Does your answer change if this is clearly illegal for him to do?
What’s wrong with Guantanamo other than its perception?
I think once people started to understand that Obama had similar attitudes as the previous President, regarding holding detainees indefinitely, that people also started to understand there’s not much difference between being held indefinitely in Bagram, or Fort X USA, or Guantanamo. I think part of the problem was, I interpreted Obama’s “I will shut down Guantanamo within one year” to mean he would do away with the indefinite detention paradigm altogether. Which was not true.
That, coupled with Ravenman and Richard Parker’s points on how Obama has improved Guantanamo, led to an acceptance of the current situation by most outside the diehards.
This new website, Military Commissions, compares the Article III courts, Courts-Martial, and the Military Commissions side by side.
I’ll also note that Obama has allowed remote viewing of trials/hearings inside the US. So reporters no longer have to make the burdensome journey to Cuba to see the proceedings in person.
I was also under the impression that they had mostly been released, or transferred to other prisons. (Or were in the process of doing so) Apparently that hasn’t been so.
Have they at least improved conditions there? Made any attempts to start any trials? Any at all?
Which law would such order violate, exactly ?
Note that there’s an even easier way: grant them all citizenship, under the refugee status for example. Then they can’t be held in Guantanamo any more and have to be shipped back “home”, at which point they can be arrested for their dastardly crimes and thrown in jail pending trial.
… and US troops are still urinating on corpses, and US troops are still burning The Quran, oh and big surprise:
Plus:
That is concerning. Best to find an alternative that doesn’t violate our President’s deep, proven commitment to both the letter and rule of law. Issue a secret order to have them all killed by Predator drones, let’s say. Assuming drones exist, of course. Wink wink.
Can’t do that either. The Immigration and Nationality Act says:
The lesson here is that the law binds presidents from ruling on whims.
If the law bars transfer specifically from Gitmo to the US, or building facilities to hold detainees from Gitmo specifically then there’s a trivial loophole. Ship them to some secret prison in the Balkans (you still have those, right ?), then back to the US.
People with brown skin that live in mountain caves far from the glittering land of high definition televisions do not matter.
This is not true. That’s not all we did; we also bitched about a great number of other things Bush did. Because we were bitching about a great many things, the total quantity of bitching was quite high. Now, Obama has fixed or is in the process of fixing most of those other things we bitched about, so the total quantity of bitching is much reduced. There’s still bitching about Guantanamo Bay, but it’s not as noticeable, since it’s no longer accompanied by bitching about Iraq, or bitching about ignoring bin Laden, or bitching about suppressing climate science, or bitching about letting the debt grow out of control, or…
Yup, but it’s the DHS (and ultimately, the Attorney General) who establishes whether applicants are all this, without judicial review in the case of refugees I should add. If he vouches they are for reasons of expediency, then who can object and on what grounds ?
The matter of his “mistake” can always be put back on the table once the trials are over with, in order to revoke the citizenships of convenience.
It’s a disgrace.
Not as bad as what the Bush administration did (Bush created this, Obama just kept it in place) but still bad.
Even though Obama stopped some of the worst abuses, like torture, the fact that we are still holding people prisoner without trial is wrong.
If we have evidence against them, we should have trials and give them sentences. If we don’t have enough evidence to have a trial, then we don’t have enough evidence to justify keeping them in prison. We should let them go.
Not so fast. The law contains similar restrictions on transferring them to third countries.
So, what you are proposing is that the Attorney General, with the permission or the direction of the President, fabricate evidence in violation of the law in order to break the law to bring suspected terrorists to answer for their violations of the law?
Seeing as how the bill that contained the restrictions on transfers out of Guantanamo were supported in Congress by a significant bipartisan margin (there are numbers of Democrats who also oppose domestic trials for these guys), my prediction would be that having the President and the Attorney General lie through their teeth in full view of the entire world in order to violate several laws would be quickly followed by impeachment, and quite possibly conviction.
As I’ve said in the other threads on this subject, it was kind of stupid for Obama to make that campaign promise in the first place. Presidents aren’t dictators, and they can’t do things that Congress is clearly intent on preventing them from doing. But all presidential candidates make such promises, so this is nothing unique to Obama.
So, as Richard said above, he did try and shut Gitmo. Congress thwarted that, and the only real issue is whether Obama pushed back hard enough. From my perspective, I don’t think it would have mattered how hard he pushed back. Congress just wasn’t going to budge.
Last I looked this up, there were something like ~150 prisoners still there, including KSM, the most notorious of the prisoners. Many, if not most cannot be released because no country will take them. Talk about a rock and a hard place…
Yeah, so the US keeps these non-US citizens locked up without trial. That was, ‘without trial’.
Some rock and some hard place.
If you’re saying that it’s ironic that the President can order the military to kill a suspected terrorist in a foreign country but cannot order the same individual to be captured and sent to the US, I agree. Not just ironic, but absurd. But it’s not like Obama advocated making capture and transfer illegal. Cowards in Congress did that.
If you’re saying that Obama’s use of targeted killing reflects the same lack of concern for “both the letter and rule of law” as doing the exact thing a specific federal law prohibits, then I disagree. You cannot respect the rule of law and flagrantly contravene a statute. You can respect the rule of law and have a good faith disagreement over what our broadly-worded two hundred year old Constitution permits with respect to flying robots shooting missiles at people in Yemen.
Expect this point to fall on deaf ears. Some people are still upset that UBL was not handcuffed and Mirandized.
So we try and them and find them innocent, what do we do if we can’t release them? That is the rock and the hard place. Not for “the US”, but for Obama.
It’s not a third country, it’s a US military base abroad.
Hey, if that stupid loophole works *for *Gitmo, it can work *against *it.
What fabricated evidence ? “Are you of good moral character ?” “Yes sir” “Do you like the US Constitution ?” “Yes sir, very much sir” “Good. Sign and initial here. NEXT !”. AFAIK the law doesn’t specify how these have to be established or investigated.
Furthermore, having been imprisoned going on 10 years, they quite demonstrably haven’t acted against the US but have acted like persons of good moral character over the last 5 - they didn’t commit a single crime, not even jaywalking ;).
Of course it’s bullshit. But it’d be perfectly legal bullshit.