[QUOTE=Obama]
Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.
[/QUOTE]
IOW, he’s got nothing.
I suspect part of having this issue be “resolved” will be returning a few of these folks to their native countries where they will rot in jail. We’ll throw in some aid as an incentive.
Or, maybe they’ll actually be released somewhere where they may or may not plot against us. If they do, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the number already doing so. And they’l be on every country’s “terror watch list” for the rest of their lives.
Obama has a knack for arguing against his own policies.
Aside from stricter targeting requirements for drone strikes, I’m not sure what will change (re: GWT, not detention). I mean, he gives the impression that we can’t be at war forever - but he’s the President right now - if you want to end the war, stop fighting. If you want to continue the war, fight.
Cheap shot. I think you had concentration camps for American citizens with Japanese ancestry at the same time! Nice way to treat your own citizens.
What I meant was NOW rather than seventy years ago when in the US not only were they rounding up their own citizens because they had slanty eyes, it was illegal in many states for a white person to marry a black person, the Government felt free to use black citizens for testing drugs and investigating spread of disease and in many areas black Americans could be lynched with impunity. Strange Fruit.
Back on topic- Guantanamo would be impossible to maintain under European Laws- what I said originally.
He’s the president, the CinC. He can stop any military action he cares to, whenever he pleases. Congress has no power or authority to order any military action. Congress sets the max he can do. He sets the minimum he will do. ‘Political climate’ is irrelevant.
In other words, what CHC said, as I was composing this post.
[bold added]
Or maybe he’s just trying to tie the hands of his successor. See your next sentence. We’ll see.
Probably not, depending on how the ECHR ruled on jurisdiction over territory that is in the control of a nation, but not part of it, like Guantanamo Bay is.
That’s an effect of creating a supranational organization, the ECHR, with jurisdiction over member states. The U.S. is not a member of such an organization, because of its differing needs, geography, and place in the political order of the world.
These are definitely steps in the right direction. Revising and getting rid of the AUMF would be a big deal in particular- I’ve been saying for years that presidents don’t give up powers once they get them, and if that changed it’d be very significant.
Some were, and all of them (Europe and elsewhere) were certified closed a few month after Obama took office.
Because Congress, which writes the laws, can’t come up with any ideas on its own. If Obama doesn’t do it, it’s not getting done. (If that’s not what you’re trying to say, what’s the point here?)
Or he could be saying this should be wound down over time, meaning it’s necessary now but won’t be in the future and the laws should reflect that.
Obama can’t control when Congress passes laws, though. And if they pass a law revising the AUMF or doing any of these other things, he can’t just want until January 2017 to sign it.
It’s not a cheap shot, it’s me pointing out to you that you are using the term ‘concentration camp’ entirely incorrectly while also being ignorant of the fact that it was Europe that came up with the concept of a ‘concentration camp’ in the first place, making your insistence that the Europeans, being people of much more moral stock, would have nothing to do with something as horrible as a concentration camp (which Gitmo isn’t) palpably absurd. By the by, speaking of ancestry, most Americans are of European stock, which makes Europeans having a superior moral fiber a tricky position to hold. Then again, the fact that Europeans decided that it would be a good idea to gas and burn all of their Jewish citizens in extermination camps rather than keep them alive in horrid conditions in concentration camps pretty well destroys any claims of moral superiority.
Back on topic: 1) Gitmo is not a concentration camp and 2) it would be impossible to maintain under US law, which is exactly why it is not located on US soil so as to not be subject to said law.
It’s entirely possible to abhor Gitmo without either referring to it as a concentration camp or being a European. You’d do well to pay attention to the beam in thine own eye before cursing out the mote in your brother’s.
This was a typical Obama speech in that he tried to make himself the voice of reason by arguing against a position no one actually holds. Nobody ever advocated for the War on Terror to last forever. It was always going to be ended as soon as its goals were accomplished and international terror networks were destroyed.
Liberals are such cheap dates. He campaigned on closing Gitmo and it is still open over four years after he was inaugurated, and now he has a plan to at some point in the future to have a plan to close it. He committed to no changes, has no plans for lessening the drone war and is generally continuing all of the Bush - Cheney policies he campaigned against.
He continues to present himself as a victim of the political climate instead of a leader and a shaper of policy. If anyone with an R after his name was doing the same policies liberals would be marching in the streets, but because he is your guy you are all falling in line. So transparent.
The trouble is that that can never really happen. Al Qaeda has been weakened, but can never be destroyed. There will always be people willing to form independent cells and employ terror tactics.
It isn’t a well-defined war. It’s like, instead of a war on Germany, a war on the German Language. You might win the first, but never the last.
Obama saying he’s waiting to quit fighting once the AUMF is repealed would be like me saying ill quit driving when you revoke my driver’s license. It allows me to drve, it doesn’t force me to do anything. That’s crap, strictly for his successor.
The war should be wound down; now or later. Apparently he thinks thinks later. He’s been President since last decade, that’s always been his decision.
He can’t control Congressional laws. Only the military.
He’s going to release 50 odd Yemen detainees in a year or two or three (i hope). That’s good. Thats all. That is a step in the right direction, though. Honest.
The ECHR has already ruled that all its protections extend to people under control of European Nations- for instance, UK military relationships with Iraqis and Afghanis are covered by all the protections of the convention.
The USA is quite similar to the way that Europe is developing- Federal versus State, Eurowide vs Nation.
We have done this before. The Channel Islands, though not part of the United Kingdom, have no autonomy at all in law and are effectively fiefdoms of the UK Government.
To add that the European Convention covers the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and all other Crown Dependencies and Territories for which the UK Government is responsible for their foreign relations- the UK signed them in to the convention.
So what would stop them from removing them from the convention? Also, if you actually read that thing, you’ll find that at one point, the UK had legislation on detaining suspected terrorists, and notified the ECHR that it was not following the rules. It also notified the ECHR that the Channel Islands and Man had passed similar legislation. (All later repealed.) (And, by the way, they most certainly do have autonomy in law. The UK handles defense and foreign affairs.)
The Channel Islands and Man are not part of the EU. Should the Crown decide to withdraw them from the ECHR and move all the prisoners from Guantanamo to Jersey, I’m not sure what you think Europe could do about it.
No, really, baby. This time I really mean it. I’ll go cold turkey and really treat you right. I promise. No more Guantanamo, baby. Close it right up, I will. Yeah, I know I said that before, but this time I really mean it. Awww baby, don’t be like that. You know that whole killing US citizens without due process thing. Yeah, I might still do that, though. But really, things will be better, I promise.
It is possible to ‘derogate’ from certain sections of the Convention, but other sections allow no derogation. Wikipedia gives a good summary:
“Article 15 - derogations [edit]
Article 15 allows contracting states to derogate from certain rights guaranteed by the Convention in time of “war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation”. Permissible derogations under article 15 must meet three substantive conditions:
there must be a public emergency threatening the life of the nation;
any measures taken in response must be “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”, and
the measures taken in response to it, must be in compliance with a state’s other obligations under international law
In addition to these substantive requirements the derogation must be procedurally sound. There must be some formal announcement of the derogation and notice of the derogation, any measures adopted under it, and the ending of the derogation must be communicated to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe[21]
The Court is quite permissive in accepting a state’s derogations from the Convention but applies a higher degree of scrutiny in deciding whether measures taken by states under a derogation are, in the words of Article 15, “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation”. Thus in A v United Kingdom, the Court dismissed a claim that a derogation lodged by the British government in response to the September 11 attacks was invalid, but went on to find that measures taken by the United Kingdom under that derogation were disproportionate.[22]
In order for a derogation itself to be valid, the emergency giving rise to it must be:
actual or imminent, although states do not have to wait for disasters to strike before taking preventive measures,[23]
involve the whole nation, although a threat confined to a particular region may be treated as “threatening the life of the nation” in that particular region,[24]
threaten the continuance of the organised life of the community,[25]
exceptional such that measures and restriction permitted by the Convention would be “plainly inadequate” to deal with the emergency.[25]”
If the UK withdrew the territories for which it is responsible, it would be in breach of the Convention anyway as the ECHR has found that any area controlled by a signatory (occupied Iraq and Afghanistan in particular) must have the full Convention rights enforced as if it were home territory.