AP Hands Obama is Excuse for not Closing Gitmo by the End of his First Term...

[mal]

First conviction unlikely to help Obama shut Gitmo

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Nov 18, 6:10 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) - The first court conviction of a Guantanamo Bay detainee did little to push President Barack Obama closer to shuttering the island prison, making it increasingly likely his campaign promise will remain unmet by the time his current term expires.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...INEE?SITE=VTBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT



Boo-Fucking-Hoo... And why is it again that he and his Lame Duck Congress can't just Close the thing?...

He said he was gonna!... I heard him my damned self!

Of course, I Knew he wasn't going to, no more than our Last Boot in Iraq won't be gone even after me, you and Obama have Left this Earth.

Suckers!



peace...

 

[Avatar4321]

No one cares about Gitmo anymore. Republicans arent in charge.

 

[mal]

No one cares about Gitmo anymore. Republicans arent in charge.

Or Unmanned Drones that Kill Babies...

Or Extraordinary Rendition...

Or Expanded Invasions of Privacy...

Or the Expansion of a War in Afghanistan when the Terrorists who Attacked us in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Trained in the US... <Remember that Justification for Pooing on the Iraq War by the Left?

Anyway...



peace...

 

[Claudette]

Seems a key witness couldn't be called. This witness who sold the dirtbag the explosives.

Just another reason all these dirtbags should be tried by MT at Gitmo.

 

[mal]

Seems a key witness couldn't be called. This witness who sold the dirtbag the explosives.

Just another reason all these dirtbags should be tried by MT at Gitmo.

Yeah... Liberal Judges Courtrooms who are Appointed by Liberal Politicians with an Agenda are not the Place for these Jihadists to be "Judged".



peace...

 

[goldcatt]

No one cares about Gitmo anymore. Republicans arent in charge.

Not true. As a civil libertarian Gitmo's continued existence is one of the bigger issues I have with Obama's presidency so far.

 

[del]

No one cares about Gitmo anymore. Republicans arent in charge.

Not true. As a civil libertarian Gitmo's continued existence is one of the bigger issues I have with Obama's presidency so far.

at least he isn't using signing statements. as a preeminent constitutional *scholar*, obama finds them abhorrent, i'm sure.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/politics/09signing.html

 

[goldcatt]

No one cares about Gitmo anymore. Republicans arent in charge.

Not true. As a civil libertarian Gitmo's continued existence is one of the bigger issues I have with Obama's presidency so far.

at least he isn't using signing statements. as a preeminent constitutional *scholar*, obama finds them abhorrent, i'm sure.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/politics/09signing.html

Hey, don't expect me to defend the guy.

Just because I take issue with the personal garbage doesn't mean I'm president of the fan club.

 

[del]

Not true. As a civil libertarian Gitmo's continued existence is one of the bigger issues I have with Obama's presidency so far.

at least he isn't using signing statements. as a preeminent constitutional *scholar*, obama finds them abhorrent, i'm sure.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us/politics/09signing.html

Hey, don't expect me to defend the guy.

Just because I take issue with the personal garbage doesn't mean I'm president of the fan club.

just checking

 

[Sunni Man]

Gitmo is a dark stain on the soul of America.

 

[goldcatt]

Gitmo is a dark stain on the soul of America.

Actually, I agree with this. If we have proven ourselves to be a nation that doesn't follow our own laws, we are in serious trouble. And that's exactly what Gitmo stands for.

It's a thorny issue, I was willing to give him some time to work it out, but it's been well over two years now since he made the promise to close it, almost 2 years since he took office, and no end in sight. That's shameful.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Closing Gitmo was a joke from the get go. The only thing that would have changed was the name of the prison we keep them in.

It was a bs pr stunt and nothing more.

 

[goldcatt]

Closing Gitmo was a joke from the get go. The only thing that would have changed was the name of the prison we keep them in.

It was a bs pr stunt and nothing more.

Not exactly true. Gitmo was established where it is for a very specific reason, to try to make a transparent end run around the Constitution. One that failed, miserably and repeatedly.

Where the prisoners are housed is more than the name on the gate, by itself it's representative of a return to following our own law and process instead of attempting to evade it. The larger ramifications have to do with the constitutionality of detention as a whole, the meaning of due process and the question of rendition as well as the integrity of leadership (or lack thereof) from the White House on civil liberties issues.

There are very serious issues with Gitmo that go far beyond geography. The fact that it's a difficult issue should not be an excuse for it being allowed to go on this long. Leaders are paid to make difficult decisions.

 

[California Girl]

No one cares about Gitmo anymore. Republicans arent in charge.

Not true. As a civil libertarian Gitmo's continued existence is one of the bigger issues I have with Obama's presidency so far.

While I get your point, as someone who wants to protect US citizens, both in the US and around the world, I want these bastards tried in Military Courts, and locked away somewhere forever.

 

[del]

No one cares about Gitmo anymore. Republicans arent in charge.

Not true. As a civil libertarian Gitmo's continued existence is one of the bigger issues I have with Obama's presidency so far.

While I get your point, as someone who wants to protect US citizens, both in the US and around the world, I want these bastards tried in Military Courts, and locked away somewhere forever.

would it be all right if someone presented evidence and then determined if they're guilty or not at some point in the proceeding?

 

[goldcatt]

No one cares about Gitmo anymore. Republicans arent in charge.

Not true. As a civil libertarian Gitmo's continued existence is one of the bigger issues I have with Obama's presidency so far.

While I get your point, as someone who wants to protect US citizens, both in the US and around the world, I want these bastards tried in Military Courts, and locked away somewhere forever.

You'd be absolutely correct, except for the fact that a military tribunal isn't gong to allow evidence obtained by CIA's use of enhanced interrogation any more than a civilian court would. Wherein lies the problem, and it was known at the time Gitmo was founded.

The claim that territory leased by the US and under sole US control was not subject to the jurisdiction of US law was the transparent effort to void constitutionality I was referring to. The goal being the waiver of any need for classification of the detainees as either POW's and subject to those rules, or as criminal defendants where the Administration knew they had tied their own hands as to the admissibility of evidence to get convictions - in either military or civilian courts.

So they chose to put them someplace they could sort of claim was immune from the law, which requires one or the other classification in order to detain an individual against his or her will. A creative if transparent dodge, but ultimately fruitless.

There are no "good" answers. Too bad. Obama ran knowing the problem, he ran promising a solution, he failed to deliver. Sucks to be him.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Closing Gitmo was a joke from the get go. The only thing that would have changed was the name of the prison we keep them in.

It was a bs pr stunt and nothing more.

Not exactly true. Gitmo was established where it is for a very specific reason, to try to make a transparent end run around the Constitution. One that failed, miserably and repeatedly.

Where the prisoners are housed is more than the name on the gate, by itself it's representative of a return to following our own law and process instead of attempting to evade it. The larger ramifications have to do with the constitutionality of detention as a whole, the meaning of due process and the question of rendition as well as the integrity of leadership (or lack thereof) from the White House on civil liberties issues.

There are very serious issues with Gitmo that go far beyond geography. The fact that it's a difficult issue should not be an excuse for it being allowed to go on this long. Leaders are paid to make difficult decisions.

Gitmo is American soil.

The treatment of the prisoners was a not forseable. What do you do with POW's that don't fight for a country? Since they don't wear a uniform, they can be treated as spies. And what any country can do to a spy is vastly different than a soldier, but these guys, for the most part are not actually spies, but they are also not soldiers.

They are terrorist that like to kill civilians.

That's; me, you and our children. Anyone that is not exactly like them, is fair game.

As far as "rendition" goes.

If one of these goons has freinds that are holding your kids. torturing them, raping them, and planning on killing them, live on the internet.

What would you do to save your kids?

 

[goldcatt]

Closing Gitmo was a joke from the get go. The only thing that would have changed was the name of the prison we keep them in.

It was a bs pr stunt and nothing more.

Not exactly true. Gitmo was established where it is for a very specific reason, to try to make a transparent end run around the Constitution. One that failed, miserably and repeatedly.

Where the prisoners are housed is more than the name on the gate, by itself it's representative of a return to following our own law and process instead of attempting to evade it. The larger ramifications have to do with the constitutionality of detention as a whole, the meaning of due process and the question of rendition as well as the integrity of leadership (or lack thereof) from the White House on civil liberties issues.

There are very serious issues with Gitmo that go far beyond geography. The fact that it's a difficult issue should not be an excuse for it being allowed to go on this long. Leaders are paid to make difficult decisions.

Gitmo is American soil.

The treatment of the prisoners was a not forseable. What do you do with POW's that don't fight for a country? Since they don't wear a uniform, they can be treated as spies. And what any country can do to a spy is vastly different than a soldier, but these guys, for the most part are not actually spies, but they are also not soldiers.

They are terrorist that like to kill civilians.

That's; me, you and our children. Anyone that is not exactly like them, is fair game.

As far as "rendition" goes.

If one of these goons has freinds that are holding your kids. torturing them, raping them, and planning on killing them, live on the internet.

What would you do to save your kids?

Um, the treatment of the prisoners as it relates to the ability to use the information obtained as evidence had primarily already occurred prior to their arrival on US soil in Gitmo.

The Constitution is clear. No person within US jurisdiction, meaning on US soil and subject to US law, can be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Read your 5th Amendment. There are no exceptions.

So where is the law passed prior to the establishment of Gitmo and the detainment of these individuals authorizing them to be held indefinitely without either classification as POWs (which could not be done because they neither fit the legal description nor had they been treated according to the POW guidelines) or criminal defendants?

Then take it one step further. Since they are not POWs, where are the rights afforded to them as criminal defendants under the Constitution? Where are their charges, their pleas, their speedy trials, their due process of law? You see the firestorm over allowing one, just one, trial in US District Court and the evidentiary problems that arose as a result of the practices used. And you'd better believe they didn't start with the most difficult case.

There's a reason the military wanted their interrogation manual followed with these people from the start. Because their procedures would produce evidence that would be admissible in military courts. Duh. But the interrogations were conducted by CIA under different procedures, ones not in line with evidentiary rules in either the UCMJ or the civilian rules of evidence.

So....what's your solution? Continue to suspend and make a transparent end run around our own constitution and attendant laws because you're scared of the bad guys? That's something I'm not willing to support, sorry. Either we are a nation of laws or a nation of liars, cowards and people willing to give up our most fundamental principles for convenience.

 

[Sunni Man]

Closing Gitmo was a joke from the get go. The only thing that would have changed was the name of the prison we keep them in.

It was a bs pr stunt and nothing more.

Not exactly true. Gitmo was established where it is for a very specific reason, to try to make a transparent end run around the Constitution. One that failed, miserably and repeatedly.

Where the prisoners are housed is more than the name on the gate, by itself it's representative of a return to following our own law and process instead of attempting to evade it. The larger ramifications have to do with the constitutionality of detention as a whole, the meaning of due process and the question of rendition as well as the integrity of leadership (or lack thereof) from the White House on civil liberties issues.

There are very serious issues with Gitmo that go far beyond geography. The fact that it's a difficult issue should not be an excuse for it being allowed to go on this long. Leaders are paid to make difficult decisions.

Gitmo is American soil.

The treatment of the prisoners was a not forseable. What do you do with POW's that don't fight for a country? Since they don't wear a uniform, they can be treated as spies. And what any country can do to a spy is vastly different than a soldier, but these guys, for the most part are not actually spies, but they are also not soldiers.

They are terrorist that like to kill civilians.

Most of the prisoners a Gitmo were not Al Qeada or terrorists.

They are just Afghans who where fighting to rid their country of foreign invaders and got captured.

They never were any threat to America or it's citizens.


As for not wearing uniforms.

Most soldiers and Minute Men in in the American Revolution never owned or wore a uniform.

They were citizen soldiers and farmers.

Much like the Afghans who took up arms to defend their country.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

First conviction unlikely to help Obama shut Gitmo

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Nov 18, 6:10 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) - The first court conviction of a Guantanamo Bay detainee did little to push President Barack Obama closer to shuttering the island prison, making it increasingly likely his campaign promise will remain unmet by the time his current term expires.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...INEE?SITE=VTBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT



Boo-Fucking-Hoo... And why is it again that he and his Lame Duck Congress can't just Close the thing?...

He said he was gonna!... I heard him my damned self!

Of course, I Knew he wasn't going to, no more than our Last Boot in Iraq won't be gone even after me, you and Obama have Left this Earth.

Suckers!



peace...

He said a lot of things and they were all lies. Like, no lobbyist, transparency, bipartisanship. etc....

Only an idiot would believe anything Obama says.