Obama To Order Gitmo Closure on Day One

[Whiffleball]

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

President-elect Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/guantanamobaynavalbasecuba/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.

But experts say it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.

People who have discussed the issues with transition officials in recent weeks said it appeared that the broad outlines of plans for the detention camp were taking shape. They said transition officials appeared committed to ordering an immediate suspension of the Bush administration’s military commissions system for trying detainees.

In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said the incoming administration appeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. The Bush administration has insisted that such a measure is necessary to close the Guantánamo camp and bring some detainees to the United States.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants to close the camp. But in an interview on Sunday on ABC, he indicated that the process could take time, saying, “It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize.” Closing it within the first 100 days of his administration, he said, would be “a challenge.”
The president-elect drew criticism from some human rights groups Monday who said his remarks suggested that closing Guantánamo was not among the new administration’s highest priorities. But even if the detention camp remains open for months, the decision to address Guantánamo on the day after his inauguration seemed intended to make a symbolic break with some of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration.

Several national security and legal analysts have argued in recent weeks that Mr. Obama is in a delicate political position after having committed himself to closing the prison. Sarah Mendelson, the author of a report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/center_for_strategic_and_international_studies/index.html?inline=nyt-org) on how to close the prison, said Mr. Obama’s remarks on Sunday appeared intended to indicate the difficulty of the task, which she said it could take a year to complete.

“I thought he was trying to manage expectations of how quickly those detainees who remain can be sorted into two categories: those who will be released and those who will be prosecuted,” Ms. Mendelson said.

Aside from analyzing intelligence and legal filings on each of the remaining detainees, diplomats and legal experts have said the new administration will need to begin an extensive new international effort to resettle as many as 150 or more of the remaining men. Portugal and other European countries have recently broken a long diplomatic standoff, saying they would work with the new administration and might accept some detainees who cannot be sent to their home countries because of concerns about their potential treatment.

The transition official, who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the plans, said the administration expected to announce its Guantánamo plans next Wednesday.

Brooke Anderson, a transition spokeswoman, declined to comment on any plans, saying only, “President-elect Obama has repeatedly said that he believes that the legal framework at Guantánamo has failed to successfully and swiftly prosecute terrorists, and he shares the broad bipartisan belief that Guantánamo should be closed.”

In formulating their policy in recent weeks, Obama transition officials have consulted with a variety of authorities on legal and human rights and with military experts. Several of those experts said the officials had expressed great interest in alternatives to the military commission system, like trying detainees in federal courts, and appeared to have grown hostile to proposals like an indefinite detention law.

They also said the transition officials were intensely focused on new international efforts to transfer many of the detainees to other countries.
Several said the officials appeared concerned that a proposal for a new law authorizing indefinite detention would bring the new administration much of the criticism that has been directed at the Bush administration over Guantánamo. A former military official who was part of a series of briefings at the transition headquarters in Washington said the officials had spoken about the indefinite detention proposal as a way of creating a “new Guantanámo someplace else.”

“That is very much not the desire of the Obama team,” said the former military official, who insisted on anonymity because of his concerns about how the transition officials would react to public discussion of their comments.

Catherine Powell, an associate professor of law at Fordham, said transition officials appeared most interested at a meeting last month in showing international critics that they were returning to what they see as traditional American legal values.

“They are really looking for tools that we have in our existing system short of creating an indefinite detention system,” Ms. Powell said.

Mark P. Denbeaux, a Seton Hall (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/seton_hall_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org) law professor who has been a prominent lawyer for Guantánamo detainees, said that at a briefing he attended with senior officials of the transition last month the officials seemed to have decided to suspend the military commissions immediately.

“Their position is they’re a complete and utter failure,” Mr. Denbeaux said.

The Pentagon has been pressing ahead with plans to begin a trial on Jan. 26 of one of its high-profile suspects, a Canadian detainee named Omar Khadr. Mr. Khadr’s case has drawn wide attention, partly because he was 15 when he was first detained on charges of killing an American soldier in a firefight in Afghanistan in 2002.

Some human rights groups said Monday that they were alarmed by Mr. Obama’s vague timetable and lack of specifics in his remarks Sunday. They said they worried that the administration might yield to pressure to display its toughness in dealing with terrorism in its detention policies.

“The devil is in the details,” said Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/american_civil_liberties_union/index.html?inline=nyt-org), who has been pressing the new administration to publicly commit to immediately close Guantánamo.

Mr. Romero said he had grown concerned because transition officials had provided details of their plans for dealing with the economic crisis, but had yet to provide details for how they will close Guantánamo, which has brought worldwide criticism.

“Just like we need specifics on an economic recovery package,” Mr. Romero said, “we need specifics on a ‘justice recovery package.’ ”

It looks like someone forgot :(

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/e6/Eagle-cry.jpg


No, seriously, it's awesome to see Obama keeping one of his promises, trying to get back some of our moral standing in the world, and realizing that not playing by the book just puts the taint of false arrests and illegal methods over any bad guys you really do capture

[Claydon]

so what does he intend to do with these people exactly?

kick em loose in NYC with $200 and say....."ya'll come back now ya hear"

[Hanover Fist]

He sure as hell didn't seem too sure about this in his interview the other night. I would be surprised to see Gitmo closed any time in his first and hopefully only term.

[Whiffleball]

so what does he intend to do with these people exactly?

kick em loose in NYC with $200 and say....."ya'll come back now ya hear"


In formulating their policy in recent weeks, Obama transition officials have consulted with a variety of authorities on legal and human rights and with military experts. Several of those experts said the officials had expressed great interest in alternatives to the military commission system, like trying detainees in federal courts, and appeared to have grown hostile to proposals like an indefinite detention law.

They also said the transition officials were intensely focused on new international efforts to transfer many of the detainees to other countries.

reading is fun-damental

but you should really spread the idea that those terrists will be on city streets killing Americans, that'd be rad

He sure as hell didn't seem too sure about this in his interview the other night. I would be surprised to see Gitmo closed any time in his first and hopefully only term.

Cool story, bro, but he was talking about it on Sunday in definite terms on ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Economy/story?id=6619291&page=1)

But Obama said unequivocally that it will close. "I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values."

[Claydon]

yah ok whiffle, so the putz with the nytimes is suggesting that these prisoners should be put in open court. yah, right, that will never fly especially with regards to national security. so again.........what exactly are they going to do with these people.

[Hanover Fist]

But then he waffled and stated...

" I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do

It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize

Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.

Like I said, them giving the order to begin the closure of Gitmo and the actual closure of Gitmo could be between 1 and 6 years difference. I do not see Gitmo being closed within the next 4 years.

[Skybase]

Soylent Green comes to mind.

[Whiffleball]

But then he waffled and stated...


uh it's not waffling to admit something is difficult, he's been very clear that he's going to close Gitmo, it's just not going to happen right away and it requires planning and prudence, which admittedly we have not seen much of in the last eight years

I don't see why these dudes can't be tried either as military POWs or civilian criminals and by the book or be kept domestically or abroad in actual prisons, to suggest they're going to be put back on the streets is pretty childish imho but hey it's claydon :D

[Genius]

Gitmo was one of the Bush administration's biggest mistakes. We have high security holding facilities throughout the country. Just disperse these people into them evenly, keep them separate from the general population, and the American people would forget about them. Putting all "enemy combatants" in one place, and making it super-secretive inevitably made it a target for the anti-war factions, and it became a symbol of Bush's "fascist regime". So all Obama has to do is shut down Gitmo, spread the remaining prisoners out, make a show of releasing a few of the non-violent offenders, and he wins huge political points by basically doing nothing.

[Hanover Fist]

uh it's not waffling to admit something is difficult, he's been very clear that he's going to close Gitmo, it's just not going to happen right away and it requires planning and prudence, which admittedly we have not seen much of in the last eight years

I don't see why these dudes can't be tried either as military POWs or civilian criminals and by the book or be kept domestically or abroad in actual prisons, to suggest they're going to be put back on the streets is pretty childish imho but hey it's claydon :D

You can' try them as civilians because they haven't committed civilian crimes, but I agree they should be tried by a military tribunal and executed just like we would have done with combatants like them that we caught in WWII.

[Grieves]

he wins huge political points by basically doing nothing.A reoccurring theme throughout his political career.

[Debo]

Gitmo was one of the Bush administration's biggest mistakes. We have high security holding facilities throughout the country. Just disperse these people into them evenly, keep them separate from the general population, and the American people would forget about them. Putting all "enemy combatants" in one place, and making it super-secretive inevitably made it a target for the anti-war factions, and it became a symbol of Bush's "fascist regime". So all Obama has to do is shut down Gitmo, spread the remaining prisoners out, make a show of releasing a few of the non-violent offenders, and he wins huge political points by basically doing nothing.

I am not a lawyer (Thank God) but from what I understand letting them step foot on American soil gives them certain rights, while keeping them locked up in Gitmo prevents us from granting them the rights that I mentioned before.

Personally, I say fuck them and let them rot in Gitmo. Simply dumping them into the prison system isn't going to work. These people are trained terrorists. Do you really want them recruiting from within our criminal school system? Lets just add Terrorism 101 to every new inmate's class schedule.

Now, we can send them back to their country of origin, but they don't want them either.

I doubt that Obama is a fan of 24. If he is, then he would get all Jack Bauer on their ass like Bush did.

[BIG PIZZLE]

They could go the Romney route and open 2 gitmos.

[Whiffleball]

I wouldn't say Obama is doing nothing. He could have just sat on his hands and said something like "We need to look forward and not backward" like when he washed himself of investigating the Bushites for breaking the law. He's actually committed himself to washing away America's Shame even though the extreme right can't wait to say he's making America weaker

I also don't see why you need to deprive these people of rights unless you believe we should live in some kind of police state where people charged with crimes don't have any rights and might as well be guilty until proven innocent.

It would have been better if Bush had just divided these people into civilian and military prisoners, tried them via military courts or federal courts and done it the right way. Instead they went around both American law and international norms and then tainted the whole process with torture, mistreatment and a whole litany of illegal methods, so even in cases where they do find a terrorist who is part of a conspiracy to attack America, we still look like the bad guys

There has been a reason why previous administrations didn't just re-write the laws or outright flub them, they knew the importance of retaining some moral high ground and not playing in the hands of our enemies by making us the bogeyman they claim we are.

Of course, this is America, so people who have no idea what they're talking about can beat their chests and scream COMFORTING THE ENEMY and WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA or 24 IS NOT JUST UNREALISTIC ACTION ENTERTAINMENT, IT'S A DOCUMENTARY DONE IN REAL TIME

[Claibo]

Obama is about change.... that is why he brought in all of the Clinton Democrats

[BIG PIZZLE]

This is enough change for me. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=215336&title=president-goofus-and-president)

[Debo]

I also don't see why you need to deprive these people of rights unless you believe we should live in some kind of police state where people charged with crimes don't have any rights and might as well be guilty until proven innocent.

It would have been better if Bush had just divided these people into civilian and military prisoners, tried them via military courts or federal courts and done it the right way. Instead they went around both American law and international norms and then tainted the whole process with torture, mistreatment and a whole litany of illegal methods, so even in cases where they do find a terrorist who is part of a conspiracy to attack America, we still look like the bad guys

Of course, this is America, so people who have no idea what they're talking about can beat their chests and scream COMFORTING THE ENEMY and WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA or 24 IS NOT JUST UNREALISTIC ACTION ENTERTAINMENT, IT'S A DOCUMENTARY DONE IN REAL TIME

In case you missed it, the 24 reference was pure sarcasm. I don't think that the world really works like that.

It's the internet: MAYBE I SHOULD TYPE IN ALL CAPS. YESSSS!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe that most countries just shoot suspected terrorists on the spot. Only the US takes them in, gives them three meals a day, clean clothes, etc.

More to the point:

Pentagon: Gitmo detainees returning to battlefield

By LARA JAKES, Associated Press Writer Lara Jakes, Associated Press Writer Tue Jan 13, 2:46 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Terror suspects who have been held but released from Guantanamo Bay are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

Sixty-one detainees who have been released from the U.S. Navy base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the fight, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. That's up from 37 previously, Morrell said.

The new figures come as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to issue an executive order during his first week in office to close the controversial prison. It's unlikely, however, that the Guantanamo detention facility will be closed anytime soon as Obama weighs what to do with the estimated 250 al-Qaida, Taliban or other foreign fighter suspects who remain there.
About 520 Guantanamo detainees have been released from custody or transferred to prisons elsewhere in the world.

"There clearly are people who are being held at Guantanamo who are still bent on doing harm to America, Americans, and our allies," Morrell told reporters at the Pentagon. "So there will have to be some solution for the likes of them, and that is among the thorny issues that the president-elect and his new team are carefully considering."
Morrell said the new numbers showed a "pretty substantial increase" of detainees returning to terror missions — from 7 percent to 11 percent.

He said fingerprints and other forensic evidence, as well as intelligence, were used to tie the detainees to terror efforts. He did not know where those detainees had been released, or what missions they are now believed to have rejoined.
Human rights activists and defense lawyers for the detainees argue that many men at Guantanamo pose no security risk and should be released.

In a recent report, the Brookings Institution examined hundreds of pages of declassified military documents, and ultimately said it couldn't tell whether many of the prisoners held for years without charges are terrorists or innocent.

The Washington think-tank concluded that only 87 of the 250 detainees described having any relationship with al-Qaida, the Taliban or other armed groups considered hostile to the United States.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainees_4

[Genius]

I am not a lawyer (Thank God) but from what I understand letting them step foot on American soil gives them certain rights, while keeping them locked up in Gitmo prevents us from granting them the rights that I mentioned before.

Personally, I say fuck them and let them rot in Gitmo. Simply dumping them into the prison system isn't going to work. These people are trained terrorists. Do you really want them recruiting from within our criminal school system? Lets just add Terrorism 101 to every new inmate's class schedule.

Now, we can send them back to their country of origin, but they don't want them either.

I doubt that Obama is a fan of 24. If he is, then he would get all Jack Bauer on their ass like Bush did.
The obvious problem with that is that (of course, some don't see it as a problem at all) some of these people aren't terrorists, or enemy combatants, or whatever you want to call them. And without any type of system in place to somehow process these them, the US is inevitably incarcerating innocent people, potentially for the rest of their lives. I'm not ok with that, and no US citizen should be, either. Personally, I'd be all right with them being processed through regular courts, but military tribunals would be fine, too. Gitmo is like the broken pinky of our democracy. Sure, you can get by without fixing it, but unless you get it taken care of, you won't really be healthy. Ridiculous analogy! Yes!

[Whiffleball]

...according to that bastion of insightful, accurate information: the Pentagon

As the Reuters article says: (http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE50C5JX20090113)

Morrell declined to provide details such as the identity of the former detainees, why and where they were released or what actions they have taken since leaving U.S. custody.
btw, here's a study debunking the earlier claims of 30 detainees returning to the battlefield (http://law.shu.edu/news/meaning_of_battlefield_final_121007.pdf)

one of the poor saps listed as "returning to the battlefield" was put there simply for writing an op-ed in the NYT calling for protection of habeas corpus rights.



at least eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals alleged by the Government to have "returned to the fight” are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government’s detention policies;
ten (10) of the individuals have neither been re-captured nor killed by anyone;
and of the five (5) individuals who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed,
the names of two (2) do not appear on the list of individuals who have at any time been detained at Guantánamo, and the remaining three (3) include one (1) ndividual who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) ho is not listed among former Guantánamo detainees but who, after his death, has been alleged to have been detained under a different name.



what I don't get is why they don't all "return" to terrorism

after having been put in Guantanamo Bay for no reason for years, I'd definitely want to kill Americans even if I didn't before

I believe that most countries just shoot suspected terrorists on the spot. Only the US takes them in, gives them three meals a day, clean clothes, etc.

Uh, yeah, countries with secret police round up "suspected terrorists" or "people accused of counter-revolutionary activities", but in most civilized liberal democracies they have rights and stuff, I know you're not a lawyer and stuff :D

[Claibo]

I had a black man raise his fist at me the other day to show off his Obama wrist band... that is when it finally clicked for me. This was a victory for change and a new order as well as a racial victory for ever racist ignorant nigg3r that we will encounter for the rest of our lives. Obama will do great things for this country and it is a shame that there are ghetto ass back woods fucks down here in Houston that are going to make me hate the whole thing.... sorry if i seem angry but that shit really just pissed me off. I could not believe that fuck did that and had a dip shit smirk on his face.... arghhhhhh....

anyway... SAVE GITMO!

[Whiffleball]

I had a black man raise his fist at me the other day to show off his Obama wrist band... that is when it finally clicked for me. This was a victory for change and a new order as well as a racial victory for ever racist ignorant nigg3r that we will encounter for the rest of our lives. Obama will do great things for this country and it is a shame that there are ghetto ass back woods fucks down here in Houston that are going to make me hate the whole thing.... sorry if i seem angry but that shit really just pissed me off. I could not believe that fuck did that and had a dip shit smirk on his face.... arghhhhhh....

anyway... SAVE GITMO!

I for one welcome our Nubian overlords

[Claibo]

I for one welcome our Nubian overlords


MLK just blew his load.....

[Titus_Pullo]

My prediction of him becoming the next Jimmy Carter seems to be spot on if you ask me.

[nobody]

... an appropriate time, for an old saying - "Kill 'em all - let God sort 'em out"/ :O ;)

[freegood]

The obvious problem with that is that (of course, some don't see it as a problem at all) some of these people aren't terrorists, or enemy combatants, or whatever you want to call them. And without any type of system in place to somehow process these them, the US is inevitably incarcerating innocent people, potentially for the rest of their lives. I'm not ok with that, and no US citizen should be, either. Personally, I'd be all right with them being processed through regular courts, but military tribunals would be fine, too. Gitmo is like the broken pinky of our democracy. Sure, you can get by without fixing it, but unless you get it taken care of, you won't really be healthy. Ridiculous analogy! Yes!

They aren't innocent. The problem is that the government extracted their confessions through torture, so it isn't admissible evidence in a real trial.

What Obama wants to do is create a special situational rule that allows information attained during their torture to be used against them. He will continue a dangerous precedent, not bury it.

If that bugs you, this is not a time to keep silent.

[taters]

Close it. Move US trials to US soil. Period.

[vasili denisov]

I believe that most countries just shoot suspected terrorists on the spot. Only the US takes them in, gives them three meals a day, clean clothes, etc.

Remind me who you're referring to as "most countries". Because most countries which we consider as stable and democratic are parties to the Geneva convention, which the practices at Guantanamo, including but not exclusive to torture, violate.

I would argue that the process of torture, rather than extracting valuable information, increases the possbility of bad information, bad information being accepted, and those without justification found guilty, in order to justify the torture. Because if interrogators are torturing someone for whom there exists no evidence of crime, and they themselves are committing a great moral crime, they now have a vested interest to find some exculpation for their acts, that the tortured has committed some act to justify this. So, it becomes in the interest of the participants that the accused are found guilty, not for the practical reason of jailing and deterring terrorists, but that they have some basis for their inhumane acts.

[xfancy]

who cares? when is he gonna legalize WEED? that's what everyone really wants to know.

[Archangel]

Yeah, habeas corpus and the rule of law are so anti-American. Heaven forbid these smelly brown people get on American soil and be awarded civil rights! Fuck no! Keep them in an institution which is an affront to human dignity through its mere existence, torture the fuck out of them, and treat them like the animals they are - oops, let's hope PETA don't get on our case now...


Seriously, people, listen to yourself. Oh, and as for other countries "shooting terrorists on sight", those countries are called "uncivilised"; if you want to join their number (in the minds of half the civilised world, you're halfway there anyway), do feel free.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Haven't there been some guys in Gitmo who's stories have been made public, and it's made clear that they aren't guilty? Or guys who've been released from Gitmo? My memory on this is super-hazy, but if I'm remembering this right, then that seems to completely invalidate the nature of Gitmo.

On a more general note, the entire place seems to operate on the "guilty until proven innocent" concept; well, if you're here, you can't possibly deserve a trial, so...

Just strikes me as un-American.

[Okie Medicvet]

Yes, there have been stories of those who were released revealing how they were tortured and mistreated. And the info given on how many of those released actually turned to violence, about how the 'books were cooked' on that matter, is spot on.

I hope they move forward with trials and then sentencing or release.

And while they're at it, the school of the Americas needs to be shut down too.

[freegood]

Yeah, habeas corpus and the rule of law are so anti-American. Heaven forbid these smelly brown people get on American soil and be awarded civil rights! Fuck no! Keep them in an institution which is an affront to human dignity through its mere existence, torture the fuck out of them, and treat them like the animals they are - oops, let's hope PETA don't get on our case now...


Seriously, people, listen to yourself. Oh, and as for other countries "shooting terrorists on sight", those countries are called "uncivilised"; if you want to join their number (in the minds of half the civilised world, you're halfway there anyway), do feel free.

We know they are guilty because we tortured them to get reliable intel and a confession. Sending them to US soil would mean that evidence is tainted, so we'd have to free them.

[Morfin]

I don't understand why some are criticizing Obama for this or claim he is waffling. Too many people want a simple answer to a complex problem: We want to know when you are going to shut it down!

Obama has handled the problem deliberately. 1) He has expressed a desire to shut the place down. 2) He has conceded that it is not reasonable to just "shut the lights off" because something has to be done with the detainees. 3) He has acknowledged a need to provide detainees with legal rights regarding hearings. All this takes time to figure out.

Bush/Cheney created this cesspool and now Obama has been given the job of cleaning it up. It ain't gonna be easy or quick.

This is what angers me about Gitmo and the fact that very few have even had some sort of hearing on the evidence against them, as posted by Debo:

The Washington think-tank concluded that only 87 of the 250 detainees described having any relationship with al-Qaida, the Taliban or other armed groups considered hostile to the United States. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/...mo_detainees_4 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guantanamo_detainees_4)

I am not advocating that these others need to be immediately released, but they do need to be given a hearing. And, as Debo also points out, many other countries would have just executed these people. We have a higher standard and we need to get back to living up to that standard.

[Hanover Fist]

What I think he will do is issue some order for the military to begin the process of shutting down gitmo that will not have a firm date that will meet two requirements. It will give him something to show lefties that he in fact issued the order to close the facility thus fuflfilling a campaign promise while giving him and the military several years to come up with another plan and keeping the people there locked up.

[freegood]

^I guess this is as good time to copy pasta as any.

Criticisms, political pressure and Barack Obama (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/13/obama/index.html)

Barack Obama's announced intentions on ABC News this Sunday regarding Guantanamo sparked substantial objections from civil liberties and human rights advocates. The result of those objections? From today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html?_r=1&hp): President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.

Not only did Obama advisers quickly leak that Obama planned to do that -- something he made no mention of on ABC or at any time before that -- but they also made known that they have all but rejected the principal plan urged by the pro-war, anti-civil-liberties Brookings Institution and like-minded comrades (such as former Bush official Jack Goldsmith) (http://www.slate.com/id/2206229/) for a Congressionally-authorized scheme of preventive detention to empower the President to indefinitely detain Terrorists inside the U.S. without having to charge them with any crimes: In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said the incoming administration appeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States. . . .

In formulating their policy in recent weeks, Obama transition officials have consulted with a variety of authorities on legal and human rights and with military experts. Several of those experts said the officials had expressed great interest in alternatives to the military commission system, like trying detainees in federal courts, and appeared to have grown hostile to proposals like an indefinite detention law.

Why did Obama advisers rush forth on Monday to ensure publication of articles like this one with new announcements for Obama's plans for closing Guantanamo? The reason seems rather obvious, but in case it isn't, the NYT spells it out: The president-elect drew criticism from some human rights groups Monday who said his remarks suggested that closing Guantánamo was not among the new administration’s highest priorities. . . . .

Several said the officials appeared concerned that a proposal for a new law authorizing indefinite detention would bring the new administration much of the criticism that has been directed at the Bush administration over Guantánamo. A former military official who was part of a series of briefings at the transition headquarters in Washington said the officials had spoken about the indefinite detention proposal as a way of creating a “new Guantanámo someplace else.”

There are still many vital details left unaddressed, beginning with what Obama meant in the interview when he spoke of the need for authority -- what he called a new "process" -- to detain accused Terrorists even when the evidence against them is "tainted." Critically, the NYT article does not indicate what Obama's views are regarding the largest concern prompted by his Sunday comments: namely, whether he favors the commonly advocated policy (also urged by Brookings/Goldsmith (http://www.slate.com/id/2206229/pagenum/2)) to create, upon the closing of Guantanamo, a new so-called "national security court" or other type of judicial process that allows "tainted" evidence (including torture-induced confessions) to be introduced, whereby the "new court" would -- as Brookings/Goldsmith euphemistically put it -- "reduce the burdens on and dangers to ordinary civilian courts and employ nimbler evidentiary and classification rules."

As the ACLU's Anthony Romero is quoted as pointing out in this morning's NYT article: The devil is in the details. Just like we need specifics on an economic recovery package, we need specifics on a justice recovery package.

For those reasons, these new Guantanamo announcements are very far from a guarantee that Obama will do the right thing here. Still, these leaked responses to Sunday's criticisms are an important step forward, and they underscore the reasons why it is so vital to express criticism of Obama when he deserves it.

* * * * *

Politicians, by definition, respond to political pressure. Those who decide that it's best to keep quiet and simply trust in the goodness and just nature of their leader are certain to have their political goals ignored. It's always better -- far better -- for a politician to know that he's being scrutinized closely and will be praised and supported only when his actions warrant that, and will be criticized and opposed when they don't.

Right this moment, there are enormous pressures being exerted on Obama not to make significant changes in the areas of civil liberties, intelligence policy and foreign affairs. That pressure is being exerted by the intelligence community, by the permanent Pentagon structures, by status-quo-loving leaders of both political parties, by authority-worshipping Beltway "journalists" and pundits (such as the ones who wrote the wretched though illustrative "What Would Dick Do?" cover story for this week's Newsweek (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/establishment-dicks-by-digby-ive.html)).

If those who want fundamental reform in these areas adopt the view that they will not criticize Barack Obama because to do so is to "help Republicans," or because he deserves more time, or because criticisms are unnecessary because we can trust in him to do the right thing, or because criticizing him is to "tear him down" or "create a circular firing squad" or "be a Naderite purist" or any of those other empty platitudes, then they are ceding the field to the very powerful factions who are going to fight vehemently against any changes. Do you think that those who want the CIA to retain "robust" interrogation powers and who want the federal surveillance state maintained, or want a hard-line towards Iran and a continuation of our Middle East policies, or who want to maintain corporate-lobbyist-domination of Washington, are sitting back saying: "it's not right to pressure Obama too much right now; give him some time"?
It's critical that Obama -- and the rest of the political establishment -- hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like the ones he suggested on Sunday. This dynamic prevails with all political issues. Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side that wins -- period.
* * * * *


Forgot the best part:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/11/centrism/index.html

UPDATE: Let's emphasize what Obama is actually saying about why he can't close Guantanamo right away. Here is his answer when asked if he'd close Guantanamo in the first 100 days:
It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.
What he's saying is quite clear. There are detainees who the U.S. may not be able to convict in a court of law. Why not? Because the evidence that we believe establishes their guilt was obtained by torture, and it is therefore likely inadmissible in our courts (torture-obtained evidence is inadmissible in all courts in the civilized world; one might say it's a defining attribute of being civilized). But Obama wants to detain them anyway -- even though we can't convict them of anything in our courts of law. So before he can close Guantanamo, he wants a new, special court to be created -- presumably by an act of Congress -- where evidence obtained by torture (confessions and the like) can be used to justify someone's detention and where, presumably, other safeguards are abolished. That's what he means when he refers to "creating a process."

Amazingly, when discussing the same topic, Obama vowed that "we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values." How? By creating a new court just for accused Islamic radicals that allows us to use confessions and other evidence that we obtained through torture? That sounds like exactly the same "message about our values" that we've been sending.

[Okie Medicvet]

It's a high wire act that Obama has to do here, and he is working without a net, but so far it looks like he will be sticking to that particular campaign promise.

[fuldstændigamok]

preventive detention to empower the President to indefinitely detain Terrorists inside the U.S. without having to charge them with any crimes...

Jesus...Good thing this guy and his bunch are out of office soon.

[Mustard]

Good, close this place ASAP I say. The US is supposed to be a civilized nation; civilized nations don't do, or by extention allow to be done, the horrendous things that are being done at Gitmo.

By closing Gitmo, Obama will be able to clean up one of Bush's more heinous policies which will make the US look much better in the rest of the world's eye by doing little to nothing as far as work goes in actuality. Just close it, move the prisoners to military bases, give them habeas corpus and a right to a just trial and let that be the end of this nightmare, like a civilized nation should do.

[Whiffleball]

I think freegood brings up a really important point and really hits home how Bush and his coterie screwed us over. It reminds me of how lots of the Weather Underground got off despite all their years of breaking the law and being on the lam because the FBI broke the law themselves. It's hard to use evidence against a criminal when the evidence you've accumulated was done so via illegal means

And now you have this judge, who isn't just some ACLU card-carrying bleeding heart, pretty much coming out and saying, yeah, we did torture (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372_pf.html)

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Guantanamo+Bay?tid=informline) detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces?tid=informline) tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Robert+Gates?tid=informline) in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ronald+Reagan?tid=informline) and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Dick+Cheney?tid=informline) was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Military prosecutors said in November that they would seek to refile charges against Qahtani, 30, based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques. But Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against him in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward.

Qahtani was denied entry into the United States a month before the Sept. 11 attacks and was allegedly planning to be the plot's 20th hijacker. He was later captured in Afghanistan and transported to Guantanamo in January 2002. His interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003, though he was held in isolation until April 2003.

"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Washington+Post+Company?tid=informline), was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.

The Qahtani case underscores the challenges facing the incoming Obama administration as it seeks to close the controversial detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including the dilemmas posed by individuals considered too dangerous to release but whose legal status is uncertain. FBI (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Federal+Bureau+of+Investigation?tid=informline) "clean teams," which gather evidence without using information gained during controversial interrogations, have established that Qahtani intended to join the 2001 hijackers. Mohamed Atta (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mohammed+Atta?tid=informline), the plot's leader, who died steering American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/World+Trade+Center?tid=informline), went to the Orlando airport to meet Qahtani on Aug. 4, 2001, but the young Saudi was denied entry by a suspicious immigration inspector.

"There's no doubt in my mind he would've been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," Crawford said of Qahtani, who remains detained at Guantanamo. "He's a muscle hijacker. . . . He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.' "

That, she said, is a decision that President-elect Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) will have to make. Obama repeated Sunday that he intends to close the Guantanamo center but acknowledged the challenges involved. "It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," Obama said on ABC's "This Week," "and we are going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted, even though it's true."

President Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) and Vice President Cheney have said that interrogations never involved torture. "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values," Bush asserted on Sept. 6, 2006, when 14 high-value detainees were transferred to Guantanamo from secret CIA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Central+Intelligence+Agency?tid=informline) prisons. And in a interview last week with the Weekly Standard (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Weekly+Standard+Magazine?tid=informline), Cheney said, "And I think on the left wing of the Democratic Party (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Democratic+Party?tid=informline), there are some people who believe that we really tortured."

"I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe," said Crawford, a lifelong Republican. "But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward."

"The Department has always taken allegations of abuse seriously," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Geoff+Morrell?tid=informline) said in an e-mail. "We have conducted more than a dozen investigations and reviews of our detention operations, including specifically the interrogation of Mohammed Al Qahtani (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Mohamed+al-Qahtani?tid=informline), the alleged 20th hijacker. They concluded the interrogation methods used at GTMO, including the special techniques used on Qahtani in 2002, were lawful. However, subsequent to those reviews, the Department adopted new and more restrictive policies and procedures for interrogation and detention operations. Some of the aggressive questioning techniques used on Al Qahtani, although permissible at the time, are no longer allowed in the updated Army field manual."

After the Supreme Court ruled in the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the original military commission system for Guantanamo Bay violated the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, Congress rewrote the rules and passed the Military Commissions Act, creating a new structure for trials by commissions. The act bans torture but permits "coercive" testimony.

Crawford said she believes that coerced testimony should not be allowed. "You don't allow it in a regular court," said Crawford, who served as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces from 1991 to 2006.

Under the act, Crawford is a neutral official overseeing charges, trials and sentencing, with ultimate decision-making power over all cases coming before the military commissions.

In May 2008, Crawford ordered the war-crimes charges against Qahtani dropped but did not state publicly that the harsh interrogations were the reason. "It did shock me," Crawford said. "I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it."

The harsh techniques used against Qahtani, she said, were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Donald+H.+Rumsfeld?tid=informline). "A lot of this happened on his watch," she said. Last month, a Senate Armed Services Committee (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Senate+Committee+on+Armed+Services?tid=inform line) report concluded that "Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there." The committee found the interrogation techniques harsh and abusive but stopped short of calling them torture.

An aide to the former defense secretary accused the committee chairman, Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Carl+Levin?tid=informline), of pursuing a politically motivated "false narrative" that is "unencumbered by the preponderance of the facts."

In June 2005, Time magazine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Time+Inc.?tid=informline) obtained 83 pages of Qahtani's interrogation log and published excerpts that showed some of the extreme abuse. The report of a military investigation released the same year concluded that Qahtani's interrogations were "degrading and abusive."

Crawford said she does not know whether five other detainees accused of participating in the Sept. 11 plot, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Khalid+Shaikh+Mohammed?tid=informline), were tortured. "I assume torture," she said, noting that CIA Director Michael V. Hayden (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Michael+Hayden?tid=informline) has said publicly that Mohammed was one of three detainees waterboarded by the CIA. Crawford declined to say whether she considers waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, to be torture.
The five detainees face capital murder charges, and Crawford said she let the charges go forward because the FBI satisfied her that they gathered information without using harsh techniques. She noted that Mohammed has acknowledged his Sept. 11 role in court, whereas Qahtani has recanted his self-incriminating statements to the FBI.

"There is no doubt he was tortured," Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Qahtani's civilian attorney, said this week. "He has loss of concentration and memory loss, and he suffers from paranoia. . . . He wants just to get back to Saudi Arabia, get married and have a family." She said Qahtani "adamantly denies he planned to join the 9/11 attack. . . . He has no connections to extremists." Gutierrez said she believes Saudi Arabia has an effective rehabilitation program and Qahtani ought to be returned there.

When she came in as convening authority in 2007, Crawford said, "the prosecution was unprepared" to bring cases to trial. Even after four years working possible cases, "they were lacking in experience and judgment and leadership," she said. "A prosecutor has an ethical obligation to review all the evidence before making a charging decision. And they didn't have access to all the evidence, including medical records, interrogation logs, and they were making charging decisions without looking at everything."

She noted that prosecutors are required to determine whether any evidence possessed by the government could be exculpatory; if it is, they must turn it over to defense lawyers. It took more than a year, she said -- and the intervention of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Gordon+England?tid=informline) -- to ensure they had access to all the information, much of it classified.

Crawford said detainee interrogation practices are a blot on the reputation of the United States and its military judicial system. "There's an assumption out there that everybody was tortured. And everybody wasn't tortured. But unfortunately perception is reality." The system she oversees probably can't function now, she said. "Certainly in the public's mind, or politically speaking, and certainly in the international community" it may be forever tainted. "It may be too late."

She said Bush was right to create a system to try unlawful enemy combatants captured in the war on terrorism. The implementation, however, was flawed, she said. "I think he hurt his own effort. . . . I think someone should acknowledge that mistakes were made and that they hurt the effort and take responsibility for it."

"We learn as children it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission," Crawford said. "I think the buck stops in the Oval Office (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline)."


I think it's pretty much clear that Bush and all those involved in torture should be investigated and prosecuted for what they've done. I also think that we should send those who can go home home, secure safe haven for those who cannot and charge those who can be charged in military or federal courts. Will any of this actually happen? I doubt it, and I'll freely criticize Obamer for it

[Morfin]

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

This isn't torture -- this is stupid, pathologic, sick stuff. These "interrogators" should be prosectuted.

[Stax]

so what does he intend to do with these people exactly?

kick em loose in NYC with $200 and say....."ya'll come back now ya hear"

I know this is a crazy idea Claydon, but he intends to follow the law.

If there is evidence, he will charge the people.

If there is no evidence, I'd love to see you explain how you justify holding them.

[freegood]

This isn't torture -- this is stupid, pathologic, sick stuff. These "interrogators" should be prosectuted.

Whatever they did hospitalized him twice.

The thing is if we prosecute the interrogators, then there's a case to prosecute higher level cabinet members who authorized the torture.

Once you prosecute them, then the torturee's attorney has a stronger case to bring them to trial (again, with tainted evidence) or even get some recrimination.

It'd take President Jesus to sort out this mess without shit blowing up on America's face.

[redsox39]

It doesn't matter. If this was done in France, or England or Germany, these guys wouldn't be in a Military prison. they would be out back with SAS or equivilent, beaten until they talk, then burned and scattered. Without the media knowing a thing. Don't get on your high horse.

[Morfin]

Whatever they did hospitalized him twice.

The thing is if we prosecute the interrogators, then there's a case to prosecute higher level cabinet members who authorized the torture.

Once you prosecute them, then the torturee's attorney has a stronger case to bring them to trial (again, with tainted evidence) or even get some recrimination.

My point was that this goes beyond torture. What kind of person thinks up dressing a guy in a bra and putting a thong over his head, or leading him around like a dog?

I am not in favor of prosecuting anyone for the torture itself because that was a strategic decision made at the highest levels, based on their interpretation of the law, which was then carried out. Lest anyone be mistaken: I believe this was torture; I am disgusted that our government approved torture; and the government's arguments are flimsy, to put it mildly.

But this other crap goes beyond that, just like Abu Ghraib, and those sick fucks should be prosecuted. Yes, I know this sounds hypocritical because I am saying no prosecution for torture and prosecution for wearing a bra, and maybe it is. But this is sick stuff that, I believe, is symptomatic of a pathologic personality.

[Yelram]

If I was caught on a foreign battlefield, and they were sending me to a prison somewhere, I would be praying they send me to Gitmo.

If you really are stupid enough to believe there is any sort of "torture" at Guantanamo that merits any sort of constitutional crisis, I feel bad for you. If you're stupid enough to believe that someone caught on a foreign battlefield in the midst of a war, wouldnt lie about how they were treated to make the enemy look bad, I feel bad for you. If you think Obama is going to close Gitmo, you are fucking gullible.

[Stax]

If I was caught on a foreign battlefield, and they were sending me to a prison somewhere, I would be praying they send me to Gitmo.

So your argument is we're not as bad as the worst, so we're ok?

[Pox]

Well thanks God for that, since we can just send the prisoners to those worse places if we feel like it.

[Yelram]

So your argument is we're not as bad as the worst, so we're ok?
My point is that fucking schmucks like you are retarded enough to want to give enemy combatants the same protection under the constitution that American Citizens have. And then when they come to slit your throat, you can tell them how badly you felt about them being detained, and how mean and evil the US is, and how they should go back to fucking Jordan, or Afghanistan, where they'll be treated well. I'm gonna laugh when we hand these guys over to some other nation, and they fucking behead them. Oh, what a champion of human rights we'd be then.

[freegood]

My point was that this goes beyond torture. What kind of person thinks up dressing a guy in a bra and putting a thong over his head, or leading him around like a dog?

I am not in favor of prosecuting anyone for the torture itself because that was a strategic decision made at the highest levels, based on their interpretation of the law, which was then carried out. Lest anyone be mistaken: I believe this was torture; I am disgusted that our government approved torture; and the government's arguments are flimsy, to put it mildly.

But this other crap goes beyond that, just like Abu Ghraib, and those sick fucks should be prosecuted. Yes, I know this sounds hypocritical because I am saying no prosecution for torture and prosecution for wearing a bra, and maybe it is. But this is sick stuff that, I believe, is symptomatic of a pathologic personality.

I totally missed your point. For a long time, those tactics of humiliation were brushed off by talking heads as "not torture" and insinuating that those terrorists and terrorist sympathizers (aka Red Cross, Amnesty international, etc...) were being pansies for making a big fuss about it. After all it wasn't physical and amounted to "their feelings getting hurt".

There's a very strong dehumanizing effect that plays on the interrogator, and it really isn't too surprising that we did in fact torture on top of the "not torture" the Bush admin has denied for the longest time.

Fuck Cheney. Fuck Rumsfeld. Fuck whoever condoned this bullshit at the highest level. As so called patriots, they have ruined our national standing and have made our future objectives a mess to deal with.

[Stax]

My point is that fucking schmucks like you are retarded enough to want to give enemy combatants the same protection under the constitution that American Citizens have. And then when they come to slit your throat, you can tell them how badly you felt about them being detained, and how mean and evil the US is, and how they should go back to fucking Jordan, or Afghanistan, where they'll be treated well. I'm gonna laugh when we hand these guys over to some other nation, and they fucking behead them. Oh, what a champion of human rights we'd be then.

Or, and here's an idea, we could follow the exact same code of laws that has protected us from similar throat-slitters for 200 years. If you have evidence, charge them. If you don't, what the fuck are you doing? Giving a large, multi-trillion dollar international force with it's own army (the United States) the ability to hold you without cause is a lot scarier then some anonymous guy with a turban that Bush and his ilk have used in their firey moments to scare people into line.

[redsox39]

So your argument is we're not as bad as the worst, so we're ok?

I would say it was the best, actually.

We are not as bad any ANY OTHER FUCKING MILITARY PRISON.

[Morfin]

If I was caught on a foreign battlefield, and they were sending me to a prison somewhere, I would be praying they send me to Gitmo.

If you really are stupid enough to believe there is any sort of "torture" at Guantanamo that merits any sort of constitutional crisis, I feel bad for you. If you're stupid enough to believe that someone caught on a foreign battlefield in the midst of a war, wouldnt lie about how they were treated to make the enemy look bad, I feel bad for you. If you think Obama is going to close Gitmo, you are fucking gullible.

I'm sorry that you feel bad for me and I'm sorry to be so gullible, but Points 1 and 3, I believe in. As to Point 1, I don't know that I would refer to it as a Constitutional crisis, but I find it to be action beyond the Geneva Convention (the intent, if not also the words) and find it terrible that the U.S., a country that revels in portraying itself as better than the rest, would stoop down to this level.

As to Gitmo, while Obama may not close it per se (although he may have to for symbolic reasons), as there needs to be such a place, I do believe that he will "close" it as a repository for housing people who have not been given hearings regarding the allegations, charges, and evidence against them, and will "close" it as a place where torture techniques are used.

[Yelram]

I'm sorry that you feel bad for me and I'm sorry to be so gullible, but Points 1 and 3, I believe in. As to Point 1, I don't know that I would refer to it as a Constitutional crisis, but I find it to be action beyond the Geneva Convention (the intent, if not also the words) and find it terrible that the U.S., a country that revels in portraying itself as better than the rest, would stoop down to this level.

As to Gitmo, while Obama may not close it per se (although he may have to for symbolic reasons), as there needs to be such a place, I do believe that he will "close" it as a repository for housing people who have not been given hearings regarding the allegations, charges, and evidence against them, and will "close" it as a place where torture techniques are used.


" The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Guantanamo+Bay?tid=informline) detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces?tid=informline) tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition.""

Thats what they do there, that is not torture, unless your definition of prisoner abuse is a lashing with a wet noodle. Its in fucking cuba, how cold can they get it. You'd need a pretty special air conditioner to get it to the point where it would be "life threatening".

[Whiffleball]

"we're the best military prison out there so it's A-OK" says redsox

First of all, it wouldn't matter if the detainees were being fed lavish meals and watching PPV. None of that changes what should be the most outrageous part, which is that they're being held for indefinite amounts of time without charge, without evidence and without any kind of recourse. If the government came in the thick of night and abducted me from my bed and held for years without telling me what I had done or what they thought they had against me, I'd be pretty pissed off, even if I was staying at a 5-star hotel.

Secondly, I'd really like to know what evidence you have that other Western democracies round up suspects, murder them in the dead of night and then cover it up. Because that sounds like something the secret police in North Korea or Saudi Arabia would do.

It blows my fucking mind that some people have no problem affording rights to criminals who do terrible things like rape or murder people -- they get lawyers, they get trials by jury, they get habeas corpus -- but when it comes to these "enemy combatants", suddenly it's a different ball game because "9/11 changed everything"

I'd also like those saying "this is not torture" to go through some of these things; I'd be dollars to donuts that the vast majority of them would say they wore women's underwear in under 30 minutes.

Protip: it gets cold at night no matter where you are, and chances are, if you're -- I dunno -- indoors and have the right equipment, there's absolutely zero reason you couldn't expose someone to a cold temperature where their heart rate drops to 35 beats per minute

but I'm sure at other times these terrorists are just chilling on the beach fffffffffft

[Pox]

For nearly six years, Haji Bismullah, an Afghan detainee at Guantánamo Bay (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/guantanamobaynavalbasecuba/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), has insisted that he was no terrorist, but had actually fought the Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and had later been part of the pro-American Afghan government.
Over the weekend, the Bush administration flew him home after a military panel concluded that he “should no longer be deemed an enemy combatant.”
Asked about the panel’s decision, which was not publicly announced and seemed to acknowledge a mistake of grand proportions, a Pentagon spokeswoman said, “Mr. Bismullah was lawfully detained as an enemy combatant based on the information that was available at the time.”
The decision was part of a pattern that has emerged in the closing chapter of the administration. In the last three months, at least 24 detainees have been declared improperly held by courts or a tribunal — or nearly 10 percent of the population at the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where about 245 men remain.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/washington/19gitmo.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[Morfin]

Six fucking years, people. And this guy would still be rotting away if the Supreme Court hadn't required the Bush administration to give these people some legal rights.

[Hanover Fist]

Six fucking years, people. And this guy would still be rotting away if the Supreme Court hadn't required the Bush administration to give these people some legal rights.

Actually he wasn't really innocent, but we needed a reason for releasing him so he could be the host for the weaponized strain of plague we put on him.

[Pox]

Lawyers for Mr. Bismullah, 29, presented sworn statements from officials of the American-supported Afghanistan government of Hamid Karzai (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/hamid_karzai/index.html?inline=nyt-per) that indicated Mr. Bismullah had been named as a terrorist by collaborators of the Taliban who wanted to take over his position as a provincial official. In fact, after Mr. Bismullah was shipped to Guantánamo, a local official said in a sworn statement, one of his accusers stole his car and drove it for two years.

Don't worry about due process, I'm sure the CIA knows everything they need to about these guys.

[Archangel]

The CIA? Oh, the guys who in summer 1989 drafted a national intelligence estimate about how the Berlin Wall was there to stay?

[Morfin]

Don't worry about due process, I'm sure the CIA knows everything they need to about these guys.

Read "Legacy of Ashes" and see if your perception of the CIA as a competent undercover agency doesn't go right in the shitter.

[Le Goat]

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – Two of the five men accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks offered unapologetic admissions of guilt Monday in a sometimes chaotic — and possibly final — session of the Guantanamo war crimes court. The hearings, scheduled over several days, could be the last at Guantanamo, since President-elect Barack Obama has said he would close the offshore prison at the U.S. base in Cuba and many expect him to suspend the military tribunals and order new trials in the U.S.
Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the terrorist attacks, casually admitted taking part in the attacks during a series of outbursts as the translators struggled to keep up and the judge repeatedly sought to regain control.
"We did what we did; we're proud of Sept. 11," Binalshibh announced at one point in proceedings that dealt with a number of legal issues, including whether he is mentally competent to stand trial on charges that carry a potential death sentence.
Mohammed, who is representing himself, switched back and forth between Arabic and English, insisting at one point that a uniformed military lawyer assigned to assist him be removed from his defense table. The man, he said, represents the "people who tortured me," he said.
Mohammed shrugged off the potential death sentence he faces for charges that include the murder of nearly 3,000 people in the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We don't care about capital punishment," he said. "We are doing jihad for the cause of God."
Told by the judge to limit his remarks to the subject at hand, Mohammed bristled: "This is terrorism, not court. You don't give me the opportunity to talk."
In a separate hearing, a judge was holding pretrial hearings in the case of Canadian Omar Khadr, who is accused of killing a U.S. soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer of Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a grenade during a battle in Afghanistan in 2002 when the Toronto native was 15.
Khadr's lawyers are seeking to have statements he made to interrogators excluded from his trial, arguing they were obtained through torture and coercion. A prosecution witness, a woman identified only as "interrogator 11" characterized the interrogations as "lighthearted."
"He always came in smiling and very willing to talk to us," she testified.
In both cases, the judges considered whether the Pentagon must charge and arraign the men all over again after it withdrew and refiled charges in about 20 cases. The Pentagon described the refiling as a procedural step required to appoint new military jury panel members.
The judges sided with the prosecutors and ruled the cases would not have to start anew.
The judge in the Sept. 11 case, Army Col. Stephen Henley, acknowledged doubts about the future of the hearings, saying one legal matter could be addressed "at later sessions, if later sessions are scheduled."
Lawyers and representatives of human rights groups who came to observe the hearings believe Obama will suspend the military commission system created by Congress and President George W. Bush in 2006 to prosecute dozens of men held at Guantanamo.
"This system is discredited and flawed and should not exist one day more, and certainly the signals that we hear from Washington, from the Obama transition team, are that he will act on it as soon as he is in office," said Jamil Dakwar, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who is in Guantanamo this week to observe the hearings.
Obama's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, in his confirmation hearing echoed a major criticism of the commissions: that they lack sufficient legal protections for those charged. He said the detainees could be tried in the United States.
Those statements make it unlikely that the commission system will go forward, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Bill Kuebler, Khadr's Pentagon-appointed lawyer.
"It is simply unimaginable to think that these proceedings would continue when you have an administration that is on the record saying that so clearly," Kuebler said. "What's very clear ... is that they want to take a different course of action on Guantanamo."
The Pentagon's chief war crimes prosecutor, Army Col. Lawrence Morris, said he did not know what the Obama administration would do and had to plan as if the commissions would go forward. Still, prosecutors joined with the defense in asking military judges to postpone this week's hearings until after the inauguration. The judges rejected the request.

[taters]

He'll order it to close, but I have no doubt it will take longer than even the high estimates project.

[Hanover Fist]

I'm guessing they'll get it closed sometime early in Jeb Bush's 2nd term, although I could be surprised and they'll get it done in his first one, hard to say right now.

[hatepoppy]

i dont get why they dont just kill everyone in there and bam - no gitmo.

[taters]

I'm guessing they'll get it closed sometime early in Jeb Bush's 2nd term, although I could be surprised and they'll get it done in his first one, hard to say right now.

Aiming high, arent we? The only way the world will ever hear 'President Jeb Bush' is if a second civil war erupts and he is elected and anointed by the Holy Southern Confederacy of Jesus'.

It would be uttered multiple times in newscastings as the free intelligent people of earth defend ourselves from such a dangerous, ignorant and religiously zealous nation.

[hatepoppy]

which side would you be on? i only as, what w blacks bein so churchy n all.

[taters]

^ Teh blaks would likely be the first victims of such a state. I'll either be on the front lines slaughtering confederates with blind abandon, or in the homes of their soldiers consoling their wives, and daughters....and in some cases mothers.

[Das Kahlua]

It blows my fucking mind that some people have no problem affording rights to criminals who do terrible things like rape or murder people -- they get lawyers, they get trials by jury, they get habeas corpus -- but when it comes to these "enemy combatants", suddenly it's a different ball game because "9/11 changed everything"

The fact that the US Constitution does not extend beyond the borders of our country is what 'changed everything,' not 9/11. If I'm over in the Philippines, and I get arrested for whatever, I can't make some claim to entitled rights, whether habeas corpus or any other right, because the US Constitution guarantees it. It's that simple.

As for prisoners being held without charges being filed, we were attempting to hold military tribunals, as they were captured in a war time situation and are being held at a military base, but the SCOTUS shot that down, so now they're just being held.

Protip: it gets cold at night no matter where you are, and chances are, if you're -- I dunno -- indoors and have the right equipment, there's absolutely zero reason you couldn't expose someone to a cold temperature where their heart rate drops to 35 beats per minute

but I'm sure at other times these terrorists are just chilling on the beach fffffffffft

Cuba, the undiscovered tundra. Good thing Global Warming will soon make it warm for these prisoners all the time, both day and night.

[nuclearjew]

The fact that the US Constitution does not extend beyond the borders of our country is what 'changed everything,' not 9/11. If I'm over in the Philippines, and I get arrested for whatever, I can't make some claim to entitled rights, whether habeas corpus or any other right, because the US Constitution guarantees it. It's that simple.
Unless your name is Bill Murray. (http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/?p=86)

[tockit]

Funny how the new administration is more worried about the rights of the criminals than are about the victims' families.

9/11 Families Outraged by Obama
FoxNews.com
January 22, 2009

Family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, and in other terror attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's draft order calling for the suspension of war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.

'To me it's beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists,' said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. 'Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again.'"

Look, I have a friend, a dear friend who lost a son on 9/11, voted for Obama. Thought he was smart, didn't like McCain, thought he was very intelligent and so forth. I haven't talked to him. I don't know what he thinks after hearing this today, but I do know that one of the things that infuriated him the most during the Bush years was that he didn't see enough action to go get the people actually responsible for this, and when we finally got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Bin al -Shibh and got the truth out of him, he was happy, he didn't care what techniques were necessary to be used.

These people, these 9/11 families, you know, Obama says we need to sacrifice. They have sacrificed, wouldn't you say? 9/11 families have sacrificed. But here we are in a new era of responsibility. Obama will have to explain to these people who have lost so much, and who have sacrificed so much, why he is suspending the trials. I'll tell you what's chiseled, grief. Grief is chiseled in the memories of these 9/11 families. Bush was a leader who dedicated his presidency to bringing these people to justice. Now it's all come to a shocking halt.

Elections have consequences. So do actions. This is a new experience for President Obama. People outraged by something that he is doing, people who have sacrificed.