I just saw the "60 Minutes"show on Gitmo. It looks like the US has invested a lot of $$ in the Gitmo detention center-it is not being closed any time soon. So I have a question: Obama pledged to close the place-so why not either:
-close the prison and repatriate the inmates to their home countries
-try them in courts and either acquit them or sentence them to regular prison
My guess is that this will be impossible-most of these people would either revert to terrorism (and commit serious crimes), or would either be subject to imprisonment or execution in their own countries.
So it is a lose-lose proposition for the US Government-because of this, Gitmo will stay open.
Am I correct?
It has not been closed because Congress overwhelmingly voted for a law that prevents all of those options. For it to be closed, the law must first be changed.
I just watched it too. It would seem that we’re not being given the full story on why these prisoners are being held. It seems repatriation or criminal court trials would be worse for the free world than continuing to hold people with no charges.
It’s rather sad. I’m hoping someone, somewhere actually knows why these prisoners have been held for 11 years with no charges and no trial.
Are there any governments that have stated they will not accept repatriation of their citizens currently in GITMO?
The great majority of people in Guantanmo cannot be tried in courts because they are not accused of a crime. They are POWs or illegal combatants and therefore can be legally held until the end of the war.
Whatever constitutes “the end of the war” is a legal question.
There were over 500 people there , vast majority of them are no longer there. There are about 120 left.
Here is an argument being made that Obama does have options even with the existing laws:
Quite simply Obama can declare that the “war” is over, and then detainees can be released.
IIRC, doesn’t the UCMJ require that a defendant be entitled to a certain amount of discovery? And that might require that the U.S. reveal national security secrets regarding their surveillance that led to the arrest of these guys? And, if acquitted, these secrets would be spread to all remaining terrorists?
That might not be true, but there is some reason why Obama and Bush didn’t go full bore with the military tribunal option.
The idea that Congress will simply sit on the sidelines while the detainees are released and say, “Shucks! The President found a loophole! I guess he won this round…” is a turn of events that only law professors and Internet opinion pages could buy into.
When the restrictions were first passed by Congress, they were by overwhelming bipartisan votes. That has changed somewhat, but it is clear that Congress won’t simply sit on the sidelines if Obama were to take the course suggested.
Not to mention that declaring the war over would tie the President’s hands in his policies toward Yemen, Somalia and other places that aren’t Afghanistan.
Yes, it is politically useful to maintain the fiction of a never ending war on terror in order to be able to bypass inconvenient parts of the constitution. My point is that Obama is taking advantage of this for his own benefit for his policies in Yemen etc.
So it’s disingenuous to say “its all congress fault”. Obama is also colluding for his own benefit while conveniently being able to blame congress for not keeping his campaign promise to close Gitmo.
The question was factually answered: Congress passed a law prohibiting the release of detainees to U.S. mainland prisons.
The rebuttal is much too argumentative; it can’t properly be responded to without getting into “Great Debates” language.
If he did that, what justification would he have for keeping the ones who the US doesn’t WANT released because they think/know that they are dangerous but can’t bring to trial for whatever reasons (tainted evidence, etc)?
Thats kind of the point. If you want your country to live by rule of law, then yes you sometimes have to release people because you messed up the prosecution case. Anyone that can’t be charged and tried should be released.
The OP was answered factually, but it belongs in Great Debates rather than General Questions. Moved.
samclem, moderrator
I still don’t understand. If these people were picked up in a battle zone, they were either armed combatants (subject to the rules of war), or “spies”(combatants in civilian clothes. In the case of POWs, you interrogate them and either kill them or let them go. In the case of spies, you execute them.
What is the point of detaining these people indefinitely?
Does that include military prisons?
Or (c), citizens keeping and bearing arms, as part of a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, defending their homes from the army of an invading foreign tyrannt?
No, they aren’t either POWs or spies. And no, “you” don’t just execute spies. Get real.
There’s a healthy debate over whether they are criminals or unlawful combatants. International law really doesn’t have that much to say about unlawful combatants, and what to do with them. Actually, forget international law, nobody has a really good set of rules on how to deal with them.
I’m sure it’s pointless to debate this with you, but I think the evidence shows that Obama wants to close Guantanamo, except that (a) there isn’t really a good plan for what to do with them if Guantanamo were closed that stands a chance of getting the support of the other branches of government; and (b) he sees the handwriting on the wall and knows that he isn’t going to conduct some slash-and-burn approach to Guantanamo that will have very little support among Congress or Americans, meaning he risks being a pariah for the rest of his term.
There are a couple provisions at stake here, the broadest is:
By my reading, “None of the funds… may be used to… transfer… Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” or the others is pretty definitive.
You have to try them first. Summary prisoner executions are fairly unpopular, both among people and constitutions.
Not true. Human Rights are universal and are not being respected. Also, they should have a right to a hearing, which they never had, to determine their status. The American Government has broken and is breaking all sorts of international treaties, not to mention the most basic and common moral decency.
And the reason it continues is because the American people want it to continue and don’t give a shit about some foreign “terrorist”. So the members of Congress, who lack any moral principle and just do whatever needs to be done to get re-elected, just go along with that. They have no decency nor sense of moral leadership. It is a shame but the ultimate responsibility lies with the American people.