Obama Reiterates Pledge To Close Guantanamo Bay

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

President Barack Obama reiterated his 2008 pledge to close the military prison facility at Guantanamo Bay during a taping of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Thursday afternoon. Obama signed an executive order his first week in office that ordered the Guantanamo Bay prison closed by January 2010, but Congress has inserted language into legistation Obama signed that prevented him from closing the facility.

"I still want to close Guantanamo. We haven’t been able to get that through Congress," Obama said, according to a White House pool report. "One of the things we have to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help to do that so that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in in terms of some of the decisions we’re making.”

Lawyers for terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay told TPM this spring they believed the public has lost interest in the legal issues posed by the reformed military tribunal system at Guantanamo since Obama took office.

-30-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-reiterates-pledge-to-close-guantanamo-bay

[Solly Mack]

1. I haven't lost interest.

[awoke_in_2003]

2. I am trying hard to hold my tongue...

but it should have been closed a long time ago.

[Solly Mack]

4. I agree with the lawyers. It does seem that a good many

people have lost interest. Though "interest" isn't really how I'd define what I think about it. (and have thought for years)

It's like people have relegated torture, abuse, and assorted other war crimes into the category of unpleasant facts to be tucked away and forgotten.

[awoke_in_2003]

6. And if you bring it up...

you get the "vote for Romney then" line. One day we will have to start holding our politicians accountable.

[hughee99]

35. When a repuke eventually gets into office and Guantanamo is still open,

I think people will start to care again.

[cstanleytech]

18. Of course it should have been closed long ago and if Obama had gotten his way it probably would have

been but unfortunately congress pretty much tied the presidents hands.

[awoke_in_2003]

26. The House is insane...

if we don't get it, too, it will be four more years of not getting much done. "Republican" is becoming a curse word.

[Ash_F]

39. I don't see it feasible though

Even if Dems get all the toss-ups.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/house/2012_elections_house_map.html

[primavera]

52. I don't understand this

Isn't Obama Commander in Chief? Isn't Gitmo a military facility? So what does Congress have to say about it?

[cstanleytech]

53. Not exactly. He is the leader of the army but congress and the senate are the ones that

decide how to spend the governments money and what laws to pass for the president to sign and if he vetos anything they pass rather than signing it they can override the veto with enough votes.

[primavera]

54. Right, Congress controls the purse strings

But Obama isn't asking for money to shut down Gitmo, just the opposite - he's supposedly wanting to shut down a military facility so that funding would no longer be needed.

[cstanleytech]

55. What he wants and what he gets though are two different things.

Congress in this case didnt agree with his wants so they passed a law to prevent it http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/125/may12/Recent_Legislation_9348.php

[primavera]

56. Interesting!

Great reference! Thank you so much for providing that!

[Mean Gene]

57. Thanks for the link. nt

[PatrynXX]

9. doubt people in Illinmois has lost interest either

since there is this big max security prison just waiting empty... jobs just waiting

[former9thward]

15. That prison will no longer be used for Gitmo detainees.

The Obama administration has decided to buy the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois to house high-security federal inmates, and promises the facility will not be used for terror detainees currently incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/politics/illinois-prison/index.html

[msanthrope]

38. Congress passed a law not allowing that facility, or any facility in the US to be

used for that purpose.

[azurnoir]

3. I'm still very interested

time to close shameful chapter in our history

[cstanleytech]

19. "shameful chapter" is an understatement imo. nt

[azurnoir]

21. ageed, I was being too nice n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. "the public has lost interest in the legal issues posed by the reformed military tribunal system"

Making it easier to close the place.

Republicans were acting like the ground would open up and bat winged demons would fly out if Gitmo detainees set foot on US soil.

[freshwest]

7. For those who still want to blame Obama. please read this link fully:

Here are a few excerpts. I followed this closely as it was happening and listened to the media storm from RW sources and congressmen. Those voices included governors of states the Admiminstraion had sought to bring the prisoners to be tried under American law.

Their demagoging, which hasn't stopped, of Obama's importing a Muslim army to take over the country and kill the patriots, is still in play. CTers point to GITMO's existance as proof that Obama is indeed the 'puppet for the NWO,' and just waiting for some reason to declare martial law and take away all their liberties.

Of course if it was not GITMO, they would find something else to accuse Obama for. They truly hate the real changes Obama has made by fighting bigotry and special interests with the the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Not to mention his defense of women in the ACA and those with pre-existing conditions.

Now he will be demagagued if he holds fast to what he is doing to sunset the Bush tax cuts, which was the real reason for the creation and promotion of the Tea Party in 2010, to get a voting majority to stop that happening. It's all about the money, and many of these attacks are funded by groups founded by the Koch family.

Why Obama hasn’t closed Guantánamo camps

By CAROL ROSENBERG, Jan. 07, 2012

Congress has used its spending oversight authority both to forbid the White House from financing trials of Guantánamo captives on U.S. soil and to block the acquisition of a state prison in Illinois to hold captives currently held in Cuba who would not be put on trial — a sort of Guantánamo North.

But Congress has made it nearly impossible to transfer captives anywhere. Legislation passed since Obama took office has created a series of roadblocks that mean that only a federal court order or a national security waiver issued by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could trump Congress and permit the release of a detainee to another country.

Neither is likely: U.S. District Court judges are not ruling in favor of captives in the dozens of unlawful detention suits winding their way from Cuba to the federal court in Washington. And on the occasions when those judges have ruled for detainees, the U.S. Court of Appeals has consistently overruled them in an ever-widening definition of who can be held as an affiliate of al Qaida or the Taliban.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/07/v-print/2578082/why-obama-hasnt-closed-guantanamo.html

With thanks to Pirate Smile who posted the link to that story here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002179174#post4

Another link for those who don't remember, from no hypocrisy reply #17:

http://prospect.org/article/endless-guantaacutenamo

[annabanana]

8. "Lost interest"?

uh, ... no.

Reformed or not, these tribunals cannot carry the weight of law. Evidence obtained by torture is not admissible anywhere in any legitimate court. By taking America down this path, Bush did terrible damage to our Country's reputation. And he hurt every American in whose name he did it.

Sadly, the current administration has chosen not to prosecute these crimes, and Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Bybee, Yoo, Warren. Cambone, Haynes, Pappas, Sanchez, Miller, Fast, and Wojdakowski are walking free.

[Honeycombe8]

10. I really don't care about that issue. Not in this economic environment, esp. nt

[Skittles]

11. oh that's nice

money is so much more important than HUMANITY

[Honeycombe8]

12. Money has a lot to do with HUMANITY. Try to live decently w/o it. And w/o healthcare. And w/o clean

air to breathe or clean water to fish from. Or a decent public school system to educate the kids to grow up and compete for good jobs. Or a way for kids inclined to a secondary education to get it. Or a family being able to support themselves because Mom doesn't get paid well because she's female.

Yeah...Guantanamo is way down the list of priorities. When a house is on fire, the lawn needing cutting gets put aside for a while, while you tend to the emergencies.

[Skittles]

13. that's no reason to forget about HUMANITY

[Honeycombe8]

16. Tell someone who's lost everything that he's forgetting HUMANITY if he doesn't think

Guantanamo should be first on his list of priorities.

Earning a living, earning money IS the part of humanity. It's how we feed the poor, care for the injured vets, send the elderly their social security checks and provide health care. These things ARE humanity. Guantanamo is down the list.

[Fumesucker]

14. Humanity existed before money

And I suspect humanity will exist after money becomes a forgotten relic of the past.

[Honeycombe8]

17. There has always been money in some form, as long as there have been HUMANS.

Money in its various forms IS humanity. Try to care for the elderly, get them their SS check, provide health care, educate people, feed the poor across the world, help the AIDS epidemic, and everything that needs to be done...it all requires money. Before paper money, there was coin. Before coin, there was grain or anything else that could be used to barter or feed people with. It's all money in various forms. It's necessary in order to live. It's also unselfish. For the reasons stated above.

Guantanamo is way down the list in my book.

[Fumesucker]

22. Is that you, Mitt?

Money is humanity?

Evidently that makes Willard more human than the vast majority of us.

It has been said, by those who say things, that the love of money is the root of all evil.

The best and most noble things we do have nothing to do with money or the grubbing thereof.

[Skittles]

28. CORRECT!!!!!!!!!

[Honeycombe8]

31. Is that you, Ralph Nader? All about you, you, you? And then more you? And only you? nt

[Fumesucker]

33. Nader has plenty of money, he's a multimillionaire

Better luck next time.

[LanternWaste]

58. I imagine our priorities are indeed, quite telling.

"All about you, you, you? And then more you? And only you...?"

That would appear to be a question with more relevance if asked to someone who believes money and finance are of greater import than the dignity of simply not torturing out of political expediency...

I imagine our priorities are indeed, quite illustrative of our character-- on both a national and a personal level.

[Occulus]

27. I'll be looking for your first really progressive post. n/t

[Skittles]

29. you'll find the fountain of youth first!!!

[Honeycombe8]

32. Grow up, little fella. Not cool to call others trolls 'cause they hav diffrent priorities than you.

My priorities are the ones that MOST agree with, even among Democrats. There's a reason you don't see Obama and Romney duking it out over Guantanamo. Because it's about the economy, stupid. NO ONE CARES ABOUT GUANTANAMO. And that includes Democrats.

Must be nice that life is working out so well for you that all you have to worry about is some place thousands of miles away, keeping accused terrorists from other countries, who are being fed and provided health care. WORRY ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBORS FIRST WHO ARE NOT GETTING HEALTH CARE.

[Fumesucker]

34. Romney and Obama aren't duking it out over Guantanamo because they basically agree

As for the "accused terrorists", when are they going to trial?

You know, that thing we do with people who are accused of a crime.

[Skittles]

37. shit like that doesn't matter if you don't have a lot of money, Fumesucker!!

[Honeycombe8]

46. Most people don't care about it. Facts are pesky things. You just can't shake 'em off your shoe.nt

[Skittles]

36. I am not a FELLA

get off your high horse and by ALL MEANS please stop talking to me - I live in TEXAS- I can find your kind of opinions EVERYWHERE

[Honeycombe8]

47. Your disrespectful response to my very respectful opinion post justified my counter-response to you.

Little fella. You obviously are a young little fella to get so upset over someone having different priorities from you. Hey...I didn't even say I didn't care at all. I said it was down the list of priorities. Why that set you off...only you know.

There's a reason there's not a duking going on about Guantanamo. It's because there are more serious, urgent issues right now that directly affect people's lives. It's called humanity. If you care about your neighbors, you would understand that. Doesn't mean you don't care about people in Egyt or Libya or Africa or wherever. But it's a matter of urgencies and priorities.

I've heard O mention Guantanamo once, and Romney not at all. That's because it's not an issue right now.

Placing you on ignore.

[Ash_F]

40. We can multi-task.

It's probably more work to run the prison than to close it. :V

[rug]

20. It took four months to open it. Why does it take four years to close it?

[lovuian]

23. exactly

I'm glad he realizes people all over the world know we have never tried these people and tortured them

[cstanleytech]

24. Because there are politicians involved, some who are exploiting the fear of those

being kept there and others who are afraid of being labeled as terrorist sympathizers.

[rug]

25. It was poilticians who opened it in the first place.

I have no respect for any of them who allow torture and indefinte detention for fear of labels.

[Ash_F]

41. That and no one wants to finally admit these people were just farmers and herders.

Admitting mistakes is painful for big tough American heroes.

[cstanleytech]

42. "these people were just farmers and herders" Sorry Ash but that I dont fully buy at all.

Some of them may or may not have been that sure but I doubt all of them are innocent little lambs though that doesnt mean our government should be doing what its doing and by that I mean they should have gone through the regular courts like everyone else to have their cases heard in order to decide their guilt or innocence.

[Ash_F]

43. Right, they should have gone to court, but they didn't.

That should tell you enough.

[cstanleytech]

44. "That should tell you enough" If you are trying to imply

that its because they are all innocent then no, I am still not buying it.
I think the reasons they dont want it to go through the courts is a combination of factors, some of its because they are afraid of the sources of intel being compromised others because they probably did use torture to obtain some of said intel and the other part is political because none of the politicians want to be the ones accused of freeing a terrorist if one or more of them is found innocent and then commits a terrorists act.

[Ash_F]

50. Those are some very generous assumptions

The world is not an action movie with sophisticated james-bond type bad guys. The people who committed 9/11 were a small group of upper middle class metropolitan Saudi ideologues. They did it on their own and mostly all died in the attack. They did not need a vast shadowy international criminal conspiracy to crash planes into buildings. The only tie in to Afghanistan was Bin Laden and even the FBI never suspected he was actually involved in 9/11(look it up).

The people in GITMO are almost all rural Afghans and most of them probably did not know or care much about the US or international politics until the war. So yes, farmers and herders. Maybe some of them took up arms when their country was invaded. Maybe. If so, then they should have been treated as POWs, not criminals. If they are criminals, then there should be trials.

[cstanleytech]

51. Did I claim that they were involved with the 9/11 attacks? No, I did not.

Alot of the people allegedly were involved with carrying or planning to carry out other attacks of course we only have the governments word on that for what its worth (which isnt much these days) but there you have it.
As for my speculation its just that but I believe its very likely that those are the main reasons why they havent moved them to the civilians courts, not that I agree with them on that as I personally believe that most if not all of them could easily be dealt with by our justice system if it was given a chance.

[Sam1]

30. How did the cases reach the Appeals Court?

And on the occasions when those judges have ruled for detainees, the U.S. Court of Appeals has consistently overruled them in an ever-widening definition of who can be held as an affiliate of al Qaida or the Taliban.

The Circuit Court Rulings in favor of the in favor of the detainees would have held if Obama's Justice Department had not appealed the rulings and argued for reversal.

As to closing Getmo I'll Believe it when I see it!

[cstanleytech]

45. But in general isnt the DOJ required by law to appeal in that kind of case?

[Sam1]

48. I am not sure.

However, I do think that it would fall within prosecutorial discretion and would not be automatic. Something like when the Justice Department announced that it would no longer defend DOMA.

[cstanleytech]

49. Mmm, would be interesting to know for sure. If anyone here knows for sure please feel free to

answer.