Thank you.
There’s also much more willingness to give Obama than Cheney the benefit of the doubt, based on their established behavioral patterns, even if neither has been willing to explain their reasons convincingly regarding Gitmo, the black facilities in Eastern Europe, and extraordinary rendition. That benefit of the doubt has a shelf life, though.
No, many of those on the left who complained most loudly about Gitmo no longer seem to believe as fervently in the Constitution as they said they did, now that it is one of their own with the keys in his hip pocket.
It is a question of emphasis - Gitmo and indefinite detention was a horrible violation of human rights, subject to loud denunciation two or three years ago. Now, not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
And where has been “the right’s” demonstrated concern for the Constitution over the last decade then, hmm?
The last quote of the article is pretty telling to me:
There are three general types of detainees in Gitmo (there article refers to 2 of them):
(1) People who have enough evidence to be detained and are awaiting trial; either military or civilian,
(2) People who don’t have enough evidence (anymore) to be detained and are awaiting release…but no one wants them or there is not a safe place to send them (ie, the Yemenis),
(3) People who will not be tried nor released until “hostilities” have ended.
About a month or so ago, the President sent a few of group (1) to military trials in Gitmo. The military commissions have been a slow process so far, though. If you can get try/imprison or release group (1) and find homes for group (2), that just leaves about 40-50 detainees who need to be moved off Gitmo before it can be closed, forever. That won’t happen anytime soon, but Senator Lindsay Graham is one person who is trying.
Linked in the article was the new detainee proposal from Sen. Lindsay Graham. This proposal would move the detainees off Gitmo. I believe it has an average chance of success (in contrast to Senator McCain’s which has zero chance). I had heard about it for a long time, but guessing the text has only been available somewhat recently. It’s not “good” if you’re against the whole detaining unprivileged belligerent paradigm, but it does offer judicial oversight, ect.
So yea, Gitmo will be shut down because its perception is still to tainted. It will take a few more years, though.
I’ll just mention that Amnesty Inernational called for the closing of Guantanamo Bay during the presidence of President Bush and is still doing so now. Amnesty International is a non-partisan organisation, but many people have the (mistaken) impression that it is a “left-wing” group.
Sample document:
USA: Normalizing delay, perpetuating injustice, undermining the ‘rules of the road’
AI Index: AMR 51/053/2010 Amnesty International 23 June 2010
Excerpt:
My two cents.
-
Obama is not Bush. Obama did not lock people up in Guantanamo. Bush did. So there is not a moral equivalence here. This is another problem that Bush created and Obama has to fix.
-
But while locking people up in the first place is worse, keeping them locked up is still wrong. They should be tried or released.
-
Obama isn’t doing enough. There will be a cost, both economic and political, to closing Guantanamo and Obama apparently does not want to pay it.
-
Obama should buck up and do it. It’s not going to get any easier to close Guantanamo in 2011 or 2012 than it is now. He knew the job was going to be tough when he took it.
Gitmo is just a symbol for PR purposes anyway. It’s not like we lack dozens of other facilities around the world to do whatever we want. So even if it was closed down, eh, big deal.
As far as left hypocrisy since Obama has been elected, this is very true. “A change in personnel, not policy” and all that. Although the foot soldiers call themselves progs because they didn’t want to be associated with actual lefties who are against war and a corporate state. Liberals will still start up a “hey hey Obama hey, how many kids have you killed today?” chant at the drop of the hat, then the “mo and betta” and "Thanks Ralph!"ers show up.
Like where for example? Name another place that’s controlled by the United States but not within the jurisdiction of the United States or within the effective jurisdiction of some other country.
Missed the edit window:
The fact that’s it’s under the “effective” jurisdiction of another country is irrelevant. It’s not under US civil jurisdiction. It’s really no different from Gitmo. The Afghans don’t hinder us in any way.
You’re all assuming Bush was the exception and Obama the norm. 9/11 changed everything.
The important thing here is Bush and his comrades got away with this, and that will be noted.
There’s the network of CIA run prisons where they torture people.
Exactly. That’s one of the lessons of the Bush Administration; that Presidents are above the law.
To be fair to Little Nemo, he was talking about now. Your article says:
Even Bush shut those down eventually.
Supposedly. Given that they were secret in the first place I see no reason to assume that they didn’t just build other equally secret ones elsewhere.
In other words, why trust the word of known liars and torturers that they’ve reformed?
You don’t need anywhere else when you have Bagram. You can do whatever you want there.
CIA as well, none of that stupid Abu Ghraib amatuer hour nonsense.
But ideally, they’d clearly prefer that no one knows that they are doing anything, much less where they are doing it. Therefore, they’d prefer some place that neither you nor I know about.
Well, firstly, we’re not trusting the “liars”, we’re trusting the investigative journalists. Secondly, one could argue that everything was secret at some point, so the argument that there might be something secret out there could be used for anything.
“Everything” was not secret at some point. Most things have never been declared secret. And it’s not unreasonable to suspect that they are secretly still doing something that they have been demonstrated to have done secretly in the past.
Bagram’s in Afghanistan. Abu Ghraib’s in Iraq. The CIA camps were in Poland and Romania. Which means the United States is dependant on having the permission from another country to hold prisoners in them. Three of the four countries have withdrawn that permission in the face of international pressure. And there’s no reason to think the status quo in Afghanistan will remain the same.
Guantanamo’s unique in being located in a country which has no effective means to forbid the United States from operating a prison there.