WowBB Forums Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Obama Finally Gets Serious About Closing Guantanamo

 Moderated by: Ron, brodiescomics, beejmi Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Obama Finally Gets Serious About Closing Guantanamo  Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 02:14 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 50554
Status: 
Offline
Considering this was a major part of the platform that he ran on 8 years ago, it sure is nice of him to finally remember Guantanamo.  I'm sure the Republican assholes will be out in force condemning this, but clearly Guantanamo has been a travesty in every sense.  

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/23/politics/guantanamo-bay-obama-prison-closure-plan/

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama on Tuesday called for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility after delivering his plan to Congress to achieve a goal that has long eluded his presidency.

The blueprint comes seven years after Obama made an Oval Office vow to permanently shutter the prison for enemy combatants, but it already faces objections from Republicans and legal obstacles they have placed to transferring Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons.


    Obama nonetheless said emptying the prison would move the country past what he described as a troubled era of wartime behavior.

    "The plan we're putting forward today isn't just about closing the facility at Guantanamo. It's not just about dealing with the current group of detainees, which is a complex piece of business because of the manner in which they were originally apprehended and what happened. This is about closing a chapter in our history," he said during short remarks at the White House.

    "Keeping this facility open is contrary to our values," Obama said. "It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law."


    Obama outlined a blueprint that involves transferring the bulk of remaining detainees to other countries and moving the rest -- who can't be transferred abroad because they're deemed too dangerous -- to an as-yet-undetermined detention facility in the United States.



    But Republicans in Congress wasted no time in voicing their opposition to the administration's proposal.

    Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said the President's plan "fails to provide critical details required by law," adding "It is against the law -- and it will stay against the law -- to transfer terrorist detainees to American soil."

    John McCain, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also criticized the strategy, saying it was "not a credible plan for closing Guantanamo, let alone a coherent policy to deal with future terrorist detainees."

    A major concern of lawmakers has been the risk that released detainees will return to terror. Underscoring the threat, on Tuesday Spain, working with Moroccan intelligence officials, announced the arrest of four individuals in anti-terror operations in Spain and Morocco, including one who had spent time at Guantanamo.

    U.S. officials said Tuesday morning the plan would identify 13 potential U.S. sites for transfers.

    The officials added, however, that funding restrictions prevented Pentagon planners from determining precise details for converting U.S. facilities into detention centers for accused terrorists. Since current law prevents using funds to close the prison, they weren't able to conduct as thorough a cost calculation as they otherwise might have.

    Options for housing prisoners in the U.S. include the federal Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado; the military prison in Leavenworth, Kansas; and the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Pentagon officials visited those sites last year to develop "prototype" plans for converting them into detention facilities.

    The additional sites included in Tuesday's plan include other federal and military prisons. The closure plan does not identify a specific facility, though congressional language mandating the plan called for a location to be specified.



    The U.S. officials Tuesday said the plan would save the U.S. government between $65 million and $85 million per year compared to housing detainees at Guantanamo.

    Obama on Tuesday cited the high costs of keeping prisoners at the Cuba facility as a reason for closing the prison, in a new argument the administration is making to press the case that Guantanamo should be shut.

    Most Republican lawmakers, however, remain staunchly opposed to moving detainees into the United States and insisted upon language in two bills recently signed by Obama -- the defense authorization and defense appropriations bills -- that bars the transfer of Guantanamo detainees into the U.S.

    McCain, a rare Republican proponent of closing Guantanamo, still hammered Obama's plan Tuesday as a "vague menu of options" for reaching that goal.

    "The Senate Armed Services Committee will closely scrutinize and hold hearings on the details of what the President submitted today, but we can say now with confidence that the President has missed a major chance to convince the Congress and the American people that he has a responsible plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility," McCain said.

    Obama bemoaned the opposition to closing the facility, saying when he entered office there was bipartisan agreement on the issue.

    "Because we had bipartisan support, I wanted to make sure that we did it right," Obama said in explaining why it took so long to put a plan before Congress.

    "I indicated that we would need to take our time to do it in a systematic way, and that we had examined all the options," he continued. "And unfortunately during that period where we were putting the pieces in place to close it, what had previously been bipartisan support suddenly became a partisan issue. Suddenly many backed off because they were worried about the politics."

    However, many Republicans -- and some Democrats -- have long been wary of closing the facility and having to transfer remaining inmates.



    Administration officials said Tuesday they were planning conversations with lawmakers in a bid to change minds, but the outcome remained hazy.

    "We hope this will be the beginning of a sustained conversation," one official said, conceding "it's not entirely clear on how that conversation will play out."

    Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, responded Tuesday to assessments declaring the administration's closure plan already dead on Capitol Hill.

    "That just reinforces a pretty significant problem that Congress has right now. I think by anybody who's paying attention, it's hard to figure out exactly what Congress is doing," he said. "They're certainly not doing their job."

    While White House officials have refused to rule out unilateral action to close the Guantanamo prison -- and Obama said Tuesday he would use "all legal tools to deal with the remaining detainees" -- others in the administration have said firmly that current law disallows any detainee transfers onto U.S. soil.

    Defense Secretary Ash Carter, whose department worked for months to compile Tuesday's plan, said on CNN last month, "It's against the law now to establish another detention facility."

    "So, therefore, we have to get the support of Congress," he told "GPS" host Fareed Zakaria.




    Attorney General Loretta Lynch echoed that sentiment in November, arguing the law "currently doesn't allow" detainees to be transferred to the United States, and said the option "is not, as I am aware of, going to be contemplated, given the legal prescriptions."

    Lee Wolosky, the U.S. Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure, said last month that the State Department hoped to transfer a large portion of the remaining detainees by this summer. U.S. officials said Tuesday the government has either concluded or is in the final stages of agreements with several countries to resettle 35 detainees.

    With 10 of the remaining 91 detainees expected to undergo military tribunals, that leaves another 47 detainees who could be approved by an interagency review board to be sent home or to a third country.

    Last month, 10 Yemenis held at Guantanamo were released and sent to Oman. All 10 were held in U.S. custody for at least a decade without being charged. It was the largest release of prisoners at the U.S. military detention center since 2009.

    Oman has taken 20 detainees who are banned from going back to their home countries, more than any other of the 25 countries that have taken in detainees.

    Another four inmates were sent away earlier last month, including an inmate released to his home country of Saudi Arabia, where the U.S. has hailed the government's rehabilitation program.

    RELATED: Mistaken identity keeps detainee at Guantanamo Bay

    More than half of the remaining detainees are Yemeni nationals. The administration is prohibited by law from transferring Guantanamo detainees back home, given the security situation in the country. Yemen is racked by civil war and home to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Three previously released Guantanamo detainees have gone on to join AQAP since leaving the facility.

    U.S. officials compare the painstaking negotiations to resettle detainees to a game of chess, with Secretary of State John Kerry, and his predecessor Hillary Clinton before him, intimately involved in the discussions.

    "This is hard," Wolosky said in an interview with CNN. "It's a difficult ask of the U.S. to make, to say please take these individuals whom the world has branded as terrorists. And frequently we have little to offer them in return, except the continued goodwill of the United States."

    U.S. officials expect that Obama, who is scheduled to visit Cuba next month, will be pressured by the regime there to return control of Guantanamo back to the island. A group of Republican senators, including Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio of Florida, said Tuesday they were introducing a measure that would prevent Obama from ceding control of the facility back to Cuba without congressional approval.

    But Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, said last week that returning Guantanamo to Cuba "is not on the table as a part of our discussions."



    ____________________
    This thread was great before AA ruined it.
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 03:00 am
      PM Quote Reply
    2nd Post
    HBF



    Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
    Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
    Posts: 17866
    Status: 
    Offline
    Steve, explain to me why letting jihadists go back to fight against us is a better solution, please?



    ____________________
    "That's what a pre-med degree will get you kids, nearly correct spelling and pissing in a bowl on Skype"-SRossi on Sunny
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 03:17 am
      PM Quote Reply
    3rd Post
    mike3775



    Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
    Location: Indiana USA
    Posts: 17634
    Status: 
    Offline
    The part about moving them to the US will NEVER happen. Even a majority of Democrats are against that.

    Hell in my area, the outrage over a potential detention center made the Govt shutter its plans to open that, imagine if they wanted to bring terrorists to a locality.

    Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 10:29 am
      PM Quote Reply
    4th Post
    Principal_Raditch



    Joined: Mon Feb 18th, 2008
    Location:  
    Posts: 6948
    Status: 
    Offline
    Just build a prison in Alaska and send them there.

    Back To Top PM Quote Reply

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 01:19 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    5th Post
    kargol



    Joined: Thu Oct 18th, 2007
    Location: Brum, United Kingdom
    Posts: 4430
    Status: 
    Offline
    If there is anything that sums up the sheer intellectual vacuity of the current Republican party, it's Gitmo.

    Republicans are meant to be for small government and individual rights. Do what you want without fear of imprisonment. Don't raise taxes to pay for stuff that's not needed.

    So what is Gitmo? The ultimate use of government power. To keep people held without charging them with anything.

    The thing is, it is really simple. You arrest a suspect and bring them to trial. If you don't have the evidence, you release them. So they should have done one or the other. They have done neither.

    Or, they are prisoners of war. In which case treat them in accordance with the Geneva convention and release them when the war is over. Which Bush said was a decade ago when he stood in front of that Mission Accomplished banner. Again the US has done neither.

    Instead Gitmo has acted as a recruitment tool for years. Has anyone in there ever been on trial? Is there no evidence against them?

    Trump is karma for the Republicans in having the most stupid, cowardly, cretinous, moronic, principle-free cunt as President for 8 years, via a rigged election. A man who is responsible for more American deaths than bin Laden. A man who cannot leave the United States because about 180 countries want him on war crimes charges.

    Fuck them.



    ____________________
    superfunkymean
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 05:04 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    6th Post
    KGB

     

    Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
    Location:  
    Posts: 1228
    Status: 
    Offline
    Most of these people should have just been executed on the battlefield.



    ____________________
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 05:29 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    7th Post
    HBF



    Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
    Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
    Posts: 17866
    Status: 
    Offline
    kargol wrote: If there is anything that sums up the sheer intellectual vacuity of the current Republican party, it's Gitmo.

    Republicans are meant to be for small government and individual rights. Do what you want without fear of imprisonment. Don't raise taxes to pay for stuff that's not needed.

    So what is Gitmo? The ultimate use of government power. To keep people held without charging them with anything.

    The thing is, it is really simple. You arrest a suspect and bring them to trial. If you don't have the evidence, you release them. So they should have done one or the other. They have done neither.

    Or, they are prisoners of war. In which case treat them in accordance with the Geneva convention and release them when the war is over. Which Bush said was a decade ago when he stood in front of that Mission Accomplished banner. Again the US has done neither.

    Instead Gitmo has acted as a recruitment tool for years. Has anyone in there ever been on trial? Is there no evidence against them?

    Trump is karma for the Republicans in having the most stupid, cowardly, cretinous, moronic, principle-free cunt as President for 8 years, via a rigged election. A man who is responsible for more American deaths than bin Laden. A man who cannot leave the United States because about 180 countries want him on war crimes charges.

    Fuck them.
    How's your socialistic liberal view working out for you guys over there in EU?  Quite the mess.......



    ____________________
    "That's what a pre-med degree will get you kids, nearly correct spelling and pissing in a bowl on Skype"-SRossi on Sunny
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 07:55 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    8th Post
    srossi

     

    Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
    Location: New York USA
    Posts: 50554
    Status: 
    Offline
    HBF wrote: Steve, explain to me why letting jihadists go back to fight against us is a better solution, please?

    LOL  Talk about a logical fallacy!  Wow.

    Gitmo is the most expensive prison ever, costing taxpayers $500 million to operate annually for only 91 prisoners (that would be more than $5 million per prisoner) and if you research the individual cases against the ones remaining, it's pretty easy to see that almost none of them are actually dangerous or should have been detained in the first place.  One guy was in there for 5 years because he had a similar name as a terrorist and was let go with a "whoops".  That's what happens when you lock people up and throw away the key with no hope of ever even pretending to go to trial.  Of the 10 or so inmates remaining who actually are a threat, you realize they're not actually just going to be released, right?  Hell, even the ones who aren't threats and were falsely imprisoned with no trial probably aren't going to be released.   



    ____________________
    This thread was great before AA ruined it.
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 08:44 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    9th Post
    KGB

     

    Joined: Wed Jul 4th, 2012
    Location:  
    Posts: 1228
    Status: 
    Offline
    srossi wrote: HBF wrote: Steve, explain to me why letting jihadists go back to fight against us is a better solution, please?

    LOL  Talk about a logical fallacy!  Wow.

    Gitmo is the most expensive prison ever, costing taxpayers $500 million to operate annually for only 91 prisoners (that would be more than $5 million per prisoner) and if you research the individual cases against the ones remaining, it's pretty easy to see that almost none of them are actually dangerous or should have been detained in the first place.  One guy was in there for 5 years because he had a similar name as a terrorist and was let go with a "whoops".  That's what happens when you lock people up and throw away the key with no hope of ever even pretending to go to trial.  Of the 10 or so inmates remaining who actually are a threat, you realize they're not actually just going to be released, right?  Hell, even the ones who aren't threats and were falsely imprisoned with no trial probably aren't going to be released.   

    Why would they go to trial?  They're enemy combatants, not criminals. 



    ____________________
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 08:48 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    10th Post
    srossi

     

    Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
    Location: New York USA
    Posts: 50554
    Status: 
    Offline
    KGB wrote: srossi wrote: HBF wrote: Steve, explain to me why letting jihadists go back to fight against us is a better solution, please?

    LOL  Talk about a logical fallacy!  Wow.

    Gitmo is the most expensive prison ever, costing taxpayers $500 million to operate annually for only 91 prisoners (that would be more than $5 million per prisoner) and if you research the individual cases against the ones remaining, it's pretty easy to see that almost none of them are actually dangerous or should have been detained in the first place.  One guy was in there for 5 years because he had a similar name as a terrorist and was let go with a "whoops".  That's what happens when you lock people up and throw away the key with no hope of ever even pretending to go to trial.  Of the 10 or so inmates remaining who actually are a threat, you realize they're not actually just going to be released, right?  Hell, even the ones who aren't threats and were falsely imprisoned with no trial probably aren't going to be released.   

    Why would they go to trial?  They're enemy combatants, not criminals. 

    Except most aren't combatants.  But hey, why should anyone go to trial, they're guilty because our government says so. 



    ____________________
    This thread was great before AA ruined it.
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 10:56 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    11th Post
    HBF



    Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
    Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
    Posts: 17866
    Status: 
    Offline
    srossi wrote: HBF wrote: Steve, explain to me why letting jihadists go back to fight against us is a better solution, please?

    LOL  Talk about a logical fallacy!  Wow.

    Gitmo is the most expensive prison ever, costing taxpayers $500 million to operate annually for only 91 prisoners (that would be more than $5 million per prisoner) and if you research the individual cases against the ones remaining, it's pretty easy to see that almost none of them are actually dangerous or should have been detained in the first place.  One guy was in there for 5 years because he had a similar name as a terrorist and was let go with a "whoops".  That's what happens when you lock people up and throw away the key with no hope of ever even pretending to go to trial.  Of the 10 or so inmates remaining who actually are a threat, you realize they're not actually just going to be released, right?  Hell, even the ones who aren't threats and were falsely imprisoned with no trial probably aren't going to be released.  
    I've heard so many conflicting things about the status of who is and isn't going to be released that I don't have any definitive answers. I do know that several who have been released are top-grade threats from numerous sources, on both sides. I've also seen where they've gotten a few guys mixed up that shouldn't be there.  I can state that it's been handled incorrectly based on that alone.  I don't claim to have answers to this one. The whole process from the beginning was a mess. They should have wasted them in the heat of battle.



    ____________________
    "That's what a pre-med degree will get you kids, nearly correct spelling and pissing in a bowl on Skype"-SRossi on Sunny
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 11:12 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    12th Post
    thunderbolt
    Hall Of Famer


    Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
    Location: Manhattan Beach, California USA
    Posts: 6205
    Status: 
    Offline
    srossi wrote:
    "The plan we're putting forward today isn't just about closing the facility at Guantanamo. It's not just about dealing with the current group of detainees, which is a complex piece of business because of the manner in which they were originally apprehended and what happened. This is about closing a chapter in our history," he said during short remarks at the White House.




    "Because we had bipartisan support, I wanted to make sure that we did it right," Obama said in explaining why it took so long to put a plan before Congress.


    I parsed out these two paragraphs from the article because to me they are really saying this:

    1.  No matter what happens in Congress with this plan, the nuts and bolts are going to be squarely on the next administration.  Have fun.

    2.   It took seven years and the loss of congressional majority and bipartisan support to draw up a "plan"?

    He hasn't been shy about doing an end run around Congress vis Executive Order before, why is he now seeking there approval on this?



    ____________________
    The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic. ~ HL Mencken
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 11:42 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    13th Post
    DaNkinator



    Joined: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007
    Location:  
    Posts: 6116
    Status: 
    Offline
    kargol wrote:
    Republicans are meant to be for small government and individual rights. Do what you want without fear of imprisonment.


    That stopped being the case decades ago.

    Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 11:46 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    14th Post
    srossi

     

    Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
    Location: New York USA
    Posts: 50554
    Status: 
    Offline
    thunderbolt wrote: He hasn't been shy about doing an end run around Congress vis Executive Order before, why is he now seeking there approval on this?

    Honestly, I think the answer to that question is that he never had any intention of closing Gitmo and still doesn't, but he's tying up some loose ends to his reputation before he leaves office so that he looks better for posterity.  Now, when nothing happens, he can blame it on the Republicans. 



    ____________________
    This thread was great before AA ruined it.
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply

     Posted: Wed Feb 24th, 2016 11:48 pm
      PM Quote Reply
    15th Post
    HBF



    Joined: Mon Oct 15th, 2007
    Location: Atlanta, Georgia USA
    Posts: 17866
    Status: 
    Offline
    srossi wrote: thunderbolt wrote: He hasn't been shy about doing an end run around Congress vis Executive Order before, why is he now seeking there approval on this?

    Honestly, I think the answer to that question is that he never had any intention of closing Gitmo and still doesn't, but he's tying up some loose ends to his reputation before he leaves office so that he looks better for posterity.  Now, when nothing happens, he can blame it on the Republicans. 
    This makes sense.



    ____________________
    "That's what a pre-med degree will get you kids, nearly correct spelling and pissing in a bowl on Skype"-SRossi on Sunny
    Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

    Current time is 05:40 am Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
    WowBB Forums > Sports And Wrestling > General Discussion > Obama Finally Gets Serious About Closing Guantanamo Top




    UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2013 Data 1 Systems