Obama Pledges To Renew Efforts To Close Guantanamo

[Publicus]

Obama Restarts Bid to Shut Guantanamo

The Obama administration is set to restart transfers of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "kick-starting a long-stalled drive to close the prison," the Wall Street Journal reports.

In a speech today, President Obama "will reassert his case that closing Guantanamo is crucial to U.S. counterterrorism goals. While he isn't planning to detail how to speed up transfers from the prison, officials said the president in coming weeks plans to lift the administration's prohibition on sending detainees to Yemen."

[pacharaphet]

Let them all starve, then close it down

Why is this kind of stuff allowed? Are you seriously that against a fair trial...not that I think these people would get anything close to a "fair" trial regardless? Do you have that little faith in Western judicial systems that you must insist all individuals be starved to death, regardless of what info there is about them on file?

[chuckd]

Let them all starve, then close it down

Why is this kind of stuff allowed? Are you seriously that against a fair trial...not that I think these people would get anything close to a "fair" trial regardless? Do you have that little faith in Western judicial systems that you must insist all individuals be starved to death, regardless of what info there is about them on file?

It is their choice not to eat. Halal food is still prepared and delivered to them om a regular basis. Up to them, as they say.

[snarky66]

obama seems to be caving in to the loon wing of the leftist party.

Try to get him a tee time.

[Publicus]

Let them all starve, then close it down

Why is this kind of stuff allowed? Are you seriously that against a fair trial...not that I think these people would get anything close to a "fair" trial regardless? Do you have that little faith in Western judicial systems that you must insist all individuals be starved to death, regardless of what info there is about them on file?

These guys with their Darth Vader views establish a sharp contrast between themselves vs those of us who believe in, and advocate, human rights and human dignity. Let 'em spout on and drone on, sounding like the Grand Inquisitors of old. They put off almost everyone. It does the good guys a world of good. It strengthens our cause of justice and human decency.

We don't want to come across as censors. Let them reveal who and what they are, to all of us. For the greater good.

[chuckd]

Let them all starve, then close it down

Why is this kind of stuff allowed? Are you seriously that against a fair trial...not that I think these people would get anything close to a "fair" trial regardless? Do you have that little faith in Western judicial systems that you must insist all individuals be starved to death, regardless of what info there is about them on file?

These guys with their Darth Vader views establish a sharp contrast between themselves vs those of us who believe in, and advocate, human rights and human dignity. Let 'em spout on and drone on, sounding like the Grand Inquisitors of old. They put off almost everyone. It does the good guys a world of good. It strengthens our cause of justice and human decency.

We don't want to come across as censors. Let them reveal who and what they are, to all of us. For the greater good.

You may not be wanting to censor other members but it would seem you wish to deprive them of their right to privacy if they disagree with your positions.

A rather strange position for an anonymous member to take.

[Publicus]

Let them all starve, then close it down

Why is this kind of stuff allowed? Are you seriously that against a fair trial...not that I think these people would get anything close to a "fair" trial regardless? Do you have that little faith in Western judicial systems that you must insist all individuals be starved to death, regardless of what info there is about them on file?

These guys with their Darth Vader views establish a sharp contrast between themselves vs those of us who believe in, and advocate, human rights and human dignity. Let 'em spout on and drone on, sounding like the Grand Inquisitors of old. They put off almost everyone. It does the good guys a world of good. It strengthens our cause of justice and human decency.

We don't want to come across as censors. Let them reveal who and what they are, to all of us. For the greater good.

You may not be wanting to censor other members but it would seem you wish to deprive them of their right to privacy if they disagree with your positions.

A rather strange position for an anonymous member to take.

Your post refers more to privacy and anonymity of TVF members than it does to censorship and our freedom of thought or speech.

It's a strange and curious post.

Off focus.

[NeverSure]

Well, you just had the treaty explained to you.

Now let's give up also on the idea that the prisoners are there because the US thinks they are too dangerous on its land. They are not on US soil because if they were they'd gain certain rights. As it is, they are prisoners of war, captured on foreign soil, and kept on foreign soil so that they remain under the international rules of war prisoners.

You can stop trying to sound as if you're a lawyer any time now.

It seems it is you who isn't paying attention.

First, the US did NOT declare war on either Iraq nor Afghanistan and if you 'counter' this by saying there didn't need to be a declaration of war then you don't know much about what constitutes a 'prisoner of war' or 'enemy combatant' or whatever term is made up to neatly fit an enemy into the category you want them to be.

Second, why are you neglecting to mention the close-to-a-hundred prisoners who were found to be completely innocent three years ago an are still in captivity.

Recidivism . . . if one hasn't fought against someone but gets imprisoned for ten years or so and then goes back to kick some arse due to this injustice . . . is that recidivism?

Or is it just the US breeding lots of people who hate the US for good reason?

You may drop the all caps any time now. The US did declare war on both countries. The people at Gitmo are indeed prisoners of war, subject to international war prisoner laws, not US laws or your laws. Link

Well, you just had the treaty explained to you.

Now let's give up also on the idea that the prisoners are there because the US thinks they are too dangerous on its land. They are not on US soil because if they were they'd gain certain rights. As it is, they are prisoners of war, captured on foreign soil, and kept on foreign soil so that they remain under the international rules of war prisoners.

You can stop trying to sound as if you're a lawyer any time now.

I don't know if I should be flattered. I took a few law courses as they relate to scientific stuff, that's it. I'm just puzzled that you seem to think it's ok for the USA to occupy another country's land under questionable circumstances and then to dump the people it doesn't want on that land. It certainly speaks to a paucity of morals on the part of the USA. Basically, it is akin to people dumping garbage.

The USA has grabbed a tiger by its tail and now cannot let go. The longer the USA lets the Guantanamo debacle drag on, the more it undermines the USA when it speaks out on the need to respect the rule of law, civil rights etc. Holding people without trial isn't right. I find it odd, that the USA had no issues with the release of some vile mass murderers after WWII and yet it hangs on to some of these people captured in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries which the USA invaded. Neither Iraq, nor Afghanistan declared war on the USA, nor did they attack the USA.

I don't doubt for a minute that some of the detainees are killers or that will seek to kill again. However, the time has come to charge them and to have a trial. If the accused are guilty of crimes, then fine detain them. Unfortunately, the issue is that there are not any trials, just people being held.

See above, counselor. The US is well within its international prisoner of war rights.

You seem so concerned about what others think of the US. These terrorists are killing people all over the world. Americans are sickened by what happened to the British soldier in London.

Some people would rather fight than be PC. If you're an American, you can even vote on it.

Edited May 27, 2013 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

I'm noticing something that's not uncommon. Obama isn't promising to close Gitmo, and he isn't saying he's planning on it.

I think he's trying to schmooze his far left wing constituents with more of his rhetoric. I don't think there's any way he thinks he can actually close it.

First, if those bistards were brought onto US soil and tried, there would be radical Islamic riots at the courthouses and maybe worse. This puts Americans in danger. Americans would storm Congress with protests.

Second, if they were tried on US soil, they'd be given full US constitutional rights and the citizens would have to pay the tab for lawyers for them and for trial costs. Those kinds of trials cost into the millions. Citizens would be furious.

Third, if the desire is to try them, then that can be done in Gitmo with a military trial under international law without letting them come into the house.

Fourth, the article specifically says that Obama plans to talk to Congress. What a weasel clause!! The House of Representatives is overwhelmingly Republican and it's a non-starter there. The Senate is the same Senate which just refused to pass gun control legislation. Their constituents would hammer the H E double toothpicks out of them.

So that statement alone in the article says it ain't gonna happen.

[NeverSure]

Forgive my tangent, but has anyone ever asked the Cubans their feelings about having a U.S. military base housing these people on its land? Cuba does retain ultimate sovereignty over the lease granted to the USA which was given under questionable circumstances. I won't go off into a lengthy tangent about whether or not the USA should be occupying this part of Cuba, however, I do believe that the previous use of the base for secret CIA prisons and now for the detention of people the USA deems dangerous, may very well be a breach of the lease as the prisons are not really associated with the use of the area as a naval coaling station. The lease is granted on that basis and the USA has really stretched and pushed the envelope with its use of the base as a detention center. I find it incredible that in 2013 a foreign country is able to occupy a another country's land and forcibly place its military and people that it considers dangerous on that land. The takeaway message is that the USA thinks it's alright to put these people in someone else's country, but too dangerous to do iso n the USA. Why not move these people to Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Well, you just had the treaty explained to you.

Now let's give up also on the idea that the prisoners are there because the US thinks they are too dangerous on its land. They are not on US soil because if they were they'd gain certain rights. As it is, they are prisoners of war, captured on foreign soil, and kept on foreign soil so that they remain under the international rules of war prisoners.

You can stop trying to sound as if you're a lawyer any time now.

I don't know if I should be flattered. I took a few law courses as they relate to scientific stuff, that's it. I'm just puzzled that you seem to think it's ok for the USA to occupy another country's land under questionable circumstances and then to dump the people it doesn't want on that land. It certainly speaks to a paucity of morals on the part of the USA. Basically, it is akin to people dumping garbage.

The USA has grabbed a tiger by its tail and now cannot let go. The longer the USA lets the Guantanamo debacle drag on, the more it undermines the USA when it speaks out on the need to respect the rule of law, civil rights etc. Holding people without trial isn't right. I find it odd, that the USA had no issues with the release of some vile mass murderers after WWII and yet it hangs on to some of these people captured in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries which the USA invaded. Neither Iraq, nor Afghanistan declared war on the USA, nor did they attack the USA.

I don't doubt for a minute that some of the detainees are killers or that will seek to kill again. However, the time has come to charge them and to have a trial. If the accused are guilty of crimes, then fine detain them. Unfortunately, the issue is that there are not any trials, just people being held.

I'm sorry, I missed this part:

"I'm just puzzled that you seem to think it's ok for the USA to occupy another country's land under questionable circumstances and then to dump the people it doesn't want on that land."

The US leased that land and bay from Cuba in 1903, has controlled it since, and pays money for its use. The lease was slightly modified and confirmed in 1934.

The lease is for a military (naval) base and the prisoners are being held on a US military base. Link

I think your assertions should be researched before being made.

Edited May 27, 2013 by NeverSure