Obama's promise to cost 230 mill to close gitmo [Archive]

RandomGuy

02-02-2010, 09:50 AM

OOPS THAT'S JUST TO MOVE THE INMATES AND GET THE NEW HOTEL READY.

Obama budget includes money to house Gitmo detainees in U.S.
Posted: February 1st, 2010 07:41 PM ET
Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama is asking for more than $230 million in the 2011 budget to buy and prepare an idle Illinois prison to house terrorism suspects now detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Justice Department budget for 2011 unveiled Monday calls for about $172 million for the federal government to acquire and renovate the state-owned prison in Thomson, Illinois, and another $66 million to eventually staff and equip it.

The budget requires congressional approval, and several lawmakers in both the House and Senate have vowed to block the funds, potentially preventing the transfer of many of the 192 remaining Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil.

"Even though Americans are facing tremendous economic challenges, the administration has chosen to spend $237 million dollars in taxpayer money to provide free travel, room and board in Thomson, Illinois for some of the most dangerous Guantanamo detainees," said a statement Monday by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It is time for the President to focus on the security and economic needs of the American people, rather than on the needs of those dangerous extremists who seek to do us harm."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?fbid=uOpmzf5b62i

What are the costs of housing the prisoners at GITMO that are avoided?

Any fair discussion of the costs would focus on the total costs and those total costs would include savings by not having to supply large facilities on foreign soil. We already provide "free room and board" to them.

I would presume that the "ranking Republican" did not raise such objections when Obama's Republican predessor asked for money to expand gitmo, and transport the detainees there, i.e. "free travel, room and board".

One could also probably guess that the "ranking Republican" did not bat an eyelash at the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS spent on the Department of Homeland security over the last decade or so. $55Bn in FY2010, by they way.

Lastly, the suggestion that, by doing this, the president is NOT focused on security, ignores the larger security threat that GITMO poses by its continued operation.

This president actually understands the nature of that threat. Whatever else his faults may be, this president truly understands the nature of the "war on terror" and has, through this undertaking, taken up one of our most powerful weapons in that struggle, instead of leaving them ignored for gross partisan reasons as Replicans would have us do.

In the end we will end up far safer for the closing of GITMO than if we had conintued it's operation.

ElNono

02-02-2010, 09:57 AM

What are the costs of housing the prisoners at GITMO that are avoided?

Any fair discussion of the costs would focus on the total costs and those total costs would include savings by not having to supply large facilities on foreign soil. We already provide "free room and board" to them.

I would presume that the "ranking Republican" did not raise such objections when Obama's Republican predessor asked for money to expand gitmo, and transport the detainees there, i.e. "free travel, room and board".

One could also probably guess that the "ranking Republican" did not bat an eyelash at the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS spent on the Department of Homeland security over the last decade or so. $55Bn in FY2010, by they way.

Lastly, the suggestion that, by doing this, the president is NOT focused on security, ignores the larger security threat that GITMO poses by its continued operation.

This president actually understands the nature of that threat. Whatever else his faults may be, this president truly understands the nature of the "war on terror" and has, through this undertaking, taken up one of our most powerful weapons in that struggle, instead of leaving them ignored for gross partisan reasons as Replicans would have us do.

In the end we will end up far safer for the closing of GITMO than if we had conintued it's operation.

I'm sure all the Black Sites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site) the CIA has operate for free... :rolleyes

I don't see that Republican bitching about that...

coyotes_geek

02-02-2010, 09:59 AM

In the end we will end up far safer for the closing of GITMO than if we had conintued it's operation.

A ridiculous claim based solely on a silly notion that the act of closing Gitmo will make terrorists stop hating us. Close Gitmo, don't close Gitmo. I really don't care whether we do or not, save for the point of how much it's going to cost. But don't say that it makes us safer because it doesn't. All closing Gitmo accomplishes is allowing a bunch of Bush haters to clear their conscious.

elbamba

02-02-2010, 11:16 AM

ElNono

02-02-2010, 11:19 AM

coyotes_geek

02-02-2010, 11:29 AM

This has nothing to do with terrorists hating us. This has to do with the US as a bastion of liberty that respects it's on laws and Constitution. The whole moral high ground you're required to have when you pretend to police the world.

So we agree, it's all about our conscious. Closing Gitmo accomplishes nothing more than being a symbolic gesture.

ElNono

02-02-2010, 11:34 AM

So we agree, it's all about our conscious. Closing Gitmo accomplishes nothing more than being a symbolic gesture.

Closing Gitmo ensures that there's one less clandestine jail available, and that's an implicit backing to the US Justice system and the Constitution. It should have never been used in that way to begin with.

It's a step in the right direction. Abolishing the Patriot Act should be next in line.

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 11:45 AM

So we agree, it's all about our conscious. Closing Gitmo accomplishes nothing more than being a symbolic gesture.Worse yet, relocating indefinitely detained prisoners on US soil underscores just how far we have devolved -- as custodians of liberty for ourselves, our children and indeed the whole world -- in just a few years.

In 2001-2, Gitmo was a solution to the "problem" of the jurisdiction of US courts and the due process that customarily accompanies it; now, the Obama administration sees no problem with denying people due process within US borders, and jailing them here indefinitely without charges. Neither, apparently, do very many Americans. :depressed

coyotes_geek

02-02-2010, 11:47 AM

Closing Gitmo ensures that there's one less clandestine jail available, and that's an implicit backing to the US Justice system and the Constitution. It should have never been used in that way to begin with.

It's a step in the right direction. Abolishing the Patriot Act should be next in line.

Agree 100% about getting rid of the Patriot Act. Unfortunately that's another topic on which Obama has chosen to follow Bush's lead.

coyotes_geek

02-02-2010, 11:52 AM

Worse yet, relocating indefinitely detained prisoners on US soil underscores just how far we have devolved -- as custodians of liberty for ourselves, our children and indeed the whole world -- in just a few years.

In 2001-2, Gitmo was a solution to the "problem" of the jurisdiction of US courts and the due process that customarily accompanies it; now, the Obama administration sees no problem with denying people due process within US borders, and jailing them here indefinitely without charges. Neither, apparently, do very many Americans. :depressed

Even if charges are brought, it still may not matter. But hey, as long as Obama gets to check off "closed gitmo" on the campaign promise scorecard, that's the important thing.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699680303307309.html

elbamba

02-02-2010, 12:30 PM

This has nothing to do with terrorists hating us. This has to do with the US as a bastion of liberty that respects it's on laws and Constitution. The whole moral high ground you're required to have when you pretend to police the world.

I think that military tribunals are perfectly constitutional and I believe those can take place anywhere in the world that constitutes U.S. soil whether owned or leased.

Right now we have an honorable soldier who sits in fort leavenworth and is not going to get a civilian trial all because he shot a terrorist who had killed two of his men. The terrorist looked like he was going for a gun and the soldier shot him. Witnesses confirmed the soldiers story but he did not get the luxury of a civilian trial, I do not see how non-American terrorists who do not fall under the geneva convention should get what our citizens do not.

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 12:40 PM

Over the weekend, Sen. Susan Collins released a five-minute video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8j9lwTmiSA&feature=player_embedded) in which she sounded as though she were possessed by the angriest, most unhinged version of Dick Cheney. Collins recklessly accused the Obama administration of putting us all in serious danger by failing to wage War against the Terrorists. Most of what she said was just standard right-wing boilerplate, but there was one claim in particular that deserves serious attention, as it has become one of the most pervasive myths in our political discourse (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/07/kt-mcfarland-christmas-day-terror-attack-napolitano/): namely, that the U.S. Constitution protects only American citizens, and not any dreaded foreigners. Focusing on the DOJ's decision to charge the alleged attempted Christmas Day bomber with crimes, Mirandize him and provide him with counsel, Collins railed: "Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking" (h/t (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/31/173422/852)). This notion that the protections of the Bill of Rights specifically and the Constitution generally apply only to the Government's treatment of American citizens is blatantly, undeniably false -- for multiple reasons -- yet this myth is growing, as a result of being centrally featured in "War on Terror" propaganda.

First, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008, issued a highly publicized opinion, in Boumediene v. Bush (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZO.html), which, by itself, makes clear how false is the claim that the Constitution applies only to Americans. The Boumediene Court held that it was unconstitutional for the Military Commissions Act to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees, none of whom was an American citizen (indeed, the detainees were all foreign nationals outside of the U.S.). If the Constitution applied only to U.S. citizens, that decision would obviously be impossible. What's more, although the decision was 5-4, none of the 9 Justices -- and, indeed, not even the Bush administration -- argued that the Constitution applies only to American citizens. That is such an inane, false, discredited proposition that no responsible person would ever make that claim.

What divided the Boumediene Court was the question of whether foreigners held by the U.S. military outside of the U.S. (as opposed to inside the U.S.) enjoy Constitutional protections. They debated how Guantanamo should be viewed in that regard (as foreign soil or something else). But not even the 4 dissenting judges believed -- as Susan Collins and other claim -- that Constitutional rights only extend to Americans. To the contrary, Justice Scalia, in his scathing dissent (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZD1.html), approvingly quoted Justice Jackson in conceding that foreigners detained inside the U.S. are protected by the Constitution (emphasis added):

Justice Jackson then elaborated on the historical scope of the writ:
"The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society . . . .

"But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act." Id., at 770–771.
That's from Scalia, and all the dissenting judges joined in that opinion. It is indisputable, well-settled Constitutional law that the Constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners. It's not even within the realm of mainstream legal debate to deny that. Abdulmutallab was detained inside the U.S. Not even the Bush DOJ -- not even Antonin Scalia -- believe that the Constitution only applies to American citizens. Indeed, the whole reason why Guantanamo was created was that Bush officials wanted to claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners held outside the U.S. -- not even the Bush administration would claim that the Constitution is inapplicable to foreigners generally.

The principle that the Constitution applies not only to Americans, but also to foreigners, was hardly invented by the Court in 2008. To the contrary, the Supreme Court -- all the way back in 1886 -- explicitly held this to be the case, when, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356), it overturned the criminal conviction of a Chinese citizen living in California on the ground that the law in question violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. In so doing, the Court explicitly rejected what Susan Collins and many others claim about the Constitution. Just read what the Court said back then, as it should settle this matter forever (emphasis added):

The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Could that possibly be any clearer? Over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court explicitly said that the rights of the Constitution extend to citizens and foreigners alike. The Court has repeatedly applied that principle over and over. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/01/collins/index.html

ElNono

02-02-2010, 01:17 PM

I think that military tribunals are perfectly constitutional and I believe those can take place anywhere in the world that constitutes U.S. soil whether owned or leased.

Military tribunals are a concoction to circumvent civilian or military justice systems, including due process in the civilian case. It's no different than the arbitrary classification of people as 'enemy combatants'. What is that?

The Constitution clearly spells out what the justice system needs to be. If the guy is a military enemy, then he goes to the military justice system. If it's a civilian being tried, then he goes to the civilian justice system.

Right now we have an honorable soldier who sits in fort leavenworth and is not going to get a civilian trial all because he shot a terrorist who had killed two of his men. The terrorist looked like he was going for a gun and the soldier shot him. Witnesses confirmed the soldiers story but he did not get the luxury of a civilian trial, I do not see how non-American terrorists who do not fall under the geneva convention should get what our citizens do not.

There were plenty of honorable men in Gitmo that had nothing to do with terror against the US. Eventually, some of them were released after spending countless years there. That you find it harder to sympathize with them than with your fellow soldier doesn't make it any less wrong.
At the end of the day, under any of the two constitutional systems, you're presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. That standard should be there regardless of nationality.

Jacob1983

02-02-2010, 01:36 PM

Seems like it would be smarter money wise for Obama to just let Gitmo stay open longer rather than close it. However, Obama is very similar to Bush. They love spending money.
I thought Obama was suppose to be about change. I know that Obama has jizzed his pants over wanting to close Gitmo but he and Bush are very similar on a lot of things. It's a shame that it's not mentioned or discussed that much.

RandomGuy

02-02-2010, 01:39 PM

A ridiculous claim based solely on a silly notion that the act of closing Gitmo will make terrorists stop hating us. Close Gitmo, don't close Gitmo. I really don't care whether we do or not, save for the point of how much it's going to cost. But don't say that it makes us safer because it doesn't. All closing Gitmo accomplishes is allowing a bunch of Bush haters to clear their conscious.

That is what is known as a "straw man" attack. Deeply flawed logical assertion in which a position is distorted and that distortion ridiculed.

I don't think, nor does the president, that closing GITMO will make the "terrorists stop hating us".

I have said this repeatedly here and elsewhere:

The war on terror will be won on the battleground of ideas.

It isn't the opinion of the small number of psychopathic nutjobs we are seeking to change.

It is the vast number of people they might recruit to their cause, either through active participation or simple tacit approval.

Riddle me this:

How does our unlimited detention of these men without trial, or secret military tribunals discredit the idea that we are evil?

clambake

02-02-2010, 01:41 PM

I know that Obama has jizzed his pants

have you discussed this with jack?

coyotes_geek

02-02-2010, 02:13 PM

That is what is known as a "straw man" attack. Deeply flawed logical assertion in which a position is distorted and that distortion ridiculed.

I don't think, nor does the president, that closing GITMO will make the "terrorists stop hating us".

I have said this repeatedly here and elsewhere:

The war on terror will be won on the battleground of ideas.

It isn't the opinion of the small number of psychopathic nutjobs we are seeking to change.

It is the vast number of people they might recruit to their cause, either through active participation or simple tacit approval.

Riddle me this:

How does our unlimited detention of these men without trial, or secret military tribunals discredit the idea that we are evil?

How is the idea that we are evil discredited simply by moving the detainees to Illinois?

We're still going to be detaining these people. The Obama administration has even admitted they might detain some people even if they get a trial and are acquitted. So you riddle me this: What difference does it really make if we indefinitely detain people in Illinois instead of indefinitely detaining them in Guantanemo?

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 02:45 PM

What difference does it really make if we indefinitely detain people in Illinois instead of indefinitely detaining them in Guantanemo?The difference is that we allow the show trials and indefinite detentions on US soil.

Perhaps a "conservative" and newly energized Supreme Court will take a dim view of Obama's trivializations of due process and traditional American liberties...

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 02:46 PM

Nah.

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 02:50 PM

How is the idea that we are evil discredited simply by moving the detainees to Illinois? It isn't.

The evil isn't discredited in any way. Per contra (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/PER%20CONTRA) the evil is taken for granted, then repatriated to the USA from Gitmo.

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 02:52 PM

This action doesn't alleviate evil, it compounds it.

coyotes_geek

02-02-2010, 03:15 PM

It isn't.

The evil isn't discredited in any way. Per contra (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/PER%20CONTRA) the evil is taken for granted, then repatriated to the USA from Gitmo.

Precisely my point. What we do with them is a completely separate issue from where we do it. So if it doesn't matter where we keep them, why not just leave them there and save that $230 million for something better? Like building some roads, or funding another couple of months for unemployment benefits for however many workers that would cover. Or better yet, just don't spend it!

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 03:29 PM

Alas, the political need for Obama to keep his promise probably trumps any tough-minded fiscal bargains to be had.

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 03:32 PM

Obama's setting an even worse example than Gitmo, by bringing it home.

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 03:33 PM

What Obama's predecessor did in our name in third-world hellholes, and for which candidate Obama criticized him scathingly, Obama will soon be doing here, on American soil.

Marcus Bryant

02-02-2010, 03:36 PM

Obama's setting an even worse example than Gitmo, by bringing it home.

Yes. Hey, if it's good for terrerererests, then why not those evil drug dealers?

Creepn

02-02-2010, 03:36 PM

So we agree, it's all about our conscious. Closing Gitmo accomplishes nothing more than being a symbolic gesture.

No, opening that facility in Illinois will bring over thousands of jobs for that city. That city is hard hit on employment and this is what that city could most definantly use to tackle this problem. I know a few people that live there and they dont seem to object to this idea. Hell it may cost $230 million, but if that is what itll take for them to get jobs and feed their families then so be it.

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 03:38 PM

Yes. Hey, if it's good for terrerererests, then why not those evil drug dealers?Hard to conceive the two LE bureaucracies not bleeding through to some degree. With us being at war in a narco-state and so forth.

coyotes_geek

02-02-2010, 03:43 PM

No, opening that facility in Illinois will bring over thousands of jobs for that city. That city is hard hit on employment and this is what that city could most definantly use to tackle this problem. I know a few people that live there and they dont seem to object to this idea. Hell it may cost $230 million, but if that is what itll take for them to get jobs and feed their families then so be it.

Everybody loves pork.

Marcus Bryant

02-02-2010, 03:43 PM

Hard to conceive the two LE bureaucracies not bleeding through to some degree. With us being at war in a narco-state and so forth.

This country is a farce, wrapped inside a satire, and stuck inside a steaming pile of shit. I'm out.

Creepn

02-02-2010, 03:44 PM

Everybody loves pork.

Yup.

Creepn

02-02-2010, 03:46 PM

This country is a farce, wrapped inside a satire, and stuck inside a steaming pile of shit. I'm out.

Where are you moving to?

elbamba

02-02-2010, 04:02 PM

Military tribunals are a concoction to circumvent civilian or military justice systems, including due process in the civilian case. It's no different than the arbitrary classification of people as 'enemy combatants'. What is that?

The Constitution clearly spells out what the justice system needs to be. If the guy is a military enemy, then he goes to the military justice system. If it's a civilian being tried, then he goes to the civilian justice system.

I believe that there is room to debate the constitutionality of military tribunals.

Article 3 Section 2 states:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

This clearly give the Congress the authority to try the cases anywhere they so chose, it could be the middle of the ocean or the moon if we go by this language alone.

Of course the Fifth amendment states:

"No person shall be held to answer for...crime...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

This could be read to give the government the authority to hold the detainee for as long as there is a war or public danger. Certainly we could both agree that a potential terrorist attack by any individual suspected of being a terrorist would rise to the level of a public danger to the USA.

The next question begs, who is actually entitled to the protection and rights under the constituion. This is spelled out in the 14th amendment which states that an American citizen is:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

IMHO, we have used military tribunals in this country since before we were a nation under Washington and I see no reason to stop now. As much as I would love to buy into the notion that we are the examples of freedom and peace, I say, if a terrorist is going to piss on my constitution and make a mockery of my legal system, screw off.

There is no protection under the constitution for non-citizens, much less people who would kill you or me without a second thought. Are we going to detain some innocent people, perhaps, life is unfair, if there is a perfect system that gets it right 100% of the time, I have not seen it yet.

Having said that, I understand that this is only if we are looking at the constitution itself, not including subsequent laws or judicial rulings.

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 04:40 PM

Where the courts are open, access to them is unimpeded and they are functioning normally, what do we need military commissions for?

Ignignokt

02-02-2010, 04:43 PM

Did the founding fathers or Lincoln try enemy soldiers in civilian courts?

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 04:44 PM

Particularly since the occasion for them obviously fits routinely used definitions of terrorism in the criminal law?

Winehole23

02-02-2010, 04:44 PM

Did the founding fathers or Lincoln try enemy soldiers in civilian courts?We're not talking about soldiers here.

ElNono

02-02-2010, 07:46 PM

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

This clearly give the Congress the authority to try the cases anywhere they so chose, it could be the middle of the ocean or the moon if we go by this language alone.

That merely addresses the venue where the TRIAL needs to happen. It doesn't give liberty to Congress to stipulate what justice system will be utilized in said trial. Actually, the Constitution is pretty clear about Judicial powers.

Of course the Fifth amendment states:

"No person shall be held to answer for...crime...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

This could be read to give the government the authority to hold the detainee for as long as there is a war or public danger. Certainly we could both agree that a potential terrorist attack by any individual suspected of being a terrorist would rise to the level of a public danger to the USA.

Nice. You skipped the part: ..."nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"...

The next question begs, who is actually entitled to the protection and rights under the constituion. This is spelled out in the 14th amendment which states that an American citizen is:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

You forgot to spell where it says only American Citizens are entitled to the protection and rights under the constitution... As WH pointed out earlier, you won't really find a judge that sides with you on that...

IMHO, we have used military tribunals in this country since before we were a nation under Washington and I see no reason to stop now. As much as I would love to buy into the notion that we are the examples of freedom and peace, I say, if a terrorist is going to piss on my constitution and make a mockery of my legal system, screw off.

The only people pissing on the constitution is the same people that think it's a goddamn piece of paper. People like you that takes a shit on decades of jurisprudence to implement a 'novel' interpretation that goes against everything this country stands for.

mogrovejo

02-02-2010, 08:01 PM

So the taxpayers need to spend $230 million on a facility that will serve the exact same function as Gitmo for the sole purpose of allowing one politician to say that he followed through on a campaign promise to close Gitmo.

Yeps, that's basically it.

elbamba

02-02-2010, 10:52 PM

That merely addresses the venue where the TRIAL needs to happen. It doesn't give liberty to Congress to stipulate what justice system will be utilized in said trial. Actually, the Constitution is pretty clear about Judicial powers.

Then spell it out for me because when I read the constitution it is not so clear. Especially when a crime does not take place in a particular state or territory of the USA.

If Jurisdiction or venue is appropriate in another court then it should be carried out in the other Court. There is nothing in the constitution that states that enemy combatants have the right to be given american rights and privileges and access to civilian courts. Please show me where it gives these rights in the constitution.

elbamba

02-02-2010, 10:56 PM

Nice. You skipped the part: ..."nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"...

No need to include it. Isn't it obvious that the 5th amendment is providing an exception during a time of war or public emergency when one might be deprived of life liberty and property without due process.

Millitary tribunals have been used in every war this country has ever fought in. Like I said, Washington even used them before the constitution. Lincoln, FDR, Jackson, Madison, McKinley, and so on.

elbamba

02-02-2010, 11:02 PM

You forgot to spell where it says only American Citizens are entitled to the protection and rights under the constitution... As WH pointed out earlier, you won't really find a judge that sides with you on that...

Well it certainly says who is protected correct? It doesn't say that only Americans are protected, but it also doesn't say that you cant have military tribunals so it must be allowed by your logic.

elbamba

02-02-2010, 11:07 PM

The only people pissing on the constitution is the same people that think it's a goddamn piece of paper. People like you that takes a shit on decades of jurisprudence to implement a 'novel' interpretation that goes against everything this country stands for.

Law is changed all the time. The constitution grants congress the power to clarify what it leaves out. What decades of jurisprudence am I taking a "shit" on?

Should Ghalani (sp) get his trial thrown out for failure to give him a speedy trial? His attorney has filed a motion stating as much. Who is really making the constitution?

Creepn

02-02-2010, 11:19 PM

Damn man you wanna talk big smart ass game about politics but you cant reply to multiple quotes in a single post?

ElNono

02-03-2010, 12:51 PM

If Jurisdiction or venue is appropriate in another court then it should be carried out in the other Court. There is nothing in the constitution that states that enemy combatants have the right to be given american rights and privileges and access to civilian courts. Please show me where it gives these rights in the constitution.

It's not complicated at all. A person is either a military personnel or a civilian.
There's no third classification under the US Constitution.
Considering an 'enemy combatant' is not a military personnel, he's merely a civilian. You can call him/her whatever you want: "terrorist", "radicalized civilian", "enemy combatant", "unabomber", "freedom fighter", etc etc etc... it's still a civilian.

No need to include it. Isn't it obvious that the 5th amendment is providing an exception during a time of war or public emergency when one might be deprived of life liberty and property without due process.

Except that we're in no war (as stated in the US Constitution, declared by Congress) and we're not in any public emergency that prevent access to courts or the Judicial system.

Millitary tribunals have been used in every war this country has ever fought in. Like I said, Washington even used them before the constitution. Lincoln, FDR, Jackson, Madison, McKinley, and so on.

Military courts have been used to judge enemy soldiers. If you want to reclassify all these 'enemy combatants' into 'enemy soldiers' and run them through the military justice system, then I have absolutely ZERO problems with that. But just as long as the government insists on classifying them as non-military personnel, then they fall squarely into the civilian figure, which include full access to civilian courts.

Law is changed all the time. The constitution grants congress the power to clarify what it leaves out. What decades of jurisprudence am I taking a "shit" on?

The one that treats citizens and non-citizens the same in front of justice. There's nothing "unclear" about due process, habeas corpus, discovery rules, etc etc etc.

Should Ghalani (sp) get his trial thrown out for failure to give him a speedy trial? His attorney has filed a motion stating as much. Who is really making the constitution?

I see... "The end justifies the means"...
Did the government sit on their ass for 10 years with enough evidence to convict this guy to life or the death penalty? Whose fault is it?

It's really sad that people are willing to throw away our entire justice system simply because "Ghalani (sp) needs to be in jail". I would argue that when you submit to that, "Ghalani (sp)" effectively has won.

mogrovejo

02-03-2010, 02:33 PM

ElNono

02-03-2010, 02:39 PM

Terms like unlawful combatants has been used for more than a century in the US judiciary and military literature. elbamba is completely right about the historical tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

In any case, I doubt Axelrod will use the civil justice system to try criminals. I've already read articles saying that Holder was in his way out. The biggest difference between the Bush Administration and this one is that the formers were quicker understanding the political realities.

I see you still have reading comprehension problems. Please quote where elbamba or I used the term 'unlawful combatant'?

If we deem them able to stand trial in a military court, I already stated that I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, that's not what this administration (nor the previous one) want to do. Instead they came up with a middle-of-the-road thing that is a complete bastardization of our justice system.

elbamba

02-03-2010, 04:44 PM

It's not complicated at all. A person is either a military personnel or a civilian.
There's no third classification under the US Constitution.
Considering an 'enemy combatant' is not a military personnel, he's merely a civilian. You can call him/her whatever you want: "terrorist", "radicalized civilian", "enemy combatant", "unabomber", "freedom fighter", etc etc etc... it's still a civilian.

My problem with this is that the constitution only addresses U.S. citizens as defined in the 14th amendment. The constitution doesn not spell out a definition for non-citizens, but it certainly does for the definition of a U.S. citizen. You are a drawing a conclusion through your opinion of what is not stated in the constitution and I can respect that, but there is certainly nothing in the constitution to support you allegation of limiting all people to military or civilian.

Except that we're in no war (as stated in the US Constitution, declared by Congress) and we're not in any public emergency that prevent access to courts or the Judicial system.

You are adding language that is not in the constituion. I do not believe that the constitution states that this exception is only applicable when the public emergency prevents access to the courts or Judicial system.

Military courts have been used to judge enemy soldiers. If you want to reclassify all these 'enemy combatants' into 'enemy soldiers' and run them through the military justice system, then I have absolutely ZERO problems with that. But just as long as the government insists on classifying them as non-military personnel, then they fall squarely into the civilian figure, which include full access to civilian courts.

There is nothing in the constitution that supports this argument. Civilians have been tried in military courts for generations. Non-uniformed prisoners picked up on US soil have been tried by military courts.

The one that treats citizens and non-citizens the same in front of justice. There's nothing "unclear" about due process, habeas corpus, discovery rules, etc etc etc.

So you don't have one to show me.

I see... "The end justifies the means"...
Did the government sit on their ass for 10 years with enough evidence to convict this guy to life or the death penalty? Whose fault is it?

Have you ever gathered evidence in a war zone? I guess we are not at war, so have you ever gathered evidence with people shooting at you? I will defer to the military that arrested him. Life isn't fair and neither is our justice system.

It's really sad that people are willing to throw away our entire justice system simply because "Ghalani (sp) needs to be in jail". I would argue that when you submit to that, "Ghalani (sp)" effectively has won.

We disagree on who should have access to what rights. If you, as an American citizen were facing a similar charge and were denied a speedy trial, PM me and I will represent you for free, you have my promise.

mogrovejo

02-03-2010, 06:06 PM

I see you still have reading comprehension problems. Please quote where elbamba or I used the term 'unlawful combatant'?

I thought that when you said "A person is either a military personnel or a civilian. There's no third classification" you're denying the existence of a third classification in toto. Apparently, that's not the case.

Instead they came up with a middle-of-the-road thing that is a complete bastardization of our justice system.

Bartardization or not, as almamba argues, it's within the American tradition.

elbamba

02-03-2010, 07:34 PM

almamba

I prefer to be called the black almamba

Winehole23

02-03-2010, 07:56 PM

I thought that when you said "A person is either a military personnel or a civilian. There's no third classification" you're denying the existence of a third classification in toto. Apparently, that's not the case.Academic chickenshit.

You twit ElNono for failing to be an echo of you, and fail to note he emphasizes the neologism "unlawful enemy combatant", the objectively pertinent and correct designation. Your own "terms like" locution is perhaps too forgivingly vague and hazy. ElNono was correct, and you corrected him for it, hoping no one would notice you were wrong.

What a bullshitter.

Winehole23

02-03-2010, 08:40 PM

:hat

Winehole23

02-03-2010, 08:42 PM

If you wanna be a big bullshitter here, hey, be a big bullshitter.

Winehole23

02-03-2010, 08:42 PM

There's a long line in front of you.

Winehole23

02-03-2010, 08:46 PM

Qe te vaya purty nice.

Winehole23

02-03-2010, 09:10 PM

Aaxu5ZMi3Bs

Winehole23

02-03-2010, 09:15 PM

ym8uw4PawfY

Winehole23

02-03-2010, 10:00 PM

QbgL_rbP0P4

mogrovejo

02-03-2010, 11:25 PM

Winehole, you need to pull your shit together. You're starting to look like a nut-jobs with all these nonsensical one-liners.

Academic chickenshit.

Using the verbal form thought is academic chicken-shit? You're weird...

You twit ElNono for failing to be an echo of you, and fail to note he emphasizes the neologism "unlawful enemy combatant", the objectively pertinent and correct designation. Your own "terms like" locution is perhaps too forgivingly vague and hazy. ElNono was correct, and you corrected him for it, hoping no one would notice you were wrong.What a bullshitter.

Maybe. He stated that "an enemy is either a military personnel or a civilian, there's no third classification" (ipsis verbis). I suggested that wasn't always the case. I don't think the semantics are that important , although it seems he does.

You think that unlawful enemy combatant is a neologism? Why so? The expression has been used in constitutional law for more than a few decades.

Winehole23

02-04-2010, 12:22 AM

Using the verbal form thought is academic chicken-shit?If that is not totally incoherent and bad English to boot, yes.

Maybe. You admit your weakness right off the bat. Nice.

mogrovejo

02-04-2010, 01:17 AM

If that is not totally incoherent and bad English to boot, yes.

You admit your weakness right off the bat. Nice.

Yeah, floral games was also bad English. I really don't care for grammar nazis. What weakness? In any case, I hope you're now more familiar with the history of the expression "unlawful combatant".

Winehole23

02-04-2010, 01:32 AM

Yeah, floral games was also bad English. I really don't care for grammar nazis.My judgment was aesthetic, not technical. You're still guilty of bad English. Complaining about my faults doesn't change that.

mogrovejo

02-04-2010, 02:07 AM

mogrovejo

02-04-2010, 02:08 AM

As I've said, I hope you're now more familiar with the history of the expression "unlawful combatant". Thanks for your insightful contributions for the issue being discussed btw.

Winehole23

02-04-2010, 02:16 AM

Just keep fucking that chicken, Ted.

Winehole23

02-04-2010, 03:25 AM

Anyway, you're full of it about the neologism. There is no class of prisoner in case law we could keep under the disclosed conditions. They had to pass special laws for all that, notably the MCA of 2006.

Winehole23

02-04-2010, 03:29 AM

Given that the government has already rushed to press post-MCA charges apparently unsupported by the law of war, the MCA’s limitations on both habeas and direct review seem to further reduce the likelihood that justice will be achieved by the Guantanamo trials.http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/annotationsy/2007/10/test.php

Winehole23

02-04-2010, 03:35 AM

The USG has lost (last I checked) 30 of 38 habeas cases to date.

Winehole23

02-04-2010, 03:36 AM

There was not even evidence suitable to justify the detentions.

Winehole23

02-04-2010, 03:37 AM

These were the worst of the worst?

ElNono

02-04-2010, 09:57 AM

My problem with this is that the constitution only addresses U.S. citizens as defined in the 14th amendment. The constitution doesn not spell out a definition for non-citizens, but it certainly does for the definition of a U.S. citizen. You are a drawing a conclusion through your opinion of what is not stated in the constitution and I can respect that, but there is certainly nothing in the constitution to support you allegation of limiting all people to military or civilian.

To be honest, Congress already passed, back in 2006, the law that implemented these 'enemy combatants' system along with the military tribunals, and in it they made distinctions when it came to citizen vs non-citizens. (here is a link with a story about it from back then (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6167856)).
The thing is, I don't think it can hold up in court. It actually been stripped of the prohibition of Habeas Corpus already, and I'm not sure if anything else has been challenged yet. Again, there was no reason to do this. As you said, spies have been tried in military courts before. The problem here is that they don't want to give them a trial. They want to just imprison them without one.

You are adding language that is not in the constituion. I do not believe that the constitution states that this exception is only applicable when the public emergency prevents access to the courts or Judicial system.

It's not a matter of language of the Constitution. It's a matter of respecting separation of powers. There's a perfectly working civilian system more than capable of administering a fair trial. There's also a perfectly working military justice system more than capable of administering a fair trial. They're both in perfectly good working condition, and they could have both addressed and tried all those Gitmo cases for the past whatever years (6+ by now?). The government do not want a trial. They want a conviction, period.

There is nothing in the constitution that supports this argument. Civilians have been tried in military courts for generations. Non-uniformed prisoners picked up on US soil have been tried by military courts.

There's a big distinction here. In the case of spies or non-uniformed civilians, they have been declared a military enemy ipso facto, and accordingly tried by a military court. Again, the government *could* have done that to these detainees a long time ago. The problem is that a military trial will still involve discovery of evidence, and a bunch of basic rights, such as the defendant knowing what he's being accused of, etc. Things this administration and the previous one do not want to grant. This is exactly why military courts have been largely avoided.

So you don't have one to show me.

Wo vs Hopkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins)

Have you ever gathered evidence in a war zone? I guess we are not at war, so have you ever gathered evidence with people shooting at you? I will defer to the military that arrested him. Life isn't fair and neither is our justice system.

Answer my question: Did the government sit on their ass for 10 years with enough evidence to convict this guy to life or the death penalty? Whose fault is it?

We disagree on who should have access to what rights. If you, as an American citizen were facing a similar charge and were denied a speedy trial, PM me and I will represent you for free, you have my promise.

I already have a lawyer, but really, thanks...

ElNono

02-04-2010, 10:00 AM

I thought that when you said "A person is either a military personnel or a civilian. There's no third classification" you're denying the existence of a third classification in toto. Apparently, that's not the case.
Bartardization or not, as almamba argues, it's within the American tradition.

Except those persons are classified as de facto military personnel, and tried by a military court, with all the rights a military trial provides?

Which is not the same set of rules applied to these detainees...

Winehole23

02-05-2010, 02:26 AM

All the rules had to be made up. Some of the terminology might be similar, but that's about it.

Winehole23

02-05-2010, 02:32 AM

Ex Parte Quirin (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0001_ZO.html) appeals superficially, but now that we know US citizens can be targeted too, the facts are veering in the direction of Ex Parte Milligan (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0071_0002_ZS.html).

Winehole23

02-05-2010, 02:40 AM

It is essential to the safety of every government that, in a great crisis like the one we have just passed through, there should be a power somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war, there are men of previously good character wicked enough to counsel their fellow-citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies, and their influence may lead to dangerous combinations. In the emergency of the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be possible, and yet the period to the country may be too imminent to suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required to produce the persons arrested [p126] in answer to a writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution goes no further. It does not say, after a writ of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise than by the course of the common law; if it had intended this result, it was easy, by the use of direct words, to have accomplished it. The illustrious men who framed that instrument were guarding the foundations of civil liberty against the abuses of unlimited power; they were full of wisdom, and the lessons of history informed them that a trial by an established court, assisted by an impartial jury, was the only sure way of protecting the citizen against oppression and wrong. Knowing this, they limited the suspension to one great right, and left the rest to remain forever inviolable. But it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation. Happily, it is not so.

Winehole23

02-05-2010, 02:44 AM

The discipline necessary to the efficiency of the army and navy required other and swifter modes of trial than are furnished by the common law courts, and, in pursuance of the power conferred by the Constitution, Congress has declared the kinds of trial, and the manner in which they shall be conducted, for offences committed while the party is in the military or naval service. Everyone connected with these branches of the public service is amenable to the jurisdiction which Congress has created for their government, and, while thus serving, surrenders his right to be tried by the civil courts. All other persons, citizens of states where the courts are open, if charged with crime, are guaranteed the inestimable privilege of trial by jury. This privilege is a vital principle, underlying the whole administration of criminal justice; it is not held by sufferance, and cannot be frittered away on any plea of state or political necessity. When peace prevails, and the authority of the government is undisputed, [p124] there is no difficulty of preserving the safeguards of liberty, for the ordinary modes of trial are never neglected, and no one wishes it otherwise; but if society is disturbed by civil commotion -- if the passions of men are aroused and the restraints of law weakened, if not disregarded -- these safeguards need, and should receive, the watchful care of those intrusted with the guardianship of the Constitution and laws. In no other way can we transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings of liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the Revolution.

Winehole23

02-05-2010, 02:58 AM

Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.

RandomGuy

02-12-2010, 01:10 PM

How is the idea that we are evil discredited simply by moving the detainees to Illinois?

We're still going to be detaining these people. The Obama administration has even admitted they might detain some people even if they get a trial and are acquitted. So you riddle me this: What difference does it really make if we indefinitely detain people in Illinois instead of indefinitely detaining them in Guantanemo?

Been meaning to get to this for a while. It raises some good points, even if it rather pointedly ignored answering my question.

If Obama continues to detain these people without any fair open trial, then he is wrong, and we will continue losing this particular figth on the battleground of ideas.

The point is that we move to do things in a more open, and fair manner. I personally don't think that detaining ANY of them is worth it in the long run, whatever damage they might try to do us in terms of future attacks.

If they really are that dangerous, release them into the wild again, keep tabs on them and make Bad Things happen to them after a few months. Do some real spy shit.

Winehole23

05-21-2010, 09:39 AM

Last night the House Armed Services Committee finished this year’s bill authorizing $567 billion worth of defense spending and another $159 billion for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for the fiscal year beginning in October. Following an administration budget plan announced in February by Pentagon comptroller Robert Hale, the Afghanistan war request contained a vague provision — indeed, not even carrying the words “Guantanamo Bay (http://washingtonindependent.com/85076/tomorrow-big-guantanamo-day-in-congress)” — called a “transfer fund” to authorize the purchase of the Thomson Correction Center in Illinois. The administration wants to buy Thomson in order to have a secure facility on U.S. soil to house those Guantanamo detainees it designates for military commissions or indefinite detention without charge (http://washingtonindependent.com/71031/thomson-will-be-for-limited-number-of-detainees-awaiting-military-commissions). Once the federal government buys Thomson, it can shut down Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay.

Or that was the plan. The actual bill hasn’t been released yet. But buried at the bottom of an extensive summary the committee released last night is an express prohibition on the use of any Defense Department money to buy a new detention facility. According to the bill summary, the bill now requires Defense Secretary Robert Gates to give Congress a report that “adequately justifies any proposal to build or modify such a facility” if it wants to move forward with any post-Guantanamo detention plan.

“The Committee firmly believes that the construction or modification of any facility in the U.S. to detain or imprison individuals currently being held at Guantanamo must be accompanied by a thorough and comprehensive plan that outlines the merits, costs, and risks associated with utilizing such a facility,” the summary text read. “No such plan has been presented to date. The bill prohibits the use of any funds for this purpose.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/85355/house-panel-deals-gitmo-closure-a-major-setback

Buzz up! (http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=%3C%3Fphp%20the_permalink%28%29% 3B%20%3F%3E&guid=&targetUrl=)

washingtonwizard

05-21-2010, 10:20 AM

of course everything costs money. Welcome to goverment 101

LnGrrrR

05-21-2010, 01:57 PM

Nvm... a day late and a dollar short.

Winehole23

05-21-2010, 02:07 PM

Nvm... a day late and a dollar short.But wait, there's more:

While the bill doesn’t renew the current Congressional ban on transferring detainees from Guantanamo into the U.S. — set to expire in October — it requires President Obama to submit a “a comprehensive disposition plan and risk assessment” for any future detainee transfer. Congress would then get “120 days to review the disposition plan before it could be carried out.” Additionally, Congress would get a 30-day review period for the proposed transfer of any detainee from Guantanamo to a foreign country in order to check against a detainee inflicting violence against the U.S. or its interests. The summary instructs Gates to tell Congress that any such foreign transfer meets “strict security criteria to thoroughly vet any foreign country to which a detainee may be transferred...

...But beyond the closure of the detention facility itself, the prohibitions now contained in the bill have policy implications for the dispensation of justice for detainees remaining at Guantanamo, a burning political issue all through this year. Those “abhorrent” prohibitions, Warren said, “essentially prohibit the executive from moving forward with its constitutional and human-rights obligations to try people [and] creates a paradigm where the operative default mechanism will be to detain people without trial.”

jack sommerset

05-21-2010, 04:41 PM

Is Gitmo still open?

jack sommerset

05-21-2010, 04:43 PM

Nevermind.

I found a clock by using google.

http://www.gitmoclock.com/

Jacob1983

05-22-2010, 01:06 AM

What if Gitmo isn't closed and that money is used for jobs and/or the economy? Wouldn't that be a better idea?

Winehole23

05-22-2010, 04:19 AM

What if Gitmo isn't closed and that money is used for jobs and/or the economy? Wouldn't that be a better idea?Socialism!

Winehole23

06-16-2014, 09:25 AM

Greenwald skewers Obama:

The excuse-making on behalf of President Obama has always found its most extreme form when it came time to explain why he failed to fulfill his oft-stated 2008 election promise to close Guantanamo. As I’ve documented (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/) many times (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/29/obama-guantanamo-pentagon-cyber-yemen), even the promise itself was misleading, as it became quickly apparent that Obama — even in the absence of congressional obstruction — did not intend to “close GITMO” at all but rather to re-locate it (https://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu), maintaining its defining injustice of indefinite detention.

But the events of the last three days have obliterated the last remaining excuse. In order to secure the release of American POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Obama administration agreed to release from Guantanamo five detainees allegedly affiliated with the Taliban. But as even stalwart Obama defenders such as Jeffery Toobin admit (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeffrey-toobin-obama-clearly-broke-the-law-on-bergdahl/), Obama “clearly broke the law” by releasing those detainees without providing Congress the 30-day notice required by the 2014 defense authorization statute (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr3304enr/pdf/BILLS-113hr3304enr.pdf) (law professor Jonathan Turley similarly observed that (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/02/professor_jonathan_turley_i_dont_think_theres_much _debate_obama_broke_the_law.html) Obama’s lawbreaking here was clear and virtually undebatable).

The only conceivable legal argument to justify this release is if the Obama White House argues that the law does not and cannot bind them. As documented by MSNBC’s Adam Serwer (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/was-pow-swap-bowe-bergdahl-legal) - who acknowledges that “when it comes to the legality of the decision [critics] have a point” – Obama has suggested in the past when issuing signing statements (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/26/statement-president-hr-3304) that he does not recognize the validity of congressional restrictions on his power to release Guantanamo detainees because these are decisions assigned by the Constitution solely to the commander-in-chief (sound familiar? (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com.br/2006/01/ideology-of-lawlessness.html)). Obama’s last signing statement concluded with this cryptic vow: “In the event that the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees in sections 1034 and 1035 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.”

Both Serwer and a new Washington Post article this morning (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-circumvents-laws-with-signing-statements-a-tool-he-promised-to-use-lightly/2014/06/02/9d76d46a-ea73-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html) note the gross and obvious hypocrisy of Obama and his Democratic loyalists now using Article-II-über-alles signing statements to ignore congressionally enacted laws relating to the War on Terror. Quoting an expert on signing statements, the Post – referencing Obama’s Bush-era condemnation of signing statements — sums up much of the last six years of political events in the US: “Senator Obama had a very different view than President Obama.”

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/06/03/excuse-remains-obamas-failure-close-gitmo/

RandomGuy

06-16-2014, 05:41 PM

Greenwald skewers Obama:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/06/03/excuse-remains-obamas-failure-close-gitmo/

Eyup.

Now, what do we do about Obama breaking this law?

Winehole23

06-18-2014, 09:14 AM

can't imagine DOJ would touch it. impeachment could happen after the midterms if the GOP wins the Senate, but it would be on other charges.

Winehole23

06-18-2014, 09:15 AM

Congress hasn't the guts to close GITMO and the Dems are ok with the abuse of power so long as they're the ones who have it.

Winehole23

06-18-2014, 10:22 AM

The debate over whether to send one of the prime suspects in the 2012 attacks in Benghazi to Guantanamo Bay following his capture this weekend seems to have ended as soon as it started. Obama administration officials quickly ruled out the idea that Ahmed Abu Khattala would be brought to the detention site in Cuba for an undefined period of interrogation.

“Some have suggested that he should go to GTMO,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. “Let me rule that out from the start.”

“Not a chance,” a U.S. official told The Huffington Post.

But even if the administration has ruled out the possibility of Guantanamo Bay, those who support the idea are pushing it and keen to make a political issue of it. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called a stint at Guantanamo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/ahmed-abu-khattala-guantanamo-benghazi_n_5504051.html) the most logical option available for Abu Khattala. So too did Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

"Khatallah is a foreign terrorist, captured by our special forces overseas for his violent attack on a U.S. facility," Cruz said in a statement. "He belongs in Guantanamo and in the military justice system, not in the U.S. civilian court system with the constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens."

The argument has baffled some in the legal world, who note that federal courts have had far greater success rates in trying terrorist suspects than military tribunals have had. Among those confused are the chief prosecutor at the military commissions in Guantanamo between September 2005 and October 2007.

Col. Morris Davis, a U.S. Air Force officer and lawyer, told The Huffington Post that “other than to score a superficial political point,” he did not see any advantage to taking Abu Khattala to Guantanamo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/benghazi-guantanamo-bay_n_5507126.html

boutons_deux

06-18-2014, 10:24 AM

"make a political issue of it."

The Repugs and tea baggers have been, will always be OBSTRUCTING, POLITICIZING EVERYTHING any Dem, esp The Negro, tries to do.

Winehole23

06-18-2014, 10:38 AM

so much for the GOP wanting to get to the bottom of Benghazi. Obama caught the ringleader and the GOP wants to send him to Gitmo.

boutons_deux

06-20-2014, 04:11 PM

Republican Led House Passes an Unconstitutional Defense Spending Bill

Led by the GOP, the House passed a defense spending bill today that violated the constitution separation of powers by stripping President Obama of his Commander in Chief authority.By a vote of 340-73, the House passed a defense spending bill that includes a provision that forbids President Obama from move any detainees from the prison at Guantanamo Bay for a year.The problem with this piece of legislation is that it is not constitutional.

Before the House passed the bill, the White House had already labeled the GITMO provisions unconstitutional, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr4870r_20140617.pdf) “The Administration strongly objects to sections 8107, 8108, 8139, and 9015 of the bill, each of which would restrict the Executive Branch’s ability to manage the Guantánamo detainee population. The President has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of these or similar provisions in prior legislation and this year has reiterated his call to the Congress to lift such restrictions. As the President said in his State of the Union Address, “this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the prison at Guantánamo Bay.”

Operating the detention facility at Guantánamo weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the Executive Branch’s ability to determine the appropriate disposition of detainees and its flexibility to determine when and where to prosecute Guantánamo detainees based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our national security interests. Sections 8107, 8139, and 9015 would, moreover, violate constitutional separation-of-powers principles under certain circumstances.”The White House is correct on this one. Republicans have always tried to ignore this fact, but the GITMO detainees that were captured during armed conflict are prisoners of war. (http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=9&level1=13337&level2=13382)

The House does not have the constitutional authority to forbid the president from doing anything with POWs. This is why, until now, congress has chosen to block President Obama’s efforts to close the prison by withholding funding.The House of Representatives is limited to controlling the power of the purse, and congressional oversight. Republicans and Democrats who voted for this bill stepped way over the line, and violated the constitution.

Republicans sought no legislation to limit George W. Bush when he released or transferred 500 detainees (http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/05/500-detainees-released-transferred-guantanamo-george-w-bush.html) from GITMO.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/20/republican-led-house-passes-unconstitutional-defense-spending-bill.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

boutons_deux

11-10-2015, 03:53 PM

Senate Military Bill Passes: Prohibits Gitmo Transfers

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2015/11/10/15232/150/detainees/Senate-Military-Bill-Passes-Prohibits-Gitmo-Transfers

CosmicCowboy

11-10-2015, 04:08 PM

Like Obama has never done anything unconstitutional...:lmao

boutons_deux

11-10-2015, 04:12 PM

chickenshits

40 Colorado Sheriffs Send Letter Opposing Gitmo Detainee Transfer

Forty sheriffs in Colorado wrote to the White House to oppose any plan to move detainees from the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to prisons in the state.

The sheriffs argued in the letter sent Monday that Colorado would be in danger if the Pentagon sends Guantanamo detainees to either of two prisons under consideration in the central part of the state.
Although the prisons are capable of securing the detainees, the action would attract "sympathizers who would mount an attack ... or commit other acts of terror," the lawmen wrote.

"We believe it would be dangerously naive not to recognize that a civilian prison with an untold number of enemy combatant inmates, located in our state, would provide a very tempting target for anyone wishing to either free these detainees or simply wishing to make a political statement," the sheriffs wrote.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/forty-colorado-sherrifs-guantanamo-transfer?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

what a bunch of ball-less chickenshits. They should WELCOME an attack by sympathizers as a chance to kill them all.

boutons_deux

12-30-2015, 11:28 AM

"Groundbreaking" Exposé Shows Pentagon Thwarting Obama's Bid to Transfer Guantánamo Prisoners

In the nearly seven years since President Obama ordered Guantánamo’s closure, Republicans have blocked him at every turn.

Now a new report sheds light on another obstacle in Obama’s way: his own Pentagon. According to Reuters, military brass have imposed bureaucratic hurdles to keep prisoners locked up and prevent foreign governments from taking them in.

Scores of prisoners cleared for release have remained imprisoned for years as a result.

We are joined by two guests: Charles Levinson, the Reuters reporter who broke this story, and Omar Farah, the lawyer for a Yemeni prisoner who was cleared for release five years ago but remains behind bars due to Pentagon interference.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/30/groundbreaking_expose_shows_pentagon_thwarting_oba mas

I read that Barry is gonna push really hard in 2016 to close Gitmo. The Pentagon may go Lee-Harvey-Oswald on him.

DMX7

12-30-2015, 11:37 AM

I'm over it. Leave it open if it's that important to these people.

boutons_deux

02-22-2016, 10:06 PM

Pentagram of Evil is supposed to publish a detailed plan for closing gitmo Tue morning.

Repugs will block it by not funding it.

boutons_deux

02-23-2016, 05:32 PM

What is the current annual cost of Guantanamo prison and war court operations? $455 million a year — or $4.9 million per detainee

https://www.facebook.com/propublica/?fref=nf

Repugs WASTING taxpayers $Bs to spite Obama.

hater

02-23-2016, 06:23 PM

Fucking savages. Not the prisoners btw. Fucking animals.

MultiTroll

02-23-2016, 09:05 PM

:wow
What is the current annual cost of Guantanamo prison and war court operations? $455 million a year — or $4.9 million per detainee

https://www.facebook.com/propublica/?fref=nf

Repugs WASTING taxpayers $Bs to spite Obama.
:wow
Is Gitmo all Fed employees or is this some President Cheney / Haliburton money grab?

boutons_deux

04-09-2016, 04:55 AM

The Terrorists in U.S. Prisons

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2016/03/08/terrorists-in-prisons/d94ce8d236e08d76ec21fc57b4ac3a5b4be514bd/topmapbigsmalls-Artboard_2_copy.png
Republican leaders have blocked the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, because they say they do not want terrorists held on United States soil.

But American prisons currently hold 443 convicted terrorists, far more than the 89 men who remain imprisoned in Cuba.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/07/us/terrorists-in-us-prisons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Yet again, yawn, the Repugs caught LYING, and always a really shit, weak, transparent lie, behind "can't let Obama close GITMO because the terrorists on US mainland would be terrorist targets" and always as strict obstructionists to the hated knitter.

boutons_deux

04-30-2016, 11:13 AM

Haley shows how not to make the case against Guantanamo transfers

The state’s Republican governor, Nikki Haley, was on Capitol Hill yesterday to make her case against any possible transfers, though her arguments were surprisingly weak. The Huffington Post reported (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nikki-haley-guantanamo-detainees_us_57223c15e4b0f309baf00069):

It’s “the city we call the holy city,” “the number one vacation spot in the country,” “the friendliest state in the union,” “the most patriotic state in the Union,” Haley told members of the House Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee. “Why would anyone want to put terrorists in Charleston?”

The South Carolina governor then switched to a more somber note. “We looked hate in the eye last year,” she said, referring to the shooting by a white gunman, who killed nine people at a historic black church in Charleston. “Our state is still recovering from that.”

The governor may not have fully thought this one through. :lol

Haley was referring, of course, to the brutal mass shooting at Mother Emanuel in Charleston last year, which she and others characterized as an act of domestic terrorism. And yet, the shooter was arrested and locked up – in a Charleston prison.

The terrorist’s imprisonment hasn’t affected the community’s tourism, its patriotism, or its friendliness.

Indeed, one of the strangest things about Haley’s argument is the extent to which it seems to be a case against having corrections facilities altogether. It’s “the city we call the holy city,” “the number one vacation spot in the country,” “the friendliest state in the union,” and “the most patriotic state in the Union.” So why would anyone want to put murderers, rapists, and child molesters in Charleston?

But the governor stuck to her unpersuasive arguments anyway, insisting (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2016/04/28/gov-nikki-haley-condemns-plan-transfer-gitmo-prisoners/83608256/) that “tourism and economic development would suffer” if even some prisoners were transferred to South Carolina facilities. The problem, of course, is that this argument has already been proven false.

Charleston’s Post and Courier reported (http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20111012/PC1602/310129927) several years ago that in 2005 the Bush/Cheney administration made the Navy’s brig in South Carolina the only facility on American soil that housed people the administration deemed “enemy combatants.”

Yaser Hamdi, Jose Padilla, and Ali Saleh al-Marri were all locked up for a time in South Carolina, in a prison just outside Charleston.

Tourism and economic development remained unaffected. Local residents did not live in a constant state of fear. There were no additional strains on law enforcement or the criminal justice system.

If Haley believes it’s fine when President George W. Bush imprisons suspected terrorists in South Carolina, but it’s an unacceptable outrage when President Obama does the same thing, she’s going to need much better talking points.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/haley-shows-how-not-make-the-case-against-guantanamo-transfers?cid=sm_fb_maddow

All y'all's Repug blind ideology makes you stupid, ignorant as all fuck

Winehole23

05-01-2016, 01:38 AM

are you for the Gitmo transfers, boutons, or do you just want to use that as a club to bash Republicans?

boutons_deux

05-01-2016, 07:57 AM

are you for the Gitmo transfers, boutons, or do you just want to use that as a club to bash Republicans?

I said above or in some gitmo thread, to close gitmo and give it back to Cuba. And Repugs deserve every club bashing, esp around the head severely. They are ALL much better for USA dead than alive.

Winehole23

05-03-2016, 01:44 AM

If you eliminate your political opposition, you eliminate the problem.

No man, no problem.

Winehole23

05-03-2016, 01:55 AM

Right?

FuzzyLumpkins

05-03-2016, 02:06 AM

can't imagine DOJ would touch it. impeachment could happen after the midterms if the GOP wins the Senate, but it would be on other charges.

Prosecutors and Congresses across the country pick and choose what laws to enforce like Christians pick and choose what Bible verses to follow.

Rule of law is very mutable.

Winehole23

05-03-2016, 02:16 AM

sure. that's a flaw and a virtue.

did you have a point?

boutons_deux

05-04-2016, 11:53 AM

Ted Cruz Isn’t Gone. He’s Just Getting Started.

...

Keep Guantanamo open indefinitely

In his final year in office, President Obama has pushed hard to fulfill his campaign promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, where dozens of detainees have been held for more than a decade without charge or trial. He sent Congress a plan (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/us/politics/obama-guantanamo-bay.html) to shut down the facility in February, and hasstepped up transfers (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/278542-administration-speeds-up-review-boards-for-gitmo-detainees) of the prisoners who have already been cleared for release. Top military officials have warned that the prison’s continued existence is eroding the reputation of the U.S. with its allies abroad, inspiring the torture (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/11/3737975/happy-birthday-guantanamo/) of captured U.S. citizens, and functioning as a recruiting tool for terrorist groups.

But Cruz and other Senate Republicans have vowed to do everything in their power (http://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=news&id=1435) to block these efforts.

Not only is Cruz trying to block the release of any of Guantanamo’s detainees, he joined an effort (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/10/cruz-rubio-call-obama-open-guantanamo-new-detainees) to grow the prison’s population.

He and other Republican Senators are demanding the U.S. send ISIS members captured in Iraq and Syria to the island prison.

The continued partisan battle over the future of Guantanamo could, among other things, hinder the ability (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568476/Havana-great-time-600-000-march-Day-Parade-presided-Raul-Castro-Cuba-pledges-revolutionary-anti-imperialist-ideals.html) to normalize relations with Cuba.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/04/3775209/ted-cruz-senate-agenda/

boutons_deux

05-05-2016, 05:30 AM

The U.S. Government Has Been Outsourcing The Gitmo Trials

The Defense Department has farmed out to a private company much of the criminal investigation and trials of the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to federal records and sources affiliated with the trials who spoke to BuzzFeed News.

What’s more, the government has hired the same firm, SRA International, to serve both the prosecution and defense teams, sparking concerns of a conflict of interest that could undermine the integrity of one of the most significant terrorism cases in modern history.

“Where did these people come from; how did they get selected?” asked David Nevin, a lawyer for alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. “I have no idea. And that’s a problem, to say the least.”

The role of contractors in the Gitmo investigations raises questions about accountability at the notoriously secretive war court.

“It does surprise me,” Laura Dickinson, a professor of national security law at George Washington University, said of contracting out a major terrorism investigation. “It raises questions about who is running the investigation. The fact that there is so little transparency raises a red flag because we can’t evaluate if there are adequate accountability measures in place.”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/the-us-government-has-been-outsourcing-the-gitmo-trials?utm_term=.tu7wrrY80#.bamWQQ7k6

MultiTroll

05-05-2016, 08:18 AM

Released Gitmo prisoners return to evil ways: report (http://nypost.com/2015/03/06/released-gitmo-prisoners-return-to-evil-ways-report/)

WASHINGTON — More than 100 prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay went right back to being terrorists when they got out, according to a new report.
Out of 647 detainees who were released, 116 — or 18 percent — have been confirmed as “re-engaging” in terrorism, according to the report by the Director of National Intelligence. (http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Guantanamo%20Unclassified%20Release_March%202015_F INAL.pdf)
Of those, 25 are dead and 23 are back behind bars.

more:
http://nypost.com/2015/03/06/released-gitmo-prisoners-return-to-evil-ways-report/

MultiTroll

05-05-2016, 08:36 AM

Last year, the administration identified 12 former detainees — six released under Bush and six under Obama — who were back fighting against the US and Western interests.
Those determined to be involved in terror activities were found to be “planning terrorist operations, conducting a terrorist or insurgent attack…conducting suicide bombing, financing terrorist operations, recruiting” and other activities.

boutons_deux

05-05-2016, 08:57 AM

So fucking what? 12 more terrorists make a big fucking difference?

There 1000s of terrorists all over the Middle East and Africa, Thanks, Repugs!, and 100s or 1000s of those terrorists were recruited using GITMO as a recruiting tool.

MultiTroll

05-05-2016, 09:08 AM

So fucking what? 12 more terrorists make a big fucking difference?
That is just last year Numby.
Over 100 since Gitmo started releasing terrorists.

And yes it makes a difference to those killed or injured by their demonic behavior.

boutons_deux

05-05-2016, 09:19 AM

That is just last year Numby.
Over 100 since Gitmo started releasing terrorists.

And yes it makes a difference to those killed or injured by their demonic behavior.

Repugs invading, occupying, destroying their countries was the original, instigating demonic behavior.

Don't they have a right to fight back against The Great Satan?

Winehole23

01-21-2021, 01:11 AM

This failed political promise will turn thirteen this year. By the end of Biden's first term it will be almost old enough to vote.

1351990632810766360

hombre

01-21-2021, 01:41 AM

Put the insurrectionists and white supremacists in the building their party made,

Winehole23

01-21-2021, 02:05 AM

Put the insurrectionists and white supremacists in the building their party made,Hard disagree, the criminal justice track is swifter and surer to convict.

Isitjustme?

01-23-2021, 10:11 PM

This failed political promise will turn thirteen this year. By the end of Biden's first term it will be almost old enough to vote.

1351990632810766360

A lot of these guys are terrorists and we can't prove it so letting them loose is a minefield should they return to terrorism. Probably what Obama found out when he took office. The left is very anti-America and anti-US government (many times rightly) but stanning for the gitmo terrorists is something thankfully I don't ever see much even from them.

ElNono

01-23-2021, 10:47 PM

A lot of these guys are terrorists and we can't prove it so letting them loose is a minefield should they return to terrorism. Probably what Obama found out when he took office. The left is very anti-America and anti-US government (many times rightly) but stanning for the gitmo terrorists is something thankfully I don't ever see much even from them.

Then they should be freed. Sorry, but respecting and applying our own laws isn't anti-america or anti-us government. It's simply much, much worse in the long run if we start picking and choosing which laws apply to who.

The whole parallel system of justice with 'enemy combatants' is entirely anti-american.

Winehole23

01-24-2021, 12:19 AM

A lot of these guys are terrorists and we can't prove it so letting them loose is a minefield should they return to terrorism. Probably what Obama found out when he took office. The left is very anti-America and anti-US government (many times rightly) but stanning for the gitmo terrorists is something thankfully I don't ever see much even from them.Not letting detainees free because it's politically inexpedient isn't justice, it's more like the opposite. If you can't prove shit on people, you're supposed to let them go, but I guess Americans are cool with preventive detention now.

Winehole23

01-24-2021, 12:24 AM

Our secret courts in Cuba are terrible at convicting anybody for anything. Let the federal courts sort it out instead, just release them into the regular criminal justice system and turn the page.

Spurtacular

01-25-2021, 01:04 AM

This failed political promise will turn thirteen this year. By the end of Biden's first term it will be almost old enough to vote.

Chumpettes' feelings are no longer hurt on this one, tbh.

Winehole23

01-25-2021, 02:47 AM

Chumpettes' feelings are no longer hurt on this one, tbh.It's not about hurt feelings, it's about having a justice system worthy to bear the name. Infinite detention, torture and secret trials shouldn't be the American way.

Winehole23

04-05-2021, 11:11 AM

US black site at Gitmo "falls into disrepair,"detainees transferred.

it's AP style not to use the word "torture" when describing US policies.

A once-secret unit within the Guantanamo Bay detention centre that had fallen into disrepair has been closed and the prisoners moved to another facility on the American base in Cuba.

The prisoners at Camp 7 were transferred to another unit as part of what US Southern Command said in a statement on Sunday (Monday AEDT) was an effort to “increase operational efficiency and effectiveness”.

Camp 7 opened in December 2006 for prisoners previously held in a network of clandestine CIA detention facilities, often referred to as “black sites,” where they were subjected to brutal interrogation techniques. The military ran it under an agreement with CIA and Southern Command said intelligence agencies were involved with the transfer.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/guantanamo-s-once-secret-black-ops-prison-unit-closes-20210405-p57ggz.html

Winehole23

07-19-2021, 09:26 AM

The United States has transferred a detainee out of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/3/24/collateral-damage-the-impact-of-guantanamo-on-a-family) for the first time since President Joe Biden took office, sending a Moroccan man back home years after he was recommended for discharge.

The Periodic Review Board process determined that Nasser’s detention no longer remained necessary to protect US national security, the Pentagon said on Monday in a statement.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/19/us-biden-administration-transfers-first-detainee-from-guantanamo?sf147720908=1

Winehole23

09-02-2021, 12:57 PM

hypothesis: what the US did to innocent Afghans at Gitmo and Bagram lost the hearts and minds of the Afghan people right at the beginning.

The fall of the Taliban and the loya jirga’s choice of Hamid Karzai as the leader of the Afghan Transitional Administration is the point at which the US should have ended its independent military operations, but instead, as the author Anand Gopal explained to me when I met him during his research for his excellent book No Good Men Along the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War through Afghan Eyes (https://bookshop.org/books/no-good-men-among-the-living-america-the-taliban-and-the-war-through-afghan-eyes/9781250069269), the US “snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,” blundering around the country in search of enemies, but with no ability whatsoever to know who to ally themselves with, or to assess when they were being played by warlords with their own agenda. From June 2002 until November 2003, at least 110 more Afghans were sent to Guantánamo, making up the majority of prisoners sent to the prison at that time.

Disastrously poor intelligence
As I explained in my book The Guantánamo Files (https://www.andyworthington.co.uk/the-guantanamo-files/), US forces were so ignorant about who they were working with that at least 17 of those sent to Guantánamo had actually been working for the the Afghan Transitional Administration — or even for the Americans — but had been lied about by rivals, and yet the US intelligence was so poor that no one realized, or, perhaps, even cared.

One startling example was Abdul Razzaq Hekmati, who had helped to free several prominent anti-Taliban individuals — including Ismail Khan, who later became a minister in Karzai’s government — from a Taliban jail. To avoid Taliban reprisals, he had fled to Iran, where he stayed for several years, but, after returning to Afghanistan following the US-led invasion, someone told lies about him, and he ended up in Guantánamo, where all his requests for his captors to contact the Karzai government or Ismail Khan to verify his identity fell on deaf ears. After he died of cancer in December 2007, I worked with Carlotta Gall on a front-page story for the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/world/asia/05gitmo.html) telling the shameful account of his treatment, but no apology was ever forthcoming.

Also sent to Guantánamo at this time were eight prisoners captured in a compound run by a warlord named Samoud Khan, including three who were just boys at the time (https://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/08/26/wikileaks-and-the-guantanamo-prisoners-released-from-2002-to-2004-part-ten-of-ten/) — somewhere between 10 and 13 years of age. It seems unclear whether Samoud Khan was engaging in activities against the US forces, or against a rival warlord, but what is clear is that the boys were merely servants, probably recruited unwillingly, with one of them also required to act as something of a sex slave.

At the other end of the age scale was 78-year old Haji Nazrat Khan, who had been seized when he went to inquire why his son, Izatullah Nazrat Yar, a local tribal leader, who supervised the collection of weapons from his people, as requested by US forces and the Karzai administration, had been arrested by US forces.

At Guantánamo, Haji Nazrat Khan told his US captors, “after the Soviet Union fell, we were expecting, waiting for Americans to help us to create and build up a new government. Unfortunately, they did not do it. Then the Taliban took over and they committed atrocities, killing, and any brutality they could. Talib means educated student or to learn things, but they were not that kind of people. Then, during the Taliban time, the opportunity opened for people to come from all over the world. The terrorist and any other kind of person came to Afghanistan and destroyed our honor and our dignity. Bin Laden, we hate him more than you guys and you people do not realize who is an enemy and who is a friend. When you came to Afghanistan everybody was waiting for America to help us build up our country. We were looking for you guys and we were very happy that you would come to our country. The people that hated you were very few, but you just grabbed guys like me. Look at me. Our very happiness, you turned it to bitterness. I am still not mad at you guys, but in the future try to know the difference between your enemy and your friend.”

Another eloquent critic was Haji Shahzada, a village elder in Kandahar province, who was seized with two villagers who had been at his house at time. As I explained in 2011 (https://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/09/13/in-afghanistan-former-guantanamo-prisoners-reflect-on-their-ruined-lives/), “One of the men seized with him, Abdullah Khan, had sold Shahzada a dog, as both men were interested in dog-fighting (which had been banned by the Taliban), but he was regarded by the soldiers involved in the raid (and, subsequently, by US interrogators) as Khairullah Khairkhwa, a senior figure in the Taliban. The problem with this scenario was not only that Khan was not Khairkhwa, but also that Khairkhwa had been in US custody since February 2002 and was held at Guantánamo.”

No fan of the Taliban, Shahzada, as I explained in The Guantánamo Files (https://www.andyworthington.co.uk/the-guantanamo-files/), warned the US authorities at Guantánamo that capturing innocent people like him was a sure way of turning the population against the Americans. “This is just me you brought,” he said, “but I have six sons left behind in my country. I have ten uncles in my area that would be against you. I don’t care about myself. I could die here, but I have 300 male members of my family there in my country. If you want to build Afghanistan you can’t build it this way … I will tell anybody who asks me that this is oppression.”

In November 2003, the transfer of Afghans to Guantánamo ceased — and only a few dozen supposedly significant individuals, almost all from other countries, subsequently arrived at the prison from CIA “black sites” between 2004 and 2008.

Bagram: deaths and arbitrary detention
However, Bagram, always a brutal place, had become deadly by the end of 2002, when an innocent taxi driver, Dilawar, and Mullah Habibullah, who was apparently the brother of a Taliban commander, were both killed through the use of sustained stress positions.

Moreover, these were not the only deaths in US custody at the time. At a CIA “black site” outside Kabul — known as the Salt Pit or the Dark Prison — an alleged militant, Gul Rahman, died of hypothermia in November 2002, and, as I explained in an article in 2009, When Torture Kills: Ten Murders In US Prisons In Afghanistan (https://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/07/01/when-torture-kills-ten-murders-in-us-prisons-in-afghanistan/), in 2003, “at least three more prisoners were murdered by Americans in three different forward operating bases.”

Securing an insight into how much this kind of behavior was damaging the US cause in Afghanistan, Dr. Rafiullah Bidar, the regional director of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, which was established, with funding from the US Congress, “to investigate abuses committed by local warlords and to ensure that women’s and children’s rights were protected,” told the journalists (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/19/terrorism.afghanistan) Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark in 2003 that what his job actually entailed was registering complaints against the US military. “Many thousands of people have been rounded up and detained by them,” he said. “Those who have been freed say that they were held alongside foreign detainees who’ve been brought to this country to be processed. No one is charged. No one is identified. No international monitors are allowed into the US jails. People who have been arrested say they’ve been brutalized — the tactics used are beyond belief.”

Speaking anonymously, a government minister also complained, “Washington holds Afghanistan up to the world as a nascent democracy and yet the US military has deliberately kept us down, using our country to host a prison system that seems to be administered arbitrarily, indiscriminately and without accountability.”

When the flights to Guantánamo stopped, those who would have been sent to the prison in Cuba, numbering in their thousands, were held at Bagram instead, which continued to be a prison system that was “administered arbitrarily, indiscriminately and without accountability.” When a list of those held at Bagram was published in January 2010, I published an annotated version of it (https://www.andyworthington.co.uk/bagram-the-first-ever-prisoner-list-the-annotated-version/), and also wrote two articles to accompany it, entitled, Dark Revelations in the Bagram Prisoner List (https://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/01/20/dark-revelations-in-the-bagram-prisoner-list/), and Bagram: Graveyard of the Geneva Conventions (https://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/02/05/bagram-graveyard-of-the-geneva-conventions/), to demonstrate how it was as fundamentally lawless as Guantánamo.

After a US judge granted habeas corpus rights to foreign prisoners rendered to Bagram from other countries, the Obama administration appealed and won, although it prompted President Obama to introduce cursory, Guantánamo-style reviews at the prison, which only served to demonstrate how the lawless innovations of the “war on terror” had so thoroughly permeated US wartime detention policy, as at Guantánamo (and also, of course, as in Iraq). However, control of the prison was soon handed over to the Afghan government, enabling the US government to wash its hands of everything that had happened there — although not to those who had been held there arbitrarily.

By this time, most of the Afghans held at Guantánamo had also been released, but thousands of Afghans — both those who supported or were members of the Taliban and, because of US incompetence, many who opposed the Taliban as well — had lost years of their lives in Guantánamo or Bagram, where they had often been dealt with brutally, and where they had always been treated as though international law and the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply.

The imprisonment of these men and boys — and their treatment — was a far cry from the kinds of actions that would win “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan, and, considered in conjunction with the massive loss of life through military action, and the rampant corruption facilitated by the US presence, helps to explain the US’s final defeat in Afghanistan. The future under the Taliban may well be bleak for many, but no one should be under any illusions that, for the most part, the US will be missed.
https://www.eurasiareview.com/28082021-how-the-disaster-of-guantanamo-foretold-us-defeat-in-afghanistan-oped/

Winehole23

09-05-2021, 02:43 PM

military commissions still don't work

1434600802983759875

Winehole23

09-08-2021, 06:40 AM

we should close GITMO and give these alleged bad guys a regular trial, but unfortunately, the US government undermined its own case by detaining them lawlessly and torturing them

1435567383691898884

Winehole23

09-11-2021, 11:28 AM

Pretrial hearings for the man accused of planning and managing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and several alleged accomplices resumed here at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base this week after a year-plus pandemic pause. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other men are charged in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. The new round of hearings are proceeding in much the same fashion as the 41 previous ones over the last decade, which is to say they are fractious, ponderous and without an end in sight. There is no date for the trial to start.https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-09-10/20-years-since-9-11-accused-mastermind-has-yet-to-stand-trial

ChumpDumper

09-11-2021, 11:39 AM

They're just trying to run out the clock, hoping COVID would've picked of some of the detainees.

Winehole23

09-11-2021, 11:40 AM

They're just trying to run out the clock, hoping COVID would've picked of some of the detainees.the system is working as designed -- not at all

ChumpDumper

09-11-2021, 11:47 AM

the system is working as designed -- not at allThey know there is no way to get around the torture. These guys are in their 40s and 50s but maybe prison could kill them off earlier.

Winehole23

09-19-2021, 09:26 AM

we should close GITMO and give these alleged bad guys a regular trial, but unfortunately, the US government undermined its own case by detaining them lawlessly and torturing themand now we're using information we got from people we tortured, in court. another astonishing self-administered wound.

the remorseless war on terror continues to demoralize the US.

The military judge presiding in the death penalty case of a man accused of orchestrating the U.S.S. Cole bombing has agreed to consider information obtained during the man’s torture by C.I.A. interrogators to support an argument in pretrial proceedings at Guantánamo Bay.

Defense lawyers cast the decision as the first time that a military judge at the war court is publicly known to have agreed to consider information obtained through the C.I.A. torture of a prisoner, and on Thursday they asked a higher court to reverse it (https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/petition-for-a-writ-of-mandamus-and-prohibition/c4364a7fa545671f/full.pdf).
Col. Lanny J. Acosta Jr. of the Army ruled on May 18 (https://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE353AA(RULING)).pdf) that prosecutors may invoke such information to be used narrowly, not necessarily for the truth of it, before a jury begins hearing a case.

“No court has ever sanctioned the use of torture in this way,” the defense lawyers wrote in their 20-page filing that asked a Pentagon panel, the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, to intervene in the case against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi prisoner awaiting trial at Guantánamo Bay. “No court has ever approved the government’s use of torture as a tool in discovery litigation” or as “a legitimate means of facilitating a court’s interlocutory fact-finding.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/us/politics/cia-torture-terror-guantanamo-bay.html

Winehole23

09-21-2021, 01:03 PM

apparently the torture ruling got overruled on appeal, but the courtroom shenanigans are some real Soviet type shit

1440363273610612746

Winehole23

09-25-2021, 02:37 PM

secret trial proceedings, US government surveilled the defense

1441390550914150400

Winehole23

09-28-2021, 06:20 PM

uncharged detainees approved for release?

we're gonna keep those, too.

1442982352905400322

Winehole23

01-11-2022, 10:43 AM

The legal black hole at Gitmo is 20 years old

https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:s teep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F 698a7617-e041-4fde-a314-1c6c126681e6_1024x683.jpeg (https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F 698a7617-e041-4fde-a314-1c6c126681e6_1024x683.jpeg)Cuchillas de Baracoa mountain range, Guanatanamo province, Cuba. Prisma by Dukas, via Getty

THE FOREVER-WAR PRISON at Guantanamo Bay began operations on Jan. 11, 2002, and within two years, it got a bit of company. In September 2003, near the detention facility, the CIA began building a series of black sites. It was less a redundancy than an extension of logic.

The Pentagon, over these past 20 years, has typically insisted on distinctions between Guantanamo and the CIA's black sites. Officials point out that no one is known to have been waterboarded at Guantanamo; and now—though not in September 2003—Guantanamo detainees have access to legal counsel, for all the good that does the 39 men still there (https://foreverwars.substack.com/p/biden-wont-free-the-last-two-afghans). Guantanamo Bay was, as well, an acknowledged prison, unlike the black sites—not that that did much good for all the people locked inside Guantanamo, whose identities the Pentagon hid for years.

But for all the Pentagon objections, the CIA's heritage runs throughout Guantanamo. The CIA's logic for the black sites was the military's logic for Guantanamo: a place beyond the reach of the law. Guantanamo's interrogation procedures—snarling dogs, sexual assault, sleep deprivation, etc.—were cassette dubs of stereophonically brutal CIA torture techniques. CIA medical personnel at the black sites kept detainees alive for another round of torture. Military medical personnel at Guantanamo administer force feedings that detainees describe (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/opinion/hunger-striking-at-guantanamo-bay.html)as torture (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/07/guantanamo-olive-oil-force-feedings-astonishing-doctor-court), all to keep detainees from embarrassing the United States by dying in captivity.

Most importantly, Guantanamo and the black sites imprison many of the same people—men like Majid Khan (https://foreverwars.substack.com/p/i-was-raped-by-the-cia-medics-says) and Abu Zubaydah (https://foreverwars.substack.com/p/yes-why-not-let-abu-zubaydah-testify), for whom CIA captivity was relatively brief and military captivity relatively extensive. Early in the War on Terror, the CIA, fearful of exposure, wondered what would become of several of the people it tortured too extensively to release. For many, the answer has been Guantanamo.

CIA counterterrorism personnel liked to give their Guantanamo torture chambers cute names derived from Beatles songs, as if they weren't the cruel, ignorant servants of power that John Lennon hated. One of the black sites they called Penny Lane, and there they turned prisoners into assets (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-turned-some-guantanamo-bay-prisoners-into-double-agents-against-al-qaeda-ap-reports/2013/11/26/e98163b2-56ac-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html). They called another one Strawberry Fields (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/world/13foggo.html), the New York Times explained, "after CIA officials joked that the detainees would be held there, as the lyric put it, 'forever.'"

Guantanamo Bay began its incarnation as a forever prison 20 years ago Tuesday. It predated the CIA's black sites by months and outlasted them by over a decade. What is Guantanamo, if not the black sites persisting?

https://foreverwars.substack.com/p/guantanamo-20th-anniversary-forever-war-biden