Even after acknowledging this weekend that closing Guantanamo Bay is "more difficult, I think, than a lot of people realize," some aides to Barack Obama are now saying the president-elect plans on trying to close it practically the second he takes office via executive order. Although even Obama realizes it's unlikely to actually happen within his first 100 days in office.
"But the order, which one adviser said could be issued as early as Jan. 20, would start the process of deciding what to do with the estimated 250 al-Qaida and Taliban suspects and potential witnesses who are being held there. Most have not been charged with a crime.
The Guantanamo directive would be one of a series of executive orders Obama is planning to issue shortly after he takes office next Tuesday, according to the two advisers. Also expected is an executive order about certain interrogation methods, but details were not immediately available Monday.
The story has also been confirmed by ABC and CNN.
It seems like Obama is hoping that those nations who have thus far refused to take their own countrymen back, will have a change of heart once he takes office and they no longer have to deal with President Bush. I'm wondering if that will actually happen. They'll still have to take responsibility for their own citizens. Was leaving them here with us some sort of punishment to teach Bush a lesson?
It doesn't exactly seem like we wanted them here just because we took a liking to them.
"When it came for some of those countries to take some of those detainees, they weren't willing to help out," Bush said during his press conference today.A New Zealand human rights group jumped on the bandwagon today of groups calling for the prison to close. The group collected over 200 signatures - on orange jumpsuits - and messages of support for the proposed closure and sent them to Obama. Amnesty International not only wants it closed, but they're also urging other countries to offer humanitarian protection to detainees who cannot be returned to their countries of origin for fear of torture or other human rights violations. (They left out, those detainees whose home countries won't give them the time of day.) Amnesty says countries including Germany and Portugal have voiced support for the idea of accepting detainees in the EU.
"We are going to get it done but part of the challenge you have is of course there are very dangerous people penned up at the facility who haven't had a trial or other legal proceeding," Obama said Sunday. There's evidence against them but it may be tainted somehow - even though it's true.
"How to balance creating a process that adheres to the rule of law, habeous corpus, basic principles of [the] Anglo-American legal system - but doing it in a way that doesn't end up releasing people" who are better off rotting in a cell (i.e. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his ilk), he continued. "It's gonna take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak."
Just to play devil's advocate and poke holes in the options put forth so far ... some lawmakers have discussed putting the prisoners instead at various military facilities. Any takers? Anybody?
At least one senator, Sam Brownback, Kan., has essentially said "Why in Kansas?!"
This would be the beginning of the NIMBYs - the "not on my backyard" excuses - that we no doubt will hear a lot more of. After all, it's sort of akin to trying to curry favor for setting up a nuclear waste dump somewhere - i.e. Yucca Mountain - and look how well that's worked out, and how long that took.
But then Brownback suggested that if Gitmo has to be closed, another should be built to specifically handle detainees.
Right. So we should spend millions of dollars on building another prison when there's a functional one - already far from mainland USA?
Anyone have any better ideas? I hope Obama's team has come up with some creative shuffling to effectively deal with them if he's announcing the camp's shuttering so quickly.
Here's video of some guys starting a nine-day fast to be in "solidarity" with Gitmo detainees and to also "suffer" a bit.
Liza Porteus Viana has been a political journalist for almost 10 years, both in Washington and New York. She loves politics - the smell of it, the sport of it...more
To Close Guantanamo will be Ă˜bamas first big blunder. There will be many more to follow.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Ed
7:09PM Jan 12th 2009
Obsama will fix everything.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Peggy
7:36PM Jan 12th 2009
Just move the detainees from GITMO to Chicago. The politicians there are tougher, meaner, sneakier and more lethal than any terrorist.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Pete
7:44PM Jan 12th 2009
Closing Gitmo is really an easy "victory" for Obama and one of the few campaign promises Obama can actually keep to make the left happy.
Ed's rectal stigmatism may prevent him from realizing this but Obama is NOT going to release these people and then forever be responsible for people they may kill, or worse, another 9/11-like attack.
Obama will find new homes for these people to enable him to "close" Gitmo. Obama will likely find legal Clinton-like "international police matter" reasons to divest himself of future responsibility for what any of these people may do. Wala, Gitmo is closed, Obama kept a campaign promise and the left is happy.
How many terrorists, released from Gitmo, will ultimately be running around trying to kill Americans??? Who cares so long as Obama can keep a campaign promise and deflect blame for any future responsibility.
With teflon Bill's many examples of avoiding responsibility to emulate closing Gitmo will be a political slam-dunk for Obama.
Respectfully, Pete
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Cube
8:02PM Jan 12th 2009
Say what you want about GITMO, but those terrorist bastards can roll some fine cigars in the yard. Cohiba's from GITMO have a robust flavor.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
RIChris
8:08PM Jan 12th 2009
The liberals are concerned about the terrorists. It would be unthinkable for them to show half as much concern about the many Democrat controlled cities that offer far less security and comfort to its citizens than Gitmo does to the detainees.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Splash
8:27PM Jan 12th 2009
Let's give each one a parachute and drop them over their respective countries. If they don't want to go back home, they don't have to pull the rip cord.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Professional Woman
9:26PM Jan 12th 2009
Splash8:27PMJan 12th 2009
Let's give each one a parachute and drop them over their respective countries. If they don't want to go back home, they don't have to pull the rip cord. _____________________________________
Great Idea Splash! It would be up to them to decide: 20 or more virgins or war! Then it would not be anyone's fault. I like it.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
LV Drummer
10:32PM Jan 12th 2009
Splash8:27PMJan 12th 2009 "Let's give each one a parachute and drop them over their respective countries. If they don't want to go back home, they don't have to pull the rip cord."
Thier own countries do not want them...No other country wants them...so the Dem idea?...Let's bring them here...we'll take em...dumbasses. WTF are we gonna do with em? Fashion design school? Stick em all on a plane, I'm sure at least one knows how to fly it, fill the belly of the plane w/explosives, let them take off from Cuba telling them they are free and about 30 min in the air...Kaboom. Done! One other option...take no prisoners. Done!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
r monti
11:33PM Jan 12th 2009
Hey people!!!!! Obama, wife, kids, and mother-in-law need servants, cooks, body gaurds, etc, etc. Let the terrorist work for obama and company at the white house, where he can have a friendly atmosphere with his muslim brotherhood. After serving three years as an obama slave, they can than receive AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP and be FREE to roam the country and do as they please. why should obama send them back to anywhere/anyplace being that they still owe the USA for lodging, food, etc. I think he should bring them to the USA, give them a job in the WPA program and let them pay their debt with interest, than he could consider giving them a free ride to where ever they want to go./OH well, just another one of my dreams the same as the ones our beloved president-elect has now and than/////
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Splash
11:39PM Jan 12th 2009
LV Drummer10:32PMJan 12th 2009
Thier own countries do not want them...No other country wants them...so the Dem idea?...Let's bring them here...we'll take em...dumbasses. WTF are we gonna do with em? __________________________________
Then they will kidnap a bunch of our people and behead them one by one until we agree to a prisoner swap.
Fuckers.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
PATRICIA
12:28AM Jan 13th 2009
I HAVE BEEN VERY LEARY OF OBAMA. AND NOW I KNOW WHY. THIS FOOL WANTS TO RELEASE GITMO TO THEIR OWN PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT THEM. AND THEN HE WANTS THEM TO BE GIVEN TRIALS ETC. WHAT THE F. IS THIS GUY THINKING WE HAVE AS I RECALL HIS PROMISE TO HELP OUR ECONOMY AND PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT CLOSING GITMO WOULD BE MORE COSTS FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN TO PAY FOR IF THEY EVEN LIVE THAT LONG. THIS GUY IS INSANE AND I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT HIS INTENTIONS.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Splash
12:32AM Jan 13th 2009
r monti11:33PMJan 12th 2009
Hey people!!!!! Obama, wife, kids, and mother-in-law need servants, cooks, body gaurds, etc, etc. ____________________________
r monti -
You would sentence them to be The Big O's butler? Seinfeld fan?? I thought those jobs were reserved for "undocumented" workers as jobs no American would do.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
catquick
12:42AM Jan 13th 2009
Just a matter of time until they start their killing spree again. The jamokes that blew up the WTC in 93', are now in Sullivan supermax under 24 hour lockup until they die. While incarcerated in, I believe it was Clinton correctional, they sharpened a comb to a fine point and stuck it thru a guards eye all the way to his brain. He is now wheelchair bound for the rest of his life, and when sentenced, with their victim in attendance, they laughed at him and mocked him. They are savages, and the so called mistreatment at Gitmo was better than those devils deserved. Bringing them here, or allowing lawyer visits invites terrorism. They may hire an Islamic fundamentalist lawuer that can pass along info, where our government can't listen in. This is a collosal mistake, all to please a far left constituency. Lets hope this is rethought before its to late.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Voice of Reason
1:30AM Jan 13th 2009
we suffer fools among us
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Voice of Reason
1:30AM Jan 13th 2009
(that's the royal "we" that time)
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
kathy
2:04AM Jan 13th 2009
Good Morning Catquick, I for one truly hope they really dont bring them HERE.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
jan
2:42AM Jan 13th 2009
It would seem that throughout the civilized world, the only people who don't understand why Gitmo is a bad thing are a handful of Americans. Never mind that a large percentage of the detainees - not necessarily terrorists, but DETAINEES - are innocent, or that they can all be held forever without charge (and I can only imagine what it would be like to be scooped up by soldiers/police of a foreign country and left to rot indefinitely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time). Or that said Americans actually don't care about right or wrong, have lost all sense of morality, all common sense, due to blind fear and hatred. That OBL must be chortling to himself in his cave at seeing an America no longer recognizable.
Aside from questions of morality and the fact that we've give up our leadership role, the sheer stupidity and counterproductivity of this mindset is appalling. Apparently some of us have totally lost the ability to figure out consequences. To think things through. To question the roots of terrorism. Here's one of them.
Closing Guantanamo isn't being weak on terrorism. It will be difficult to resolve, but it will be done - with the aid of other nations. Bringing the actual terrorists to justice - after identifying them - is theoretically the whole purpose. Leaving them to rot or simply killing them all is a plan worthy of cretins.
The rule of law is what we were founded on and what will ultimately keep us safe. Terrorists aren't deterred by violence. They are martyred by it. Then there are more. What will it take for some of us to get that?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
catquick
3:21AM Jan 13th 2009
Jan.. they're not there for no reason. None of them are innocent. This is an entirely new type of warfare and the groundrules aren't defined yet. The stakes are much to large not to take extranious precautions. The true diehard fundamentalist terorist doesn't just want our deaths, but wouldn't mind seeing the entire earth end in a nuclear fireball. Civil rights have to take a backseat to caution on this on. No one likes war or torture, but we have a duty to the rest of the world to see to it that these uncommonly committed guerrila wariors aren't allowed to practice complete world genocide. If your sensativities are bothered by this, go watch "sex in the city" and let the professional anti-terror experts do all the heavy lifting. Maybe if they are released you might volunteer to have them stay at your house, provided of course that they cannot leave for any reason. Sound good? It's settled than.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
elaine
4:45AM Jan 13th 2009
O my goodness, releasing those guys makes me nervous. Yeah, I know the mainstream media and all hates Bush guts, but I be damn, releasing 250 terrorists into the f'king wild, I "just" don't about this one. These SOB have been locked up for "what" seven years or more, and now all of sudden, president elect obama wants to release back into the wild. They say on the television and all, that those gitmo detainees were torture and all, "just imagine what those "tortured" detainees would do the American people after they are release to the wild. And if the other countries don't want them, they probably would be release on American soil. wow, the same ones whom tie bombs to their bodies, walk into crowded markets killing every f'king human being in sight. I think obama would make a VERY BIG mistake if he close gitmo.