Obama says U.S. to redouble efforts to close Guantanamo
Source: Reuters
BERLIN | Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:05am EDT
(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States would step up its attempts to close Guantanamo Bay prison.
"Even as we remain vigilant about the threat of terrorism, we must move beyond the mindset of perpetual war and in America that means redoubling our efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo," Obama said in a speech in front of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate.
"It means tightly controlling our use of new technology like drones, it means balancing the pursuit of security with the protection of privacy," he added.
(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton, editing by Gareth Jones)
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/19/us-germany-obama-guantanamo-idUSBRE95I0LY20130619
n2doc
(47,953 posts)Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... they'll claim he didn't really want to close it.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...the the GOP part of America that keeps blocking every effor to close it.
Like they just did *again*:
http://occupydemocrats.com/with-america-distracted-by-fake-scandals-house-gop-blocks-guantanamo-closing/
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)sakabatou
(42,152 posts)It's all up to Congress and they won't do jack-shit.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Or he could get around Congress by asking for donations from the public.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)he is acting 'presidential' in a manner consistent with separation of powers.
1) The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of all of the nation's armed forces.
2) As Commander-in-Chief, one of his obligations is to deal with prisoners or war in a manner consistent with both the Constitution and ratified treaties the United States is party to with respect to prisoners of war.
3) The Congress of the United States may not dictate to the President that he act, or direct others to act, in a manner fundamentally at odds with the Constitution and Treaties (treaties are explicitly indicated to be the law of the land in the Constitution).
4) The United States is party to treaties explicitly forbidding indefinite detention of prisoners of war.
5) If prisoners of war are being detained indefinitely by the United States military, it is the President's Constitutional duty to force the release of illegally detained prisoners of war.
6) If detainees are determined to be 'unlawful combatants,' and therefore not technically prisoners of war (which is complete BS), then they are therefore deemed to have committed crimes against the United States (which is the precise status of anyone accused of breaking US federal criminal law). Accused criminals are entitled under the Constitution to the right to assistance of counsel, a speedy trial, and may not be required to incriminate themselves. The right to a speedy trial makes it perfectly clear that indefinite detention of accused criminals is an explicit breach of the Constitution, and if it's not an impeachable offense, I don't know what would be, apart from the President simply picking up a gun and shooting a random person, then claiming it was required for the national security of the United States.
7) Congress can't pass laws that directly contravene a provision of the Constitution. What this means, in practical terms, is that the President must choose to disregard such laws and act according to the Constitution's provisions if there is what he truly believes to be a conflict (upholding the Constitution is vital to the oath of office, defined in the Constitution itself). If the Congress of the United States objects, it may attempt to impeach (which would be absurd, since the legal logic is ironclad - the various legal justifications advanced in order to seemingly permit the practice are crap), but that's pretty much it.
8) The current President of the United States has elected not to act in accordance with his Oath to uphold the Constitution in order to protect himself and his political party against a political backlash. He could close Guantanamo bay at any time he chose. In other words, the price we are paying to enable the Democratic party to keep votes from people who would go Republican if Guantanamo was closed is the ongoing perverse violation of the Constitution.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)So, I can believe that.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and the law would allow their release, yet somehow they just cant get released.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)FOIA suit reveals Guantánamos indefinite detainees
Miami-Herald
By CAROL ROSENBERG
crosenberg@miamiherald.com
6 17 13
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- The Obama administration Monday lifted a veil of secrecy surrounding the status of the detainees at Guantánamo, for the first time publicly naming the four dozen captives it defined as indefinite detainees men too dangerous to transfer but who cannot be tried in a court of law.
The names had been a closely held secret since a multi-agency task force sifted through the files of the Guantánamo detainees in 2009 trying to achieve President Barack Obamas executive order to close the detention center. In January 2010, the task force revealed that it classified 48 Guantánamo captives as dangerous but ineligible for trial because of a lack of evidence, or because the evidence was too tainted. They became so-called indefinite detainees, a form of war prisoner held under Congress 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
The Defense Department released the list to The Miami Herald, which, with the assistance of Yale Law School students, had sued for it in federal court in Washington, D.C. The Pentagon also sent the list to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on Monday, a Defense Department official said. According to the list, the men designated for indefinite detention are 26 Yemenis, 12 Afghans, 3 Saudis, 2 Kuwaitis, 2 Libyans, a Kenyan, a Moroccan and a Somali. Human rights groups denounced the existence of such a list.
*snip*
Two men on the list are deceased. Both Afghans, one committed suicide with a bedsheet in a recreation yard at Guantánamos Camp 6 for cooperative captives and the other died of a heart attack, also in Camp 6. So now the 166 captives at Guantánamo actually include 46 indefinite detainees.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/06/17/3456267/foia-suit-reveals-guantanamos.html
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/05/17/Yemen-wants-its-detainees-out-of-Guantanamo/UPI-58651368823800/
Another article said 48 were cleared for release.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)PSPS
(13,600 posts)He could empty Gitmo today with a stroke of his pen. I see he also threw in that canard, "balancing the pursuit of security with the protection of privacy." Yeah, whatever. I hope you enjoyed this week's kill list.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Psephos
(8,032 posts)I won't hold my breath this time.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Or make the place run as a legitimate prison with proper oversights and human rights protections. I'm not sure I understand why the President has so little control over a military prison.
Response to Eugene (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed