Obama Gives In On Closing Gitmo

[Doc91678]

The State Department office responsible for helping facilitate the relocation of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has been closed, The New York Times reports.

The paper reports that Daniel Fried, who served as the special envoy for Guantanamo Bay since the position’s inception in 2009, has been reassigned. He will not be replaced, and his duties will now be “assumed” by the State Department’s legal adviser, according to an internal personnel announcement.

Relocating detainees had been seen as a vital step in the president’s promise to close the prison, which was frequently and vociferously criticized by liberal activists before Obama’s election.

“I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that,” Obama told CBS’ Steve Kroft in November 2008.

Obama also signed an executive order shortly after taking office that declared the prison for suspected terrorists would be shuttered “no later” than January 2010.

“I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war,” he said while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize eleven months later. “That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.”

Yet the prison remains open, and plans to begin relocating prisoners to a facility in Illinois were scrapped amid opposition from Congress.

Fried had been responsible for relocating detainees who were not believed to pose a threat to the United States. Moreover, according to the Washington Post, he had “been tasked with turning into a reality the president’s promise to close Guantanamo Bay prison for alleged terrorists.”

[Excerpt]

Continue reading: --->
Obama gives up on closing Gitmo | The Daily Caller

 

[OKTexas]

Guess they figured out that countries don't want their terrorist back, who would have thunk? Duh!

 

[g5000]

Here's is my strictly personal opinion about the whole "closing Gitmo" thing. A supposition.

Terrorists are criminals. Try them as such in court. It's not like this would be some kind of precedent. I think the rubes believe it would be a precedent. They have no historical knowledge whatsoever.

After being tried and convicted, the guilty ones can be imprisoned way out in the middle of the Badlands or some other similar remote locale. The facility could be sold as a job creating proposition.

So why isn't anyone doing that?

First, there are idiotic demagogues like Lindsey Graham who uses the appeal to emotion fallacy to get the rubes all sweaty over these "crazy bastards" being imprisoned stateside, as if their presence in our Homeland (sieg heil!) would somehow put us all in danger.

These people are guilty of magical thinking. They seem to actually believe that keeping terrorists in prison on our soil would enrage their terrorist buddies not in our custody and cause those ones to attack us. But keeping terrorists indefinitely detained off our soil miraculously prevents their terrorist buddies from getting mad at us.


Second, I think the REAL reason we are not seeing the bad guys tried in court is that all sorts of torture and human rights violations would come to light, and THAT would piss off a lot of people, both on the domestic and foreign fronts. And not just terrorists but sensible people everywhere as well.

I would not be surprised if Obama was apprised of this situation after taking office and that is why he has totally rolled over on that campaign promise.

 

[tjvh]

Here's is my strictly personal opinion about the whole "closing Gitmo" thing.

Terrorists are criminals. Try them as such in court. It's not like this would be some kind of precedent. I think the rubes believe it would be a precedent. They have no historical knowledge whatsoever.

After being tried and convicted, the guilty ones can be imprisoned way the fuck out in the middle of the Badlands or some other similar remote locale. The facility could be sold as a job creating proposition.

So why isn't anyone doing that?

First, there are idiotic demagogues like Lindsey Graham who uses the appeal to emotion fallacy to get the rubes all sweaty over these "crazy bastards" being imprisoned stateside, as if their presence in our Homeland (sieg heil!) would somehow put us all in danger.

These people are guilty of magical thinking. They seem to actually believe that keeping terrorists in prison on our soil would enrage their terrorist buddies not in our custody and cause those ones to attack us. But keeping terrorists indefinitely detained off our soil miraculous prevents their terrorist buddies from getting mad at us.


Second, I think the REAL reason we are not seeing the bad guys tried in court is that all sorts of torture and human rights violations would come to light, and THAT would piss off a lot of people, both on the domestic and foreign fronts.

I would not be surprised if Obama was apprised of this fact after taking office and that is why he has totally rolled over on that campaign promise.

As soon as Bush left office this issue died just as quickly. If hypocrites want to give Obama a pass for the same damn thing -four long years later, so be it. I could not give a rat's ass about clogging up our courts with known combatants, and terrorists who should only be released when Obama's WOT ends... Meaning never. Let them rot in GITMO. They deserve the same humanitarian consideration they gave us infidels... None.

 

[g5000]

Here's is my strictly personal opinion about the whole "closing Gitmo" thing.

Terrorists are criminals. Try them as such in court. It's not like this would be some kind of precedent. I think the rubes believe it would be a precedent. They have no historical knowledge whatsoever.

After being tried and convicted, the guilty ones can be imprisoned way the fuck out in the middle of the Badlands or some other similar remote locale. The facility could be sold as a job creating proposition.

So why isn't anyone doing that?

First, there are idiotic demagogues like Lindsey Graham who uses the appeal to emotion fallacy to get the rubes all sweaty over these "crazy bastards" being imprisoned stateside, as if their presence in our Homeland (sieg heil!) would somehow put us all in danger.

These people are guilty of magical thinking. They seem to actually believe that keeping terrorists in prison on our soil would enrage their terrorist buddies not in our custody and cause those ones to attack us. But keeping terrorists indefinitely detained off our soil miraculous prevents their terrorist buddies from getting mad at us.


Second, I think the REAL reason we are not seeing the bad guys tried in court is that all sorts of torture and human rights violations would come to light, and THAT would piss off a lot of people, both on the domestic and foreign fronts.

I would not be surprised if Obama was apprised of this fact after taking office and that is why he has totally rolled over on that campaign promise.

As soon as Bush left office this issue died just as quickly. If hypocrites want to give Obama a pass for the same damn thing -four long years later, so be it. I could not give a rat's ass about clogging up our courts with known combatants, and terrorists who should only be released when Obama's WOT ends... Meaning never. Let them rot in GITMO. They deserve the same humanitarian consideration they gave us infidels... None.

I take it you missed that part of civics class about "innocent until proven guilty". You sure seem to accept the guilt of the detainees just on the word of the police powers when it suits you. It's almost like you are one of those people who think, "They wouldn't be in jail if they weren't guilty."

I find it strange a person such as yourself who appears to think he is a conservative does not even pause to ponder the fact that the word of the federal authorities is all you have.

Funny thing about governments which have such unchecked powers; they have a bad habit of finding exactly what they are looking for.

 

[Politico]

Nice fail on twisting the title.