Why can't Obama just let the Guantanamo prisoners go free?

[Cali_Democrat]

The Obama Administration and the the politicians in Washington fear real trials and due process because they don't approve of the likely outcome...the prisoners would walk free because we tortured them.

The evidence that would be used against them was likely extracted through torture. They were tortured by Bushco in order to obtain evidence of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, among other things. Of course that link turned out to be non-existent.

Even if the prisoners are a threat, we fucked up by violating their human rights and we have to live with the consequences. Let that be a lesson to us regarding the violation of human rights.

Let them go.

[villager]

1. because that would require bravery and political risk?

:shrug:

[dennis4868]

5. YEP....

that would certainly put a repub in the WH for the next 500000000000000000000000000000 years............

[villager]

16. well, you're right -- that's certainly the excuse for not doing anything, compromise-in-advance, etc

n/t

[sudopod]

48. Then fuck us.

If we're such a lot of cowards then we deserve what we get.

[vaberella]

50. For sure. And I'm from Manhattan.

I can tell you. New Yorkers aren't afraid of a lot of things. We are totally willing to imprison these people in our prisons, we are willing to have them have a trial in our courts. But releasing them back into the public (in another nation). When some are deemed to be enough of a threat---I don't think many New Yorkers would stand by that.

[sudopod]

58. So what if you're from Manhattan?

I guess things like law and justice mean nothing as long as your life isn't disturbed. Who cares if we torture children, right?

This country is over, and has been for some time. I suppose there's been some form of continuity, but if your and everyone else's fear of scary 14 year old terrorists is enough to make this inhumanity OK, then we.are.done.

[okieinpain]

31. yeah and we should let all of the prisoners out of prison also

because they've been tortured too.

[Cali_Democrat]

69. The prisoners in US jails were convicted of a crime in the court of law

The detainees in gitmo have been siting there for nearly a decade with no charges against them and no trial

[okieinpain]

83. you know that some here will argue with you about the treatment

of prisoners in the united states, and that not all of them are guilty.

[KansDem]

2. I've wondered that myself...

What intelligence value could these prisoners possibly serve? Haven't some have been in GitMo for 8-9 years?

Are they being kept at GitMo because of human-rights violations?

[dennis4868]

3. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Okay, it's time I take a break from DU for awhile....HELPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!

[treestar]

32. I hear you!

The obsession with the President and his supposedly unlimited powers!

[sudopod]

52. He has one job, to uphold the Constitution.

Imprisoning people without charge while torturing them is illegal. There is no question about this.

He has one option, let them go, and popularity nor politics should come into it. If they do, if they overrule justice and the law, then we are deluding ourselves about what we really are. If America wants to be a cruel, murderous mercantile empire, well fine, whatever, but don't expect me or the rest of the world to kiss our asses as some glorious beacon of Freedom or something, and by god don't expect me hail the President as some sort of saint for presiding over this fucking desecration.

[vaberella]

59. Uh we aren't torturing them.

Plus under the war clauses we can hold them---see post no.# 26.

[sudopod]

62. Not torturing...

are you from Earth?

[stevenleser]

35. I sometimes think some folks want no Democrats to be re-elected and Repugs to sweep everything

I think even NYC's, San Francisco's and the rest of Massachussetts Democrats would lose re-election if Obama did something like that.

[sudopod]

53. If it means abiding toruture and mass murder, then fuck em.

[stevenleser]

84. It doesnt, but thanks for your input. n/t

[sudopod]

86. Then by all means, point me in the direction of the people who will put and end to this madness.

I will vote the living fuck out of them.

[vaberella]

43. Don't stress it. I just roll my eyes and move on, when I hear stuff like this. n/t

[still_one]

4. For some, probably most I agree, however, if their are some that beyond a shadow of a doubt they are

a threat, no way should they go free.

[slackmaster]

6. After his inauguration, the people who really know what's going on told him the truth about Gitmo

I'm convinced that every new President gets let in on secrets so sensitive and so shocking that the general public can't be trusted to handle them. Whatever the truth is about the prisoners at Guantanamo I must trust the President to do the right thing; and the right thing clearly would not be letting even one of them go.

The hard truth that we must all face is that the policies of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al regarding the prisoners held at Guantanamo must have been right after all.

:tinfoilhat:

[frylock]

15. honestly, i think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes..

and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

[donheld]

101. Never. No blind obedience from me

[vaberella]

44. Well he was blocked from closing Gitmo. This is more than Gitmo.

This is about some of the prisoners...Gitmo doesn't fit into the equation.

[dennis4868]

7. Bush/Obama...

have let some go free....Obama would be NUTS to let tham all go free....that would be a HUGE HUGE HUGE NATIONAL SECURITY MISTAKE AND A POLITICAL MISTAKE that will ensure 100 repub senators in the senate in 2013 and a repub in the WH for the next 500000000000000000000 years....

[dionysus]

23. no kidding. should be obvious to anyone.

[vaberella]

45. ROFL! But very true. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

8. Pres Obama does not "fear real trials and due process."

Both Pres Obama and AG Holder argued * FOR * trying the 9-11 suspects in New York. Maybe you missed it.

It was Mayor Bloomberg, Democratic Senators Gillibrand and Schumer, and GOP Rep. Peter King that argued vehemently against it.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Aren't there hundreds of detainees at Gitmo? The article you link only refers to Sheikh Mohammad....

...and his 4 accomplices. The vast majority of detainees in Gitmo weren't considered to be part of the 9/11 plot itself.

Most of the detainees were picked up in Afghanistan and identified as Al-Qaeda agents by the Bush administration based on dubious evidence. Many would-be detainees were sold to the US government by warlords in Afghanistan. How can those same warlords be trusted to correctly identify Al-Qaeda members? They can't. In all likelihood, they were just settling scores with their foes. It all stinks.

Bush and his cronies were salivating, just waiting to torture them hoping to find a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda and they've been rotting in Gitmo ever since.

If politicians are against trials for the suspects, let them go. We can't just continue to violate their human rights by holding them indefinitely without due process.

[dionysus]

12. they already let most of them go i believe.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. How many prisoners are there right now?

[Robb]

21. 170. nt

[tekisui]

25. Do you have a link? ETA:Found one.

I am not disputing the number, it sounds right, just would like to see it.

This Daily Mail article says 172, but seems to include one who died, so 171 as of Feb. 2011.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353459/Taliban-commander-Awal-Malim-Gul-dies-exercising-Guantanamo-Bay.html

[Mimosa]

102. Maybe they'll all be held until they die

So, it's not alright to do the right thing? Trials could be held anywhere? Why New York? But trials should have been held.

[AtomicKitten]

17. NIMBY as articulated by both Dems and GOP leaders is responsible for the rest.

One the first things Pres Obama did was sign an Executive Order to close Guantanamo, clearly something he was intent on doing. Unfortunately Congress put the kibosh on that plan as it relates to the disposition of the prisoners held there.

Wagging the blaming finger indiscriminately reflects a failure to comprehend the magnitude of this epic mess left to Pres Obama to sort out.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. You obviously failed to comprehend my point

We shouldn't continue to violate the human rights of the detainees because asshole politicians and their enablers refuse to allow real trials. Letting them rot in Gitmo shouldn't be an option.

If we can't give the detainees due process, let 'em walk.

[AtomicKitten]

19. I get that you view idealism as trumping practical application - your "let 'em walk" woefully naive.

nt

[Cali_Democrat]

27. What about Obama's idealism in 2009?

"The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakable commitment to our ideals."

- Barack Obama in 2009


Unshakable commitment to ideals, eh?

[AtomicKitten]

28. BushCo left Pres Obama with a conundrum.

Indefinite detention without trial is against International Law. After a two-year review, Pres Obama is trying to process these prisoners but this has proved to be quite a sticky wicket in some cases.

"We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country," Obama said. "But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."

Some human rights advocates criticized Obama for adopting the idea that some detainees are not entitled to a trial. Others said the president was boxed in by cases inherited from the Bush administration in which possible prosecution had been irretrievably compromised by coercive interrogation.

- snip -

Apart from those who cannot be tried but must be held, Obama laid out four other categories that would apply to the 240 detainees remaining at Guantanamo: those who can be tried in federal court, those who will be brought before revamped military commissions, those ordered released by U.S. courts, and those who can be transferred to other countries.

Obama described preventive detention as the most difficult issue raised by Guantanamo. "Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al-Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans," he said.

- snip -

Another major constraint is evidence tainted by the abuse of prisoners. In the case of Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who allegedly planned to participate in the 2001 attacks, the Pentagon official in charge of referring detainees to trial before military commissions decided not to prosecute. Susan G. Crawford, a Bush appointee, told The Washington Post in January that "his treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case."

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html

[Cali_Democrat]

29. Then Obama should have made the following statement in 2009:

"The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakable commitment to our ideals. However, the Bush Administration has left me with a conundrum. If Congress and the judiciary don't work with me, the policy of indefinite detention without trial will continue and the human rights of many detainees will continue to be violated"

- Barack Obama in 2009

Obviously Obama would have never made this statement because there's not enough hope and change there.

[AtomicKitten]

34. Life isn't nearly as black & white as you seem to think.

And when you start parroting RW rhetoric and mocking - "there's not enough hope and change there" - you render your input a LW version of a teabagger.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. Obama's new statement.....

"
"The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakable commitment to our ideals. However, the Bush Administration has left me with a conundrum. If Congress and the judiciary don't work with me, the policy of indefinite detention without trial will continue and the human rights of many detainees will continue to be violated. Life is not as black and white as many of us seem to think"

- Barack Obama in 2009

Obama should have been honest and direct with us.

[AtomicKitten]

38. and yours

[Cali_Democrat]

39. How old are you?

[sudopod]

63. He posted a picture of a jackolantern.

Your Constitution is invalid.

[LaurenG]

9. Think about it

What would you do if a group of people you vehemently hated let you go after torturing you for years?

What kind of uprising would you incite? Things cannot be patched up after what they've been through.


We've done a terrible thing and now no one can agree about what to do, if I were the president I'd be very careful and try to proceed with as much caution as possible.

edit: used the wrong word and changed it

[midnight]

10. I agree. Free these people... We already know they were not responsible for 9-11.

[vaberella]

46. We do? Majority of AQ was connected in some way.

How do you know these people were no involved in some way?

[sudopod]

54. You can't ever know.

They'll say whatever they're instructed to now. Torture has a way of doing that, which is why evidence extracted thereby is inadmissible in courts in civilized countries.

[Cali_Democrat]

103. How do you even know if they're Al Qaeda? You don't.

What's with your obsession with guilty until proven innocent?

The burden of proof should rest with the US government. It shouldn't be up to the prisoners to prove their innocence, it should be up to the US govt to prove that they're guilty.

Of course the problem is that the US government doesn't want to show their cards and they're just holding the prisoners indefinitely without trial and without due process. The fact that you try to justify it is sickening, but not surprising.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. "Even if the prisoners are a threat...we have to live with the consequences"

If the President said this, he would almost virtually guarantee that he would be a one-termer.

[namahage]

20. And in doing so, hand control back to the very people

who did the bulk of the torturing in the first place.

What lesson, exactly, will they have learned from that?

[vaberella]

57. It's not a lesson they'd have learned. In the end the CONSEQUENCES would be OURS!

That's the whole point. If I wasn't familiar with the OP, I'd think s/he is a right wing shill with this post. Cause it's definitely promoting Republican control of the government indefinitely.

[vaberella]

56. If he said this...DU would even call him a shit President as well.

This board would be on fire for ages. The OP and maybe 3 other posters would be defending him---maybe.

[dionysus]

22. oi vey

[louis-t]

24. Well, first, bush already let most of the ones go that weren't

guilty of anything (after torturing them). A fact any teabagger will deny. A lot of the ones left were involved in terrorism. Which brings us to the fact that they were tortured, too. And we're NOT any safer. bush fucked up, big.

[JoePhilly]

26. Do you know what the classifications are for the detainees?

I'm guessing no. Maybe you should read this ... the Guantanamo Review Task Force summary report.

www.fas.org/irp/eprint/gtmo-review.pdf

The report recommended releasing 126 to their homes or to a third country, 36 be prosecuted in either federal court or a military commission, and 48 be held indefinitely under the laws of war. In addition, 30 Yemenis were approved for release if security conditions in their home country improve.

That's why.

[vaberella]

47. Thanks for this. I wonder what you have to mee to be "not feasible for prosecution." n/t

[sudopod]

61. So the President can make commissions by executive order

that can declare human rights null and void? OH WONDERFUL, I'M GLAD I WAS WRONG! GO USA!

[JoePhilly]

71. The OP is wrong.

The OP demands that every remaining detainee be released.

As I show, most of them will either be released to their home country, or tried.

Only a small number have fallen into the "limbo" that Bush created.

Sure Obama could "release" them ... and ignore that they are also the ones currently calsssified as those determined to be the most likely to attempt to kill more people.

By comparison, the Bush administration did little to nothing to classify the detainees so that you could attempt to try them.

And so some argue, that Obama should just release them.

If Obama wanted to keep this simple, he would not have demanded a classification system so that he could move forward. He could have not tried to move gitmo trials to the US ... he could have simply left the detainees, unclassified, for ever.

This is just one of the sacks of shit that Bush left on Obama's door step.

Bush mistreated murders, and Obama is supposed to let them go free because Bush's actions make it impossible to try them in any court.

[sudopod]

73. Yes, yes he should.

That's what the law says. We don't get to ignore the law because it is inconvenient.

[WiffenPoof]

30. Hey...Why Not?

What are they afraid that our military can't protect us?

-P

[treestar]

33. Because some of them might indeed be dangerous?

And if they were just let go, and something happened, you'd by "why did Obama let that terrorist go without at least an investigation, some type of hearing, etc."

[sudopod]

65. That's why you don't torture people.

Maybe one day, if a guy in a suit who went to an Ivy League school decides you're dangerous and puts you in prison forever you may feel differently.

[lunatica]

36. At this point they might have vengeance in their hearts

thanks to Bush's foreign policy of bombing first and never asking questions.

[TheKentuckian]

40. The only constitutional options are trial and release.

Every other conversation is a tribal council about how to proceed the wrong way in the most acceptable or politically advantageous way possible.

The fundamental flaw in trying to undo Bush's debacle was trying to thread the needle and only have a little indefinite detention and only a few Kangaroo Courts.

[chill_wind]

74. +1000

[SkyDaddy7]

41. I think the blame is on Congress...

Obama tried to close GITMO & he had plans to try these suspects in American courts...But the people in Congress got very very scared that one of those terrorist could escape & destroy America!

However, I know, we don't care who blocked the closing of GITMO or the Trials it is Obama's fault, period!

[vaberella]

51. Well the OP is talking about prisoners not Gitmo.

It's common knowledge that Congress fucked up the moves on closing Gitmo---because no one was willing to take the prisoners into their back yard. But the OP is actually suggesting releasing ALL of them. The question is do you support that measure or not.

[SkyDaddy7]

70. NO, The OP is suggesting many things...

First, " The Obama Administration and the the politicians in Washington fear real trials and due process..." Obama did plan on holding the trials in US Courts but like closing GITMO he was faced with heavy push back on this as well! The OP chose to ignore these facts.

...This is the part I chose to respond to.

No, I do not support releasing the prisoners. And Obama has no choice but to use Military Tribunals...Which by the way have much softer track record against terrorist than do US Courts. To be honest much of what I have read & many of the "Legal Experts" I have heard talk about the difference between Military Tribunals & US Courts say there is not that much. They will still have many of the same rights as they would in US Courts.

The American People & Congress do not understand the power of the US Court system & its stronger track record of being tougher on terrorist than Military Tribunals...But who ever claimed Americans were smart or trusted their Constitution to work except as a prop at Tea Parties!

Obama is a Constitutional Scholar but what does that matter to a public that is mislead by the Right Wing Media & a MSM that is AWOL when it comes to true Journalism!

[BklnDem75]

42. Because he's sane

Why do people ask a President to do something no thinking person would do in his position?

[vaberella]

49. I haven't a clue. I sure as hell wouldn't do it. n/t

[vaberella]

55. "we fucked up by violating their human rights and we have to live with the consequences"

I find this statement to be utterly terrifying. You really fuckin' scared me. I don't know many peple who would allow a canablist murder/rapist set free to roam the streets because we messed up on the evidence or beat up the guy. They'd find some way to keep the person behind bars. But what you're advocating is let him go free and if he kills some more people along the way---"so what it's our own fault?" That is some shit right there. You live with that on your own. I'm fuckin' glad you are not the President. No, not glad, ecstatic and over the moon. Because you really fuckin' scare me, with that thought.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bergie321]

68. We should just

Imprison every person on earth because we don't know who might snap and become an ax murderer?

[vaberella]

72. Did I suggest that? Hell no.

From my understanding these people were not taken in on a pre-emptive arrest. These people were found to have committed a crime during a time of war and there was enough evidence suggest that there was a crime committed. Of course because of what Bush has done it messes up a successful prosecution. However---let's be honest here---if someone is going around and we know they are murderers you will want them released--giving a high chance of someone else dying?! The crime was committed here or they are an accessory in a crime---and with knowledge of that crime.

[Cali_Democrat]

75. What evidence do you have that these people even committed a crime?

Have you seen the evidence? Of course not. You've gotta stop believing everything the US government tells you. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

There's very real possibility that there is no admissible evidence that could be used to convict. Also, nobody is going trust a conviction handed down by a kangaroo court.

Some of these prisoners of have been locked up, tortured and denied basic human right for almost a decade.

It's a sickening stain on the United States of America.

[vaberella]

77. What evidence do you have that they have not? You're no privy to anything either.

Maybe you should sit there and take a closer look that nothing is as black and white as you claim. You act as though, b/c you don't know if they did a crime or not the best thing to do is to let them all free. And what if they did commit a crime and go and do it again. Not to mention----what if you are given solid evidence that they have given a crime----but we send them back to their country we'd be signing them a death wish----meaning dead before they arrive. We've done that before to people who aren't even criminals.


You have to realize there are over 127 that are being sent home. There is only about 170+ left at Gitmo. And 127 or so are found innocent. And will be sent home when they can find somewhere to put them. 20+ of them are going through the court system. What is left is 48 that they are still deliberating on and at the moment that is the best recourse---at the moment was is called "indefinite detention" are a small number of people who have a precarious situation do to Bush's mishandling. yes, in times of war there are exceptions made and I believe that's . I don't get you. This is far from Black and White.

[Cali_Democrat]

85. What evidence do I have that they have not committed a crime? None

That's why there's something called innocent until proven guilty. You seem to believe in guilty until proven innocent, at least when it comes to these prisoners. Bush tells you they're dangerous and you lap it up like a puppy dog.

Also, there really are only two constitutional options as one poster already mentioned: Trial and release.

Obama believed this before he became President, but his movement to the right has really discredited this former constitutional law professor. Obama says one thing on the campaign trail and does another while he's President.

He's completely discredited himself and it's sad.

[fittosurvive]

64. Yawn...

[sudopod]

67. huh. got real quiet in here. nt

[RollWithIt]

76. What do you actually know about the prisoners in Guantanamo?

Not much for your original post. Go Free? Just like that? No. But I will and have argued for pushing these cases on US soil.

[vaberella]

78. Agreed and out of 170+ Detainees 120+ will go free...

20 or so will have a trial and 48 are sort of----somewhere. She's like let all go free.

[AtomicKitten]

79. I was reading about this today. There are four categories:

1. Those who can be tried in federal court.
2. Those who will be brought before revamped military commissions.
3. Those ordered released by U.S. courts.
4. Those who can be transferred to other countries.

Hopefully this will put an end to this shameful episode in our history.

[vaberella]

80. I hope this works out as well.

This looks like another way to shut down Gitmo without Congress.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. Which category do those who are essentially POW's fit in?

That's the real problem here. People captured on the battlefield can't be tried for anything and are usually held until the end of the war, simply so that they can't fight for the enemy. But this "war" is going to be indefinite in length.

[paparush]

81. Because he wants a 2nd term?

[DirkGently]

82. Because Bush "bought" most of them sight-unseen from the N. Alliance, then tortured them.

We know why. America knows why. The world knows why. We have become one of those countries whose leaders say transparently false things because the truth is barbaric and damning.

[snot]

87. K&R'd.

[Beacool]

88. This phrase is really scary to me.

"Even if the prisoners are a threat, we fucked up by violating their human rights and we have to live with the consequences. Let that be a lesson to us regarding the violation of human rights."

Since you think that we deserve whatever we get, I suggest that they be released in your community.

As one of the people who is lucky to have survived 9/11, I don't wish them in my neighborhood. Do you honestly think that all these people are innocent as the driven snow? I only advocate releasing those who can be proven to have committed no crimes.

:-(

[Cali_Democrat]

89. I didn't say that we deserve to be the victims of terrorist attacks

I meant that the US government is to blame if they commit a terrorist attack if they're set free.

They should have been given due process all along. As soon as they were captured, they should have been placed on trial in the court of law and not tortured and detained indefinitely.

Think about what happens when a murderer kills somebody, but the police improperly collect evidence and the judge throws out the case. Same thing.

In this case the US went about it all wrong and fucked up the case!

[Beacool]

93. The government may be to blame.

But the ones who would pay the consequences are the innocent, not the politicians.

:-(

[sudopod]

91. Guilty until proven innocent?

" I only advocate releasing those who can be proven to have committed no crimes."

Really?

[Beacool]

92. They are already imprisoned.

They should be tried and if proven innocent released, but I don't advocate a blanket release. Some of them probably are a threat to our security and will continue their previous activities if freed.

[sudopod]

98. "They should be tried and if proven innocent released"

:(

[Hippo_Tron]

96. I'm just as fine with them being released into my neighborhood as anywhere else in the country

I'm pretty sure that if you stopped and thought rationally about it, you would realize that one thing terrorists generally don't do, is blow up the first thing they see.

[Uzybone]

90. Fuck let em all free, give em green cards on the way out

because if we release them back to their countries they'll probably be tortured, murdered, plan terrorist acts that might kill innocents or die of old age. And we don't want to be responsible for that do we?

[mkultra]

94. some need to be in prison some dont, tell us which ones and ill support

letting them go.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. Because in order to win wars, you take morally ambiguous shortcuts

And the country (including the President) still believes that we are at war.

[geek tragedy]

99. Let's give them US passports and canisters of nerve gas too! nt

[BzaDem]

100. Wow. Just wow. n/t

[Beacool]

104. Jon Stewart had something to say on the subject too:

Wednesday night's "Daily Show" dealt with one of President Barack Obama's failed promises: the guarantee that Guantanamo Bay would close one year from his first day in office.

While Obama initially said we no longer had to make the "false choice between our safety and our ideals," he recently reversed his decision to close the prison. Military trials are resuming at Guantanamo and Obama even said that some detainees may have to be "held indefinitely".

Stewart claimed Obama's "dream of closing Guantanamo is dead" and followed up with the only logical thing he could do: pour out some organic, fair-trade raspberry vinaigrette for his liberal homies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/jon-stewart-guantanamo_n_833942.html

;-)