyone charged with crime, i.e., right to counsel, speedy trial, protection against cruel and unusal punishment.

Why the hell do you think Bush and that crowd was so bent on making sure they were not confined on U.S. soil to begin with? Solely so they could be tortured and deprived of constitutional protections. What a great guy he (Bush) was, huh? But I shouldn't be so critical of Bush, I guess. He was just Cheney's puppet.

 

[williepete]

5th year into Obama's administration and you're still ranting about Bush. Obama, as Commander-in-Chief has no control over the military.

Got it. We'll just have to be content to disagree.


Cheers man. Have a great life.

 

[George Costanza]

5th year into Obama's administration and you're still ranting about Bush. Obama, as Commander-in-Chief has no control over the military.

Got it. We'll just have to be content to disagree.


Cheers man. Have a great life.

It is you, who refuses to address the issue. I am well aware of the fact that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. HOWEVER, there is one thing that can trump that, and that is LEGISLATION that limits what he can do with the military. THAT'S THE SITUATION HERE.

Do you deny that? If not, then I guess will will just have to agree to disagree but, what we are disagreeing about is objectively ascertainable and that objective ascertainment doesn't look too good for your side of the disagreement.

 

[tjvh]

Answer: Congress. Pres. Obama does not have the power to close Gitmo by himself. He has to have Congressional approval, and he isn't getting it.

Umm. He is the one that signed the EO to keep it open. Nice fail though Leftytoon.

Yes, but WHY did he sign the EO? You seem to imply that he WANTED to keep Gitmo open. Not the case. And what did the EO really say - what was the President trying to accomplish with it? Read this article:

Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

Poor George... You actually believed Obama wanted to close GITMO because Obama said he wanted to close GITMO when he was campaigning for votes in the 2008 election. Still so much to learn about politics.

 

[George Costanza]

Umm. He is the one that signed the EO to keep it open. Nice fail though Leftytoon.

Yes, but WHY did he sign the EO? You seem to imply that he WANTED to keep Gitmo open. Not the case. And what did the EO really say - what was the President trying to accomplish with it? Read this article:

Obama creates indefinite detention system for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

Poor George... You actually believed Obama wanted to close GITMO because Obama said he wanted to close GITMO when he was campaigning for votes in the 2008 election. Still so much to learn about politics.

How you doin' with those black helicopters hovering outside your bedroom window? They still bothering you?

 

[MaryL]

Close Guantanamo. Yes, We should never have left these people in limbo like this. Absolutely. Most Americans would just have had them shot when they were captured. Let Allah figure it out. Muslims can’t possibly disagree. And we agnostics think that Muslims shouldn’t have attacked the US in the first place. I am not feeling to much sympathy for folks that belong to an religion/ideology that do such horrific deeds, one way or the other.

 

[williepete]

I am well aware of the fact that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military. HOWEVER, there is one thing that can trump that, and that is LEGISLATION that limits what he can do with the military. THAT'S THE SITUATION HERE.

Do you deny that?

Yes. I deny that. The CNC cannot be trumped when it comes to military movements. Ref: T. R. and the sailing of The Great White Fleet. Legislation that Obama signed into law does not restrict his powers as CNC. The legislation you speak of was signed into law by Obama. To follow your logic, Obama signs legislation he agrees with into law then turns around and says he can't let himself close GITMO because of the bill he signed. If he wanted to close GITMO, he wouldn't have shackled himself. You position doesn't make sense with all due respect.

I mean no disrespect but this is where you don't understand how our country works. One must face the facts here. Obama wants and needs GITMO to stay open for whatever reason, be it political or for national security.

Here's a scenario that will illustrate my position.

President Obama, picks up the phone and calls the Wing Commander of Charleston Air Force Base where many of our C-17 transport aircraft are based. After being duly authenticated, he orders the Wing Commander to send 4 C-17s and 50 security policemen down to Guantanamo Naval Air Station.

Does the Wing Commander say,

A. No.

B. Yes Sir.

Next, President Obama hangs up the phone and calls the Commander of the United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. After being duly authenticated, he orders the Naval Station Commander to have all detainees ready for departure in three hours.

Does the Naval Station Commander say,

A. No.

B. Yes Sir.

If you answered A to both questions, you may want to review the commissioning oath of U.S. Military Officers, the prison terms for violating the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and the powers granted to the President of the United States under Article 2 - The Executive Branch. Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, in the U.S. Constitution.

George, it's been fun. You are passionate about this issue and I respect your position but I'm done with this one ole chap. Let's do this again on another topic.

With respect. Cheers,

Bill

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"On January 7, 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which, in part, placed restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to foreign countries, thus impeding the closure of the facility."
Guantanamo Bay detention camp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, right off the bat, here's a quote from your Wiki article here:

On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and to shut down the detention facility within the year.

Let's keep reading . . . .



Let's see - President against keeping Gimo open, Congress in favor of keeping it open. OK, let's keep on . . . .

Then, as you say . . .

On January 7, 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which, in part, placed restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to foreign countries, thus impeding the closure of the facility.

But, next sentence . . .

U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates said during testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee on February 17, 2011: "The prospects for closing Guantanamo as best I can tell are very, very low given very broad opposition to doing that here in the Congress." Congress particularly opposed moving prisoners to facilities in the United States for detention or trial.

It would appear that Pres. Obama signed the bill because of "broad, Congressional opposition" to closure of Gitmo. That does not mean that Pres. Obama was not personally in favor of closing Gitmo - he was and is. He probably felt that, in light of such strong Congressonal opposition, it would not have been politically prudent for him to veto the bill, I don't know (and neither do you).

The continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay facility is a stain on the integrity of our country. Those who encourage such continued operation of Gitmo label themselves as authoritarian cretins, willing to compromise constitutional provisions for the achievement of their own, ill-conceived personal goals.

As I have said and will continue to say, there are ways to punish terrorists, consistent with our established legal principles. Gitmo is not it.

One of the larger problems with Guantanamo is that by the time Obama became president, it was already too late to try about a third of the detainees, another third were determined not a threat but had no where to go, and a final third were deemed too dangerous to release regardless the outcome of their trials, if they were tried at all.

Guantanamo is yet another foul legacy of the Bush years.

 

[hortysir]

 

[Big Black Dog]

It Is Long Past Time to Close Gitmo...

I agree with George Costanza BUT IMO the people being held there should be hung first and then close GITMO. If they hang 5 or 6 a day they should be able to close the place within two weeks.

 

[Trajan]

Remember how, in 2008, then-candidate Obama was touting how he was going to "close Guantanamo Bay" if elected? He was, and he didn't. Gitmo is very much open for business today, housing over 100 prisoners who have been in custody since 9/11 or thereabouts, with no sign of a trial anywhere around. Did you also notice that, when he was running for re-election last year, we didn't hear too much, if anything, about Gitmo during the 2012 campaign?

How come? Why is Gitmo still in operation? It certainly is not because Pres. Obama has given up on his desire to close it.

Answer: Congress. Pres. Obama does not have the power to close Gitmo by himself. He has to have Congressional approval, and he isn't getting it.

Obama renews call to close Guantanamo prison - latimes.com

It's long past time to close this place and either give these prisoners trials or release them.

you do realize that most of these folks have been classified as the worst of the worst, but evidence doesn't exist to lock them up that might stand in a court........


and finding countries to take them is difficult in some cases...

and those that may, will I suspect provide way less calories and exercise time than we do.....

and the recidivism rate is 20%....


and , lets say we do close it and move them to super max, how does that address the legal issue?


and, what difference does it make if they are in gitmo or supermax? they will hardly know the difference........can you explain the difference to me , *shrugs*other than gitmo being raised to some huge boogey man, its a prison, so is supermax....

 

[MikeK]

[What are you trying to say here - that Obama has some kind of secret desire that Guantanamo remain open and is lying when he says he wants it closed, blaming everything on Congress when, in reality, he has the power to close it himself without getting Congressional approval?

[...]

George,

I'm surprised you haven't learned by now that nothing Obama says has any merit. He is an instinctual liar. It comes natural to him. How many things has he promised or assured and then either casually ignored or done the complete opposite?

I don't know why he won't close Guantanamo. But I do know where government figures are concerned when a mysterious question arises, look for the answer in some form of surreptitious payoff.

We know Guantanamo costs billions of dollars to operate. So somebody is making a lot of money from it. I believe that is the table to look under for packages changing hands.

Qui bono?

 

[Politico]

Yes, but WHY did he sign the EO? You seem to imply that he WANTED to keep Gitmo open.

If he wanted it closed it would have been.

 

[there4eyeM]

What are the principles of human rights America would express to itself, the world and posterity?

 

[George Costanza]

[What are you trying to say here - that Obama has some kind of secret desire that Guantanamo remain open and is lying when he says he wants it closed, blaming everything on Congress when, in reality, he has the power to close it himself without getting Congressional approval?

[...]

George,

I'm surprised you haven't learned by now that nothing Obama says has any merit. He is an instinctual liar. It comes natural to him. How many things has he promised or assured and then either casually ignored or done the complete opposite?

I don't know why he won't close Guantanamo. But I do know where government figures are concerned when a mysterious question arises, look for the answer in some form of surreptitious payoff.

We know Guantanamo costs billions of dollars to operate. So somebody is making a lot of money from it. I believe that is the table to look under for packages changing hands.

Qui bono?

Don't overstate your case, Mike ("Everything Obama says is a lie" - I don't think you really believe that. I know I don't.)

I am a little disturbed by what I am learning by the responses on this thread, however. As I understand it, he signed legislation designed to keep Gitmo open, some time after he was elected in 2008. The stated reason for his signing of the legislation (as opposed to vetoing it) was that it had strong bipartisan support in Congress. OK - let's assume that was the case. What was going on between the time he was re-elected and the time he signed the legislation? Why didn't he shut the joing down THEN, before Congress had time to come up with debilitating legislation?

 

[George Costanza]

It Is Long Past Time to Close Gitmo...

I agree with George Costanza BUT IMO the people being held there should be hung first and then close GITMO. If they hang 5 or 6 a day they should be able to close the place within two weeks.

Every time I compose some smart-ass, squalching response to one of your posts, I look at that dog and say forget it. That's a GREAT dog.

 

[George Costanza]

Close Guantanamo. Yes, We should never have left these people in limbo like this. Absolutely. Most Americans would just have had them shot when they were captured. Let Allah figure it out. Muslims can’t possibly disagree. And we agnostics think that Muslims shouldn’t have attacked the US in the first place. I am not feeling to much sympathy for folks that belong to an religion/ideology that do such horrific deeds, one way or the other.

So, whenever we are dealing with people who do REALLY bad things, it's OK to forget about the Constitution and just put them away for a dozen years or so without a trial, that about it?

 

[Trajan]

Remember how, in 2008, then-candidate Obama was touting how he was going to "close Guantanamo Bay" if elected? He was, and he didn't. Gitmo is very much open for business today, housing over 100 prisoners who have been in custody since 9/11 or thereabouts, with no sign of a trial anywhere around. Did you also notice that, when he was running for re-election last year, we didn't hear too much, if anything, about Gitmo during the 2012 campaign?

How come? Why is Gitmo still in operation? It certainly is not because Pres. Obama has given up on his desire to close it.

Answer: Congress. Pres. Obama does not have the power to close Gitmo by himself. He has to have Congressional approval, and he isn't getting it.

Obama renews call to close Guantanamo prison - latimes.com

It's long past time to close this place and either give these prisoners trials or release them.

you do realize that most of these folks have been classified as the worst of the worst, but evidence doesn't exist to lock them up that might stand in a court........


and finding countries to take them is difficult in some cases...

and those that may, will I suspect provide way less calories and exercise time than we do.....

and the recidivism rate is 20%....


and , lets say we do close it and move them to super max, how does that address the legal issue?


and, what difference does it make if they are in gitmo or supermax? they will hardly know the difference........can you explain the difference to me , *shrugs*other than gitmo being raised to some huge boogey man, its a prison, so is supermax....

????

 

[numan]

'
I presume that the real reason these people are kept prisonners and denied fair trials is that most of them are guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it would be revealed that most of them have been cynically used for political purposes to keep Americans scared and willing to support their totalitarian government.

Of course, the fact that so many of the prisoners have been subjected to torture and "cruel and unusual punishment" would also reveal what disgusting filth the people who rule America are.

The Disneyland Dream World of good American partriots must be protected and defended at all costs!!
.

 

[tjvh]

What is the purpose of closing Gitmo?

If the detainees were not being denied trials and if they were not being "treated badly," there might not be any purpose in closing Gitmo.

I saw Giuliani on the tube last night. He was asked how long are we going to detain these people without giving them a trial. He said, "as long as the war on terror continues." When confronted with the fact that something as vague as the "war on terror" could continue literally for an indefinite period of time, he laughingly minimized such an idea, saying that "it will be over long before you think it will."

Golly, I'm sure the detainees feel much better now.

Sorry George, but the detainees feelings are simply not an issue for me. They should have rethought their position on waging war against infidels like us before they landed themselves in GITMO.